Tim Challies and the Salvation of Our Children: The Hound of Heaven Pursues Them

“the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.” ― N.T. Wright link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=18331&picture=winter-fog
Winter fog

This post will not deal with the salvation of infants who die in infancy. We wrote a post on the subject here. Bottom line: We believe that infants who die go to heaven and we have reasons for this belief.

Some of my beliefs

Please feel free to question me on my beliefs. I am a person in process and would love to discuss my thoughts with anyone who is interested.

-I do not believe that God chooses some people from the beginning of time to be His elected people. This would also mean that He purposely did not choose others. 

-God was the perfect parent but His children disobeyed Him in a really big way. My parents did not raise me to be a devout Christian yet I am. 

-I believe that God has imbued every person with the ability to freely accept and pursue Him in this life. This is part of His grace.

-I also know that God wishes that none would perish.The Bible says that. Therefore, I believe that God is in the business of actively seeking to get people into his Kingdom more than He is in the business of figuring out ways to keep them out.

-I believe in hell because there needs to be a place to put the immortal souls of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin. There must be a place for unrepentant child molesters, serial killers, and those who scam the elderly out of their savings. There needs to be a location for those who want nothing to do with God. Should God drag people into heaven, kicking and screaming?

-I do not see hell as a place of eternal physical torture but a place of bleakness, freely chosen or as CS Lewis said:

The doors of hell are locked from the inside.

CS Lewis also said in The Great Divorce link

“Son,'he said,' ye cannot in your present state understand eternity…That is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, "No future bliss can make up for it," not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say "Let me have but this and I'll take the consequences": little dreaming how damnation will spread back and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Both processes begin even before death. The good man's past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad man's past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness. And that is why…the Blessed will say "We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven, : and the Lost, "We were always in Hell." And both will speak truly.” 

CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters envisions hell as a bureaucracy link

“The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”

-I understand and accept those who believe that God elects only some to salvation. I understand that said election is fully a result of God's work and there is nothing a person can do to be one of the elect. 

-I believe in a God of miracles but I do not believe that God miraculously heals everyone who is sick or dying. Look at the faithful members of the early church who ended up dying horribly in the Coliseum.Their (and our) miracle was, and is, the gift of salvation. Jesus told us this in Mark 2:1-12

1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11“I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” (NIV)

Does prayer and absolute belief guarantee that one's prayers will be answered in the way they wish?

Years ago, when my daughter, then 3 years old, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I did not believe that God was going to heal her. It had nothing to do with a lack of faith on my part. It had to do with experience. Most children who have such a terrible diagnosis do die. Each of us will experience death if Jesus does not come back in our lifetime. Death is the norm.

I asked God for her healing but I also asked that he would help me be the best mother that I could be to my terribly ill daughter, my new infant son and my other little daughter. I found much peace knowing that I would see her in heaven because I knew God loved her. Much to my surprise, she survived her tumor and grew up to be a beautiful young woman.

Then we had friends whose son had leukemia. They believed with their whole heart he was going to be cured from the cancer. They overlooked the miracle of his salvation. They prayed, believing he would live but he didn't. They have spent years wondering what they did wrong. 

Tom Challies and the salvation of his children

I read an interesting post by Tim Challies, Do You Believe God Will Save Your Kids. He is pondering the salvation of his children. 

I don’t only pray it and long for it. I believe it. I believe God will save them. I believe he will save them because that is what he does—he saves. I believe he will save them because that is who he is—he loves to save. I believe he will save them because from their infancy they have been exposed again and again to the powerful gospel of grace, and that gospel is too good and too powerful to do nothing.

As I read this, I pondered the role of election that is an integral part of Challies faith system. That gospel which he says "is too good to do nothing" only matters for those who were chosen before time itself. The gospel does not  transform those who are not chosen. He admits that he has seen children who were raised to know Jesus, walk away from the faith as they grow up. I have seen this as well. No amount of believing or doing will change that fact within his paradigm.

Challies says he will trust, not in his own works in raising his kids, but on the merit and work of Christ.

I do what is right and trust his grace, pleading not my own merit, but the merit of Christ, trusting not in my own works, but in the work of Christ. And I pray—I pray that the God who graciously extended favor to undeserving me, would extend it to my undeserving children as well.

I grew up in a home which did not place much value on faith. I didn't understand the story of Jesus and knew very little of the Bible. Yet God  reached me through Star Trek and a Life Magazine article. I had no Gospel demonstrated to me growing up. I sincerely doubt anyone was praying for me. However, in keeping with my belief that God seeks out all of us because He wishes that none may perish, I found Him and said "I believe" on the spot even though I had little understanding of the full story.

If one believes that the saving work of Christ is applied only to those who were elected before time itself, Challies prayers for the salvation of his children may not be answered. When it comes right down to it, there is nothing Challies can do to affect the salvation of his children. As an obedient Christian, I know Challies will teach his children about God. I am sure he will role model his love of Christ. But, in the end, unless those kids are elect, his actions, albeit right and obedient, will have no affect on their eternal destination (again-in his system.)

Here are a few interesting comments from that post. 

C quotes Challies and asks a hard question.

"I don’t only pray it and long for it. I believe it. I believe God will 
save them. I believe he will save them because that is what he does—he 
saves. I believe he will save them because that is who he is—he loves to
save. I believe he will save them because from their infancy they have 
been exposed again and again to the powerful gospel of grace, and that 
gospel is too good and too powerful to do nothing." 

And when He doesn't?

Markham asks some reasonable questions as a non-Calvinist.

A few things, and then I'm out:

-First of all, I find your last paragraph "But why should we think it odd that we could love a person or thing more than God loves a person or thing" both laughable and horrifying. Laughable because it suggests that parents who "love their children more than God" are somehow erring in loving their children too much (as opposed to loving God too little). Horrifying because the last sentence seems to suggest that if a child is not elect, our love for them is not "appropriate"…which actually makes a whole lot of sense in Calvinism, since if God hates something (and creating something sinful just to send it to hell is hard to qualify as anything else), shouldn't we hate it too?

-Arminianism (at least the kind I'm familiar with) doesn't require that God do "all he can" to save everyone. Arminianism simply states that God's love for us is such that he wishes for all to come to him, that he genuinely calls for all to come to him, and that he grants that opportunity to all.

-Arminianism is crucially different from Calvinism in one specific regard; In this article, Challies speaks much of God "using" Challies' ministry to his children "because these are the means God uses to save his people." In Calvinism, these means are merely a formality: God has already decided who he will save. In Arminianism, though, these – and others – truly ARE the means by which God woos his people, calls them to him, and saves them: Not taking pleasure in their death, but calling them – ACTUALLY calling them – to "turn and live." (Ezekiel 18).

-For the rest, they are answered by Simple Foreknowledge, prevenient grace-assisted free will, an understanding that all who are in hell choose it (a la Lewis), and an understanding that God means what he says in desiring all to be saved; that he really was saddened by Israel's rejection of him (as opposed to weeping over a rejection that he himself fore-ordained and rendered necessary), and that hell is "Plan B" for all who go there – as opposed to it being "Plan A" for the reprobate.

The only reason I posted here was because Challies presented only one side of the Calvinist God. He neglected to mention that the Calvinist God is the God who loves to save…SOME people. And loves to damn the rest. That God is the one who gives SOME people faith…and created billions of people with the specific purpose of passing over them. He neglected to mention that the reason ANY children of Christian parents turn away from Christ is because Christ himself decided that they should do so. In a determined world, there's no such thing as "single predestination."

This is not "unjust" of God; It is not "unfair". It is not outside of his "rights" as the creator of the Universe. But to pretend that it is somehow "loving" is hilarious – and heartbreaking.

Unfortunately, Challies does not respond to Markham but Don Johnson does:

Dear Friend: Have you yourself been redeemed? You surely speak as one who is lost and I would surely encourage you to fall on your face before God and repent.

Salvation is offered to all freely and all freely reject the gift. That God offers mercy to some in spite of themselves does not mean anyone else has been shortchanged. Must I feed every hungry person in the world if I would feed some?

Ah yes, the *Are you really  saved gambit." This is sure to shut down discussion and sometimes I think that is why it is used.

I believe that God loves our children and desires to have a relationship with them. He works through parents, friends, relatives, teachers, etc. to draw them in. He understands it is hard and that parents and friends will not be perfect. He was perfect and His kids rebelled. Yet he continued to pursue them and will continue to pursue our children because He loves them.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the all of this. In the meantime, ponder….

The Hound of Heaven-A Modern Adaptation 

Lydia's Corner: Exodus 37:1-38:31 Matthew 28:1-20 Psalm 34:11-22 Proverbs 9:9-10

Comments

Tim Challies and the Salvation of Our Children: The Hound of Heaven Pursues Them — 317 Comments

  1. “Ah yes, the *Are you really saved gambit.” This is sure to shut down discussion and sometimes I think that is why it is used. ”

    Yes, this is a most pernicious move. Some of these people are so full of themselves that they think they can decide if you are saved or not. Pharisees, IMO.

  2. roebuck wrote:

    Yes, this is a most pernicious move. Some of these people are so full of themselves that they think they can decide if you are saved or not.

    What would God ever do without these Elect to sit at His right hand on J-Day and tell Him who is REALLY Saved and who’s not?
    “HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT!…”

  3. The post says: “I believe in hell because there needs to be a place to put the immortal souls of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin. ”

    The unstated corollary to this belief is that the soul *is* immortal. But, I ask, where does that belief come from? The Bible is far from clear on this subject.

    Please note that this question does not mean that I *don’t* believe that the soul is immortal. Rather, I belief that this is a belief that deserves to be questioned, and if true, defended.

  4. I don’t understand the concept of weighing our love for our children against our love for God. Loving our children and sacrificing for them IS loving God.

  5. I can remember when my children were younger (and we were incredibly involved in church and homeschooling) my greatest fear was that my kids would reject God. I can’t tell you what changed in me (except maturing and church experience), but do remember the relief I felt when I decided not to worry about that any more. Somehow I came to the conclusion that I cannot control my children’s beliefs. That is between them and God. What I can control is the fact that I love them – no matter what.

  6. This is a great article, it first really came to a real head for me as a “Christian” when a baby died next store to me, I think I was 22. I had seen, at times in person, young people die, drug OD, suicide, one murder (I came on the scene moments after the actual murder), and car accidents. Of the four kids on the burn ward I was on at six the other three died, yes beds really do shudder at the end for some folks. I understand as a person this should have absolutely no effect on me whatsoever, even as a kid. Water off a ducks back, let the dead bury their dead and so on.

    Anyway I spoke about the baby dying and I saw the mother of the baby comforting the babysitter. I was blown away so, being a pathetic idiot, I shared it at church, oh the parents were LDS. The frowns and even anger, almost rage really surprised me. I mean no one yelled but people were visibly angry at me for thinking a non covenant baby of apostate parents even had a chance of salvation. The little baby soul was in perdition and his parents would join him and suffer for his death because they believed a false gospel. If someone could not make a conscious testable response to many questions they cant be saved.

    It was made very very very very 1^1000000000000000000000 clear that we, all of us are vile, filthy disgusting evil devil worshiping trash worthy of God’s Holy wrath at the drop of a hat. Not only due we have it coming because we are in Adam (especially if you are a women, catholic, EO, Atheist, Gay, Muslim, ……). But we also will be condemned because even at 16 months we are so filled with rebellion that every no a small child may say. I mean Paul Washer said it well, if that sixteen month old child had the strength of an 18 year old he would kill you where you stand and walk across your bloody corpse without one bit of remorse to get your shiny watch (that is a loose translation. We are little hitlers in the making, a Ted Bundy Jr resides in every single evil soul ever born. And this is the mild version of some things I have heard.

    It was when I started working with the disabled and elderly I could no longer hold onto this twisted psychotic view of some twisted deity. It came to light in this one of many stories, on a convalescent hospital I was reading the bible to a lady who was a Christian since she was a little girl. But as her mind degenerated she could say some really awful things and use naughty language and say awful blasphemous things towards God. It was made very clear to me, she was a devil worshipping vile apostate and none of her works mattered because she did not end her path well, she abandoned the faith, and will pay the price. I just could not process that. It is the reason I became a universalist, and an open theist, it is the only way I could find to deal with the tension between judgement and grace. I look forward to any correction.

  7. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT!…”

    I had a gen-u-wine Jamaican Rasta friend many years ago (decades, you could say) who used to tell me when I did something stupid, “you are SO a goat, mon”. You have to imagine the beautiful accent, and the word ‘goat’ was about one and a half syllables.

  8. http://youtu.be/o0gBhE8aiuw

    This is extremely mild compared to some I have heard I mean very mild. We are all born hating God, from the very instant of conception. I am still trying to figure out how a Zygote hates God but I lack the spiritual insight these other fine men have. As for the Hitler was an anomaly and the common Grace of God. Tens of Millions ran up on beaches, flew combat missions, suffered horrid deaths to help others escape to stop this man. I saw no common grace in this war, it was not some divine intervention in any real observable way that stopped him, it was people, fallible fallen humans. I do agree God worked through those people, but it is very confusing to me.

  9. And when He doesn’t?

    I’d love a good answer to that I could give my mom. Not that’d she’d take it from me, but it’d be nice to find something for her to accept. I hate to see how much it tears her up.

  10. dee wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    It’s all in the reflexes. You’ve been training!

    I wasn’t even trying, honest! Seemed like the Monday thread was winding down, and I said to myself “Self, it’s Wednesday – let’s don’t be late to the party”. And there it was – a blank comment zone.

    As long as I have you on the line, let me just say how much I appreciate your (Deebs) providing this forum for all of us misfit toys. Your work in standing up for the abused-in-all-respects has all our respect, and is to be praised to the heavens.

    But just having a place where folks as varied as myself and, well, I’m not going to name names because I don’t want to leave anybody out, can hang out and be ourselves and share, it is really a gift. Many many thanks!!!

  11. Marsha wrote:

    don’t understand the concept of weighing our love for our children against our love for God. Loving our children and sacrificing for them IS loving God.

    Beautiful! Absolutely!~

  12. A friend once described the Calvinism view of election/salvation as a game of Duck, Duck, Goose. It’s probably simplifying things a bit but it sure does hit the nail on the head.

  13. Mark Baker-Wright wrote:

    The unstated corollary to this belief is that the soul *is* immortal. But, I ask, where does that belief come from? The Bible is far from clear on this subject.

    Thank you for your interesting question.

    I am going to use the Bible for my response.

    1. The first example is Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.Matthew 17 1-3 NIV

    “After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.”

    Moses and Elijah had been dead a long time when this occurred.

    2. Revelation 1:18. “Christ referring to Himself. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

    Ephesians 2:4-6 NIV 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

    Christ is alive forever and ever and now we, raised with Christ shall be with him.

    3. 1 Corinthians 15:50-55

    50I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”55“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

    4. Finally, this appears to have been a belief of the early church which found its expression in the nicene Creed ” I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. ”

    These are some initial thoughts. What say you?

  14. http://youtu.be/p4ruXEW2CPA

    To some of you parents out there I am really curious, it is a long teaching / sermon so if you watch from say 55 minutes to maybe 1:10 minutes / 1:15 minutes what do you think? I watched the entire video to really try to understand. I raised a child, I became a “dad” / care provider for a child of about 1 year in a 1/2 an hour and lived up to that commitment for well 18 years without fail, what I mean by that is I never missed an appointment, financial obligation, picking him up dropping off etc. Not one time. He ran around alot, slammed doors, did not sit still asked questions all the time and signed up for every single after school activity. I was not the primary all the time but I was the backup. Now I did try to instill the faith in him by bringing him to church but he was treated like a little blank because he was from a single parent home and well the “faith” did not take, thank God. He did not become a monster or a hitler wannabe, I cant even get that right. He has a child of his own, he is a great father, very disciplined physically, emotionally, and in ways spiritually.

    This has been a very helpful thread thank you.

  15. “the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.” ― N.T. Wright ”

    Love this.

  16. srs wrote:

    A friend once described the Calvinism view of election/salvation as a game of Duck, Duck, Goose. It’s probably simplifying things a bit but it sure does hit the nail on the head.

    I sure does.

  17. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    hate to see how much it tears her up.

    Tell you dear mother that each of us must make our ow decisions when it comes to God. Reassure her that even God, who was the perfect parent, would not stop his first created children from going their own way.

    Also, tell her that Dee says that the Hound of Heaven is always in pursuit of you even if you do not believe it! 🙂

  18. Challies totally lost me on the point of his post. But that isn’t unusual because I’ve heard what he says so many times. Maybe I’ll read it again to see if something meaningful jumps out at me. He still has young kids, and maybe he would have more to say worth saying if he had some kids who were not following Christ or who had died. That’s when theory meets reality.

    One would think that it might be difficult to systematize the thoughts and works of God and that any system derived from limited data (revelation) and limited processing ability (human) would be guaranteed to be wrong at some points, thus demanding some humility. But that probably just means I’m not saved and need to repent and confirms why I was keyed out.

  19. @ dee:
    How about the passage where Jesus says that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living? (After the patriarchs have been referenced.) Am blanking on where that is, though.

  20. @ dee:
    Err, is it in Galatians whete Paul directly states that it would be far better for him to depart and be with the Lord? There’s also that passage toward the end of Hebrews, where heaven is described, complete with people.

  21. numo wrote:

    @ dee:
    How about the passage where Jesus says that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living? (After the patriarchs have been referenced.) Am blanking on where that is, though.

    Matthew 22:32
    Mark 12:27
    Luke 20:38

    This is from a simple search in the free ‘Xiphos’ Bible software. Recommended!

  22. @ dee:

    In all likelihood you’ve done it again with this thread.
    I would venture to say that the comments will easily get to the 500 mark in no time.

  23. The salvation of my kids is something that deeply troubles me.

    I grew up in a religiously abusive environment, which leaves me struggling with my faith to this day.

    We’ve taken our kids to church, I’ve talked with each of them… but… I don’t know.

    They don’t want to go to church any more. It seems to be something they’re just not interested in.

    My younger son is also on the autistic spectrum (as am I). Relationships with human beings you can see and communicate with are hard enough…

  24. I once had a Calvinist pastor, and I spent an entire summer trying to believe he was right. I also cried EVERY DAY that entire summer. For the first time in my 45 years as a Christian, I feared that God was actually a monster. I was too miserable to live and too afraid to die.

    And the end of the summer, God gently spoke to me, and said, “Kathy, you know me better than that!”

    The scales fell off at that moment, and I found a new church!

  25. “And I pray—I pray that the God who graciously extended favor to undeserving me, would extend it to my undeserving children as well.”

    How does Challies know he is one of the elect?

  26. Great post! A couple of weeks worth of big issues to discuss. But I’ll start with just one – this Calvinist response always kills mwe:

    Salvation is offered to all freely and all freely reject the gift. That God offers mercy to some in spite of themselves does not mean anyone else has been shortchanged. Must I feed every hungry person in the world if I would feed some?

    First, salvation is NOT, in the Calvinist world, offered freely. Salvation, along with every detail of your life was decided before the Big Bang and there isn’t thing one you can do about. But every Calvinist seminary lecture I’ve listened to that discusses dealing with congregants who have had a family member dies and asks ‘Why God?’ basically tells them not to discuss this at the time and just offer ‘comfort’.

    If you can’t preach what you believe when dealing face-to-face with parents who have lost a child and say ‘God decided a long time ago that this would happen’ then it’s a theology not worth believing.

    Second is the belief that since we are all totally depraved and no one deserves salvation, if God saves only one person he’s merciful beyond all reason whether or not you think it’s fair, so stop whining. Now, I agree with that in the abstract, but God has told us this is not what he will do. We are constantly told of God’s grace, mercy, and love and we are offered salvation if we would come to have faith, which is what Jesus preached his entire ministry. So while we don’t deserve it, God has offered us salvation for our faith, even though we make mistakes along the way.

  27. chriscross wrote:

    How does Challies know he is one of the elect?

    It’s the best part of being a Calvinist. You just know. And you know that you know.

  28. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    And when He doesn’t?
    I’d love a good answer to that I could give my mom. Not that’d she’d take it from me, but it’d be nice to find something for her to accept. I hate to see how much it tears her up.

    I hear you. I lost my faith as an adult and I hate the effect that has had on my folks. They are good people. I wish I could ease their pain, but that would mean changing their belief system into something quite different. Their beliefs bring them comfort in other ways so I just try not to talk about it much with them.

  29. chriscross wrote:

    How does Challies know he is one of the elect?

    ISTM that someone who claims to be the one “Informing the Reforming” obviously knows these things. 😉

  30. Dee,

    Thanks for putting this post up. Though we definitely have real theological differences, I can very much appreciate where you’re coming from here.

    As I was reading the statements on your beliefs, it brought up a question in my mind. Have you ever read any of Robert Capon’s works? I have a hunch you would end up agreeing with him a lot more than you would with me, but he is also one of the most engaging, brilliant, Christ haunted scholars I have ever had the pleasure of reading. His work on Jesus’ parables “Kingdom, Judgment, Grace”. My favorite theologians aren’t always the ones I agree with, I like to be challenged, and to look at the text through someone else’s eyes. Looking at the text through his (Capon’s) eyes is an experience in itself.

  31. a) It always amazes me that Calvinists just cannot seem to comprehend prevenient grace. I guess they’re predestined to not get it.

    b) It kills me when Calvinists say “yes, we have a choice… but we have no ability to make the non-sinful choice.” How in Hades is that a choice?

    c) Calvinists have a weird definition of love.

  32. A former friend of mine who was a schoolteacher of children aged 7 to 11 spent a lot of time in the bible piecing together such information as there is on the status of children in the eyes of God. He came to the conclusion that God treats children very differently from adults, who are of an age to be accountable for their actions in a way children are not.

    As in those days an ‘act of worship’ was supposed to be part of the school day, he would sometimes get them to pray, and found this came perfectly naturally to them – they had a child-like trust. Whilst I would be wary or reading too much into this, it struck him very forcibly, and seemed to confirm what he had read in the bible. Of course children can be cruel to each other from an early age and this shows the effects of the fall – and the bad example they get from adults, so we need to avoid being sentimental about this.

    I can go along with the calvinist who says all people regardless of age need to be ‘saved’, they inherit the disease (depravity) of sin which will always manifest itself sooner or later in what they do. Is is not possible the atonement and its benefits covers this though?

    As for election, isn’t this more to do with service than salvation, and God elects to bless people rather that reject them? And does the very nature of grace, and God’s absolute sovereignty (that is, his free will) mean God is able and free to choose to redeem all infants? If children are a blessing from the Lord, why should he want to exclude them from his presence later?

    In the end, I don’t think God has spelt the answer to the infant salvation issue out, we can only trust him to do what’s right, gleaned from how he regards mankind as detailed in the scriptures. What kind of a God is revealed there? One who is for us or one who is against us? I loved Gram’s phrase ‘the bible does not reveal a God who is scared that someone might end up in heaven by mistake’.

    What I absolutely don’t like is using the tragedy of infant death to speculate about or even defend a theological ‘system’; indulging in cold doctrinal correctness rather than weeping with those who weep.

  33. Kathy wrote:

    “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott is a great book that speaks about this issue. I highly recommend it. He offers 3 chapters for free online.
    http://www.thomastalbott.com/index.php

    I second the book recommendation. He is able to reconcile the issues of election and free will beautifully! Warning: you may be called a heretic if you agree with Talbott.

  34. Ken wrote:

    In the end, I don’t think God has spelt the answer to the infant salvation issue out, we can only trust him to do what’s right, gleaned from how he regards mankind as detailed in the scriptures.

    Ditto the millions (or more?) people who lived for millennia without hearing any inkling due to accidents of geography or birth.

  35. E.G. wrote:

    a) It always amazes me that Calvinists just cannot seem to comprehend prevenient grace. I guess they’re predestined to not get it.

    b) It kills me when Calvinists say “yes, we have a choice… but we have no ability to make the non-sinful choice.” How in Hades is that a choice?

    c) Calvinists have a weird definition of love.

    That makes me crazy, too. Prevenient grace is so much the obvious teaching of Scripture that I have to believe that Calvinists have so distorted the meaning og grace, of love, that they now hold to an understanding of God that is more the product of the ancient pagans than it is of reading their Bibles.
    It is, I suspect, a willful blindness. It’s so very sad, & so infuriating at the same time…..

  36. E.G. wrote:

    Ken wrote:

    In the end, I don’t think God has spelt the answer to the infant salvation issue out, we can only trust him to do what’s right, gleaned from how he regards mankind as detailed in the scriptures.

    Ditto the millions (or more?) people who lived for millennia without hearing any inkling due to accidents of geography or birth.

    Now that is going to drive Calvinists to throw themselves into a heard of pigs who will run off a cliff….Oh, wait…..

  37. It sounds to me like Challis is coming from the perspective of Infant Baptism; that is, that when you baptize an infant of a believer, you are looking toward a promise of future salvation for that child. The reality is, not all children of promise receive that promised salvation; they didn’t when Israelite’s were circumcised into faith, so those who practice Infant Baptism view it as the same way. It’s a “promise”, but not a certainty. I think Challis has gone a bit too far in his zeal at the idea, though. There’s definitely an aspect of mystery because it can’t be a perfect promise because God would never break a true promise he’s made. I think the word “hope” is better fit, but I’m not theologian.

    As for how predestination fits into this, for me it is not the spirit-draining doctrine that it has been for others. I don’t know if that comes down to personality, life experience, or what it is. Or maybe we just process the world differently.

    Certainly, there are ideas within Predestination that make me uncomfortable and I agree doesn’t make sense with the idea of a loving God. But that is also true (in my eyes) of other systems. In the end, I think the “real” answer is more complex than we can really comprehend, so I hold to my “Calvinist” beliefs loosely.

  38. zooey111 wrote:

    Now that is going to drive Calvinists to throw themselves into a heard of pigs who will run off a cliff….Oh, wait…..

    This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith (about as Calvinist as you can get):

    Section X.III.—Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

    Note: There’s a lot NOT said in this, but it certainly leaves the door open that a) ALL infants dying in infancy are elect b) people who haven’t been able to hear the Gospel could be saved. It doesn’t say either way, nor does the Bible. But that’s the point: God hasn’t told us. I make my own assumptions based on how I understand the character of God, but no matter what, I do believe that God is good and if there’s something he can do that is good, he will do it.

  39. To those who have “lost their faith”:

    My experience has been that you have probably lost your religion, or someone else’s religion, which is entirely a good thing. You put no stock in religion. Religion = death. You know this.

    Chances are, you probably still have “faith”, but have not yet seen anyone who can model Christ to you. My guess is that the term “seeker” fits, but you constantly run into “Christians” who want to define that for you.

    God knows you, and He won’t lose track of you. That you are here, participating and still seeking, is confirmation of this.

  40. E.G. wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    In the end, I don’t think God has spelt the answer to the infant salvation issue out, we can only trust him to do what’s right, gleaned from how he regards mankind as detailed in the scriptures.
    Ditto the millions (or more?) people who lived for millennia without hearing any inkling due to accidents of geography or birth.

    The question of ‘what about people who have never heard the gospel is addressed in these verses from Romans 1:8-11

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    “what may be know of god is plain to them…(through the glory of God’s creation>

    Also, Psalm 19 says: The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
    2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
    3 They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
    4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world

    Notice the present tense–right now the heavens are declaring God…even though they have no words, God is revealed.

    Paul seems quite clear in Romans that the knowledge give to those to whom the gospel is not literally available can know God, and that that knowledge is sufficient.

  41.   __

    “Metering-Out The Precious Blood Of Jesus…For Shame.”

    Dee, 

    hey,

      Respectfully, you’ve once again fallen into the calvinesta trap of dissing Calvinism and its proponents instead of just laying out in clear fashion the supporting scripture for your argument, and leave God’s word to do the work intended, as it will not return to Him void.

    blink, blink.

    Leave the Wheat and the Tares to my angels the Master said. They shall grow together until the harvest…

    (bump)

    For over five hundred years, Calvinism has been the basis of a crummy man-made religious system claiming with many ‘proofs’ to be ‘of God’.

    It has become, in many regards, as bad as the man-made religious system it was suppose to replace.

    The adding or taking away from scripture is a chargeable offense before a holy God.

    Limitng the little children from comming to Jesus is a chargeable offence, as well.

    This appears to be what these religious men have unfortunately done; that is to slience and limit God, and to meter out His Son’s precious blood…for shame.

    “…woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in…” ~Jesus

    (sadface)

    “This is My Beloved Son(Jesus) …hear Him” ~Almighty God

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    inspirational relief: Ellie Holcomb : “Don’t Forget His Love ”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZ4i3820h4

    🙂

    ^^^

  42. brian:

    “If someone could not make a conscious testable response to many questions they cant be saved.”

    Then that would apply to far more than just infants.

    Wazza:

    “My younger son is also on the autistic spectrum (as am I). Relationships with human beings you can see and communicate with are hard enough…”

    If you haven’t read it, I recommend Emily Colson’s book Dancing With Max. He is on the severe end of the spectrum, and his mom is not able to take him to most churches. The primary exception was his grandfather Chuck Colson’s church in Florida which had a foyer where the service could be watched on large screens. Between the two of them and a very supportive church staff, Max (as a young adult) eventually professed faith as well as he was able to and asked for baptism. It’s an amazing story, and gives me some hope as the mom of an autistic son who is finally starting to pick up more and more language.

  43. Muff Potter wrote:

    I would venture to say that the comments will easily get to the 500 mark in no time.

    I prefer fewer comments so i can respond to more of them. Right now, I have no power and am doing this via my hot spot- a truly great invention. One huge tree from the forest in back of my house fell over and crushed my fence in the back yard. However, the cardinals look beautiful agains the snow. I shall try to get a picture and put it on the blog.

  44. Wazza wrote:

    My younger son is also on the autistic spectrum (as am I). Relationships with human beings you can see and communicate with are hard enough…

    I truly believe that God takes care of those who struggle with autism. He also cares for those with cognitive disabilities and the handicapped. he is a God who gets it. As I have said. He wants people to be with Him. It is His goal.

    Also, you communicate beautifully!

  45. Kathy wrote:

    And the end of the summer, God gently spoke to me, and said, “Kathy, you know me better than that!”
    The scales fell off at that moment, and I found a new church!

    I am so happy to hear that you worked it through and found a new church. Such struggles often send people fleeing from God. Always remember, He is in the business of saving people. That is His desire. He loves us and wants to share that love with us.

  46. chriscross wrote:

    How does Challies know he is one of the elect?

    I am so glad you brought that up. I may do a post about Jason Stelman- a well known Reformed theologian who converted to Catholicism. The response in the Reformed community was harsh-claiming he was never a Christian.

  47. dee wrote:

    However, the cardinals look beautiful agains the snow. I shall try to get a picture and put it on the blog.

    Do get a picture up if you can. I miss cardinals in the snow!

    Sorry about that fence 🙁 Forests are great in the back yard . . . until they fall.

  48. @ chriscross:
    Your name made me smile. Our youngest pug, Tulip, loves to sit straddling the arms of the two recliners my husband and I sit in when we watch TV. We have nicknamed her her “Ol’ Crisscross.”

  49. dee wrote:

    The response in the Reformed community was harsh-claiming he was never a Christian.

    For how much some claim we can never know who is elect and who is not, they sure do a lot of deciding about who is Christian and who is not. Maybe being elect is altogether different than being Christian?

  50. JeffT wrote:

    That God offers mercy to some in spite of themselves does not mean anyone else has been shortchanged. Must I feed every hungry person in the world if I would feed some?

    Here is the problem with that statement. Not one of us could feed every starving person in the world, even if wished to do so. My daughter and her husband asked for no presents for their wedding. They wanted people to donate to a group fighting world hunger. If they could stop everyone from starving, they would.

    God, on the other hand, could stop people from starving without breaking a sweat. Yet, He does not. He could cause everyone to be regenerated. Many Calvinists say He does not because condemning people to hell for their sins brings glory to God.

    I, on the other hand, believe that God does not do so because He gives us free will-just like He gave Adam and Eve free will to disobey Him. He wants us but is not coercive. He allows us our choices, even when it hurts us.

    JeffT wrote:

    . We are constantly told of God’s grace, mercy, and love and we are offered salvation if we would come to have faith, which is what Jesus preached his entire ministry. So while we don’t deserve it, God has offered us salvation for our faith, even though we make mistakes along the way.

    It boils down to this. God loves us and wants people to love Him of their own free will. He does not want us to be Chatty Cathy dolls-pull the string and she says “I love you.”

  51. Beth wrote:

    Their beliefs bring them comfort in other ways so I just try not to talk about it much with them.

    That is very kind of you. It must be frustrating at times.

  52. @ dee:
    Fairly put and I’ll try that the next time it blows up between us. Hopefully that’ll work a bit.

    Beth wrote:

    Their beliefs bring them comfort in other ways so I just try not to talk about it much with them.

    I wish I had that option, but my mom is one of those people who bring their faith into every, and I mean EVERY conversation. Thanks for the encouragement though, and I offer the same to you.

  53. Another conundrum in the predestination issue is how Jesus teaching on love for enemies fits with a God who only saves some when he could save all.

  54. Doug wrote:

    My experience has been that you have probably lost your religion, or someone else’s religion, which is entirely a good thing. You put no stock in religion. Religion = death. You know this.
    Chances are, you probably still have “faith”, but have not yet seen anyone who can model Christ to you. My guess is that the term “seeker” fits, but you constantly run into “Christians” who want to define that for you.

    Hi Doug. I would be careful with assigning motives to people and why they leave their various religious faiths. For instance, what you describe above that I quoted has no bearing on my personal journey out of religion towards the agnostic atheist I am today. So be careful about “defining” me. 😉
    Doug wrote:

    That you are here, participating and still seeking, is confirmation of this.

    Not really. I’m here because I admire the work the Deebs do for those who are hurt. And also because I want to be able to avoid the same problems that vex organized religion now that we’re seeing a rise in “nones”. Why commit the same mistakes of power abuse and corruption if we can avoid it?

  55. @ Jed Paschall:
    Thank you. I have not read him and just put a couple of books into my list on Amazon.

    Deb will tell you that about a decade ago, I decided to read books by both Arminians and Calvinists and determine once and for all where I stood on the subject. I actually had a notebook in which I listed the pros and cons for each position as I progressed. I read Calvin (Institutes), Sproul, White and others. Then I read Geisler, etc for the opposition. She would always ask me how it was going.

    The list of Bible verses for the Calvinist position was a bit longer. However, the emphasis on love and grace in the biblical narrative was longer on the Arminian side. I prayed long and hard about this. At the time I was not biased against the Neo-Calvinists since they had not yet started their ascendency.

    I have been blessed by being a member of a number of intellectually rigorous church in which the theology did not tip Calvinist. Because of those experiences, I came to realize that one can disagree with election as defined by the Reformed position (many Arminians believe in election except that Jesus is the elected one) and still believe in a sovereign God who deeply loves His people.

    However, I am always openminded on any subject and i will add Capon to my list.

  56. Doug wrote:

    To those who have “lost their faith”:
    My experience has been that you have probably lost your religion, or someone else’s religion, which is entirely a good thing. You put no stock in religion. Religion = death. You know this.
    Chances are, you probably still have “faith”, but have not yet seen anyone who can model Christ to you. My guess is that the term “seeker” fits, but you constantly run into “Christians” who want to define that for you.
    God knows you, and He won’t lose track of you. That you are here, participating and still seeking, is confirmation of this.

    Thanks for your kind response Doug. There were certainly long periods when I was trying very hard to hold onto my faith and would be considered a seeker, but I finally had to accept that my faith had died awhile ago and it was time to call the code. I no longer consider myself a spiritual seeker, but I care deeply about ethics and justice and compassion.

    I had and still have many wonderful people in my life, both believers and non-believers, who, as you say, “model Christ”, or, as I would say, are compassionate people. My belief in the existence of a powerful, benevolent being didn’t die because of poor treatment. On the contrary, my direct interactions with believers, both as one and afterwards, has generally been positive.

    I visit blogs, both Christian and non-Christian, that deal with the themes of justice and compassion. I’ve appreciated the work TWW has done for awhile now, though I wasn’t a regular visitor until the Tony Jones saga captured my interest.

  57. @ E.G.:
    I loved your list. In particular I agree that Calvinists do seem to play with a few word-love, grace and predetermination.

    Let me add one more thing to your list. One of the arguments for Calvinism stresses that if God wanted up to be Christians and called us, then He must be weak if we do not respond.

    So, after we are Christians, we have the Holy Spirit alive within us. We the do we still sin? If the call of the holy Spirit in our lives ineffectual/

    Once again, for me it boils down to free will. God gave that to Adam and Eve. He is still sovereign if He allows us our freedom because He can has the capability to prevent anything that would interfere with His overall plan.

    Sometimes I think that we are too binary as we thing about possibilities. Within the will of God, many choices could easily fit within His paradigm. This God created an incredible universe. He is not limited to one or two choices only. We can freely choose many things and still be part of His plan.

  58. Ken wrote:

    I loved Gram’s phrase ‘the bible does not reveal a God who is scared that someone might end up in heaven by mistake’.

    i agree. That is a wonderful statement.

  59. Leila wrote:

    Warning: you may be called a heretic if you agree with Talbott.

    I have been called a heretic by a few and a minion of Satan by others. It always involves a secondary issue.

  60. E.G. wrote:

    Ditto the millions (or more?) people who lived for millennia without hearing any inkling due to accidents of geography or birth.

    CS Lewis would also agree with you.

  61. Wazza wrote:

    chriscross wrote:

    How does Challies know he is one of the elect?

    It’s the best part of being a Calvinist. You just know. And you know that you know.

    Do you KNOW from the Burning in the Bosom like the Book of Mormon?
    From the Special Shiver in the Liver from the Water Tower Monster?
    From your Perfectly Parsed, More-Correct-Than-Thou Theology?
    From your Wealth, Health, and Blessings of $$$$$?
    From your Moral Superiority over those HEATHENS?
    (Cue Church Lady Superiority Dance…)

    Or don’t you REALLY KNOW (after all, “The Heart of Man is Exceedingly Wicked” and Totally Depraved, so you’re constantly trying to PROVE to yourself that you are? And to pull rank over all those Goats?

  62. Jeff S wrote:

    I think Challis has gone a bit too far in his zeal at the idea, though.

    He does because he needs to *know* his children are saved. That is the hope of most Christian parents. However, due to his elected system, he must find a do around so he can stop being afraid.

  63. Sopwith wrote:

    ou’ve once again fallen into the calvinesta trap of dissing Calvinism and its proponents instead of just laying out in clear fashion the supporting scripture for your argument, and leave God’s word to do the work intended, as it will not return to Him void.

    I wanted folks to know my particular bias as I approached this subject.

  64. lydia wrote:

    Kathy wrote:
    “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott is a great book that speaks about this issue. I highly recommend it. He offers 3 chapters for free onliine.

    Thanks for the link. This chapter sums up my problem with Augustine:
    http://www.thomastalbott.com/terror.php

    “So what if I rack him ’til he die? For I shall have Saved His Soul.”
    — “The Inquisitor”, Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

  65. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    @ dee:
    I wish I had that option, but my mom is one of those people who bring their faith into every, and I mean EVERY conversation. Thanks for the encouragement though, and I offer the same to you.

    I’m sorry. That sounds so hard. My folks talk about their faith, but they rarely try and engage me directly anymore about it, so I can listen to them without having to defend myself. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Occasionally one will ask though, and it’s so painful for both of us.

    I found that my own desire to be understood was driving some of the conflict, so when I finally accepted that they aren’t going to understand, I quit feeling the need to try and explain quite so much. They have beliefs and misconceptions about me and about non-believers in general that bring them pain, but I can’t fix that. It stinks, I wish it was different, but it is what it is.

  66. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I wish I had that option, but my mom is one of those people who bring their faith into every, and I mean EVERY conversation.

    I have a different issue with my mother. She does not want me to bring up faith whatsoever. i realized that all I ever did was irritate her. Instead, i have devoted myself to serving her and her second husband in any way possible. She has said many times over how lucky she is to have me around. For that I am grateful.

    I know God gave her a free choice just as much as he gave me a choice. I try to respect that with her but it means biting my tongue a lot. If your mom ever want to talk to somebody about this, send her my way. She is blessed to have a son who is open, kind and honest.

  67. Beth wrote:

    On the contrary, my direct interactions with believers, both as one and afterwards, has generally been positive.

    I am so glad to hear this. Usually I hear just the opposite.

  68. Ken wrote:

    What I absolutely don’t like is using the tragedy of infant death to speculate about or even defend a theological ‘system’; indulging in cold doctrinal correctness rather than weeping with those who weep.

    Possibilities:
    1) Cold Doctrinal Correctness fanboy, tunnel-visioned on Doctrinal Correctness, who won’t (or can’t) change the subject. Variant of a Jesus Juke. Similar to an Activist who can only see a disaster or tragedy as “What a Chance to Advance MY Agenda!”
    2) Autism Spectrum-level Cluelessness and/or Detachment.
    3) Guy who only has ONE sermon or response (“When all you have is a hammer…”)

  69. Jeff S wrote:

    It sounds to me like Challis is coming from the perspective of Infant Baptism; that is, that when you baptize an infant of a believer, you are looking toward a promise of future salvation for that child.

    He’s a Canadian Baptist, but as you say he certainly sounds like he is coming from a Reformed covenantal perspective. I’d have to check the 1689 to see what it says about infants. I’ve come across a couple of different perspectives in Presbyterian circles regarding covenant children. One is that God favors them and the probability of them being among the elect is greater than if they were the children of non-believers. The other view is that the children of believers are privileged in the sense of being exposed to Christian teaching and values and seeing Christ modeled by their parents.

  70. dee wrote:

    Once again, for me it boils down to free will. God gave that to Adam and Eve. He is still sovereign if He allows us our freedom because He can has the capability to prevent anything that would interfere with His overall plan.

    To me, free will is the only thing that makes sense of ‘the data’, if you will. For a start, it seems to me that ‘Faith’ means nothing without free will.

  71. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Speaking as a mom here and only from my experience with a child who has gone a way that is different from mine, your mom *may* be acting from great fear for someone she deeply loves. I know it must be very difficult to be constantly confronted with that fear, but maybe it would help you if you just tried to remember what is driving her insistence. IOW, maybe she is not criticizing your decision or you as much as she is trying to relieve her anxiety about you.

    The other thing that *might* be contributing to the dynamic between you is guilt that she has failed you and her Lord in some way. Maybe you could try assuring her that she hasn’t failed but that you, as Dee said, are making a free choice.

    You have probably already tried these, but I hear the pain this is causing and thought I would speak as a mom. I hope that your relationship is not greatly harmed by this difference and that, above all, both of you would act from great love for the other.

  72. dee wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    I think Challis has gone a bit too far in his zeal at the idea, though.
    He does because he needs to *know* his children are saved. That is the hope of most Christian parents. However, due to his elected system, he must find a do around so he can stop being afraid.

    I think this is the deeper issue of a lot of the very public Calvinists these days: no room for mystery. Everything has to be systematically understood and explained and then we jam our emotions and feelings into our well thought out box. And people get left behind.

    There are a lot of things that don’t make sense to me or don’t seem fair. My father is not a Christian, and it saddens me. But it is also beyond my control. I believe God is both GOOD and IN CONTROL, and this doesn’t necessarily make clear sense when there is evil around us. How that works out, I can’t see yet, but I’m OK living in the gray and don’t need more theology to clear it up. It will be sorted one day- for now it is a mystery.

    I will pray for my son and raise him the best I can, but ultimately I can’t force my faith on him. If he chooses a different route, I will be sad, but I can’t change him. All I can do is live out the faith I see before me in my life.

  73. roebuck wrote:

    To me, free will is the only thing that makes sense of ‘the data’, if you will.

    Try this for size.

    I don’t think expressing this age-old question in terms of God’s sovereignty versus free will is the best way to do it. Rather we need to consider God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. If God has pre-ordained who will believe, then how can he hold those whom he has not so chosen to believe to be responsible for their unbelief? They have indeed sinned, and are rightly liable for judgement on their works, but to me the problem is God becomes responsible for their ‘lost’ status. Now surely God has every right not to save such people, he has no obligations towards sinful humanity, but the clearly stated desire that he wishes all to come to repentance is hard to reconcile with the idea of unbelief being something God has – by default by not intervening to make it otherwise – chosen for unbelievers.

    After years of banging my head against the wall on this (it’s nice when you stop!), my current view, which won’t satisfy anyone who wants this neatly sorted out, on this is:

    i) Those who are being saved and headed for heaven are only doing so based on God’s grace, his provision of salvation, his willingness in his absolute discretion to call them. It’s nothing they have done.

    ii) Those who are lost and excluded are in this condition because they have asserted their moral or personal automony, have made a choice of their will not to believe, are lost therefore on their own responsibility.

    In short, God is responsible for saving us; we are responsible for being lost.

    This applies to us, our relatives, friends, … and children.

    Is it not possible to leave it at that? We go wrong if we try to work out how these two areas of responsibility interact, that’s what centuries of largely fruitless discussion of this have failed to resolve. In other words, why try finding answers to a question it is not really necessary for us to ask?

  74. Wazza wrote:

    The salvation of my kids is something that deeply troubles me.

    I grew up in a religiously abusive environment, which leaves me struggling with my faith to this day.

    We’ve taken our kids to church, I’ve talked with each of them… but… I don’t know.

    They don’t want to go to church any more. It seems to be something they’re just not interested in.

    My younger son is also on the autistic spectrum (as am I). Relationships with human beings you can see and communicate with are hard enough…

    Wazza, I feel the same pain. I can’t help thinking that our choice of church helped to extinguish any budding faith our teens might have had. They saw christianity as rife with hypocrisy, cruelty, status-seeking, you name it. All the things the bible warns the pharisees and scribes about (and the rest of us). They found that unbelievers were more loving, caring, considerate, giving, and humble. It breaks my heart.

  75. @ refugee:
    (And let me clarify: our teens were born into that church. It was only after they stopped wanting to go to church — and the elders advised us to choose the church over our relationship with our children — that we began to break away. I could say more but it’s tiring to type on a tablet.)

  76. @ Doug:
    Apologies if I sounded tetchy there Doug, I certainly wasn’t trying to. My smiley was not sufficient to the task apparently. I thought your message came from a good place and thought you might appreciate a perspective on some of the assumptions in what you said.

  77. And just for the record, it seems to me the word “sovereignty” is misused by just about everyone these days. But the word itself means that God rules over everything. Which is different than saying is controls everything. That is the word “providence”.

    Or at least that’s my understanding.

  78. Thanks for your response. But this seems like kicking the can down the road. Why did God use his ‘absolute discretion’ to call some and not others? Or everyone, for that matter?

    Ken wrote:

    i) Those who are being saved and headed for heaven are only doing so based on God’s grace, his provision of salvation, his willingness in his absolute discretion to call them. It’s nothing they have done.

    ii) Those who are lost and excluded are in this condition because they have asserted their moral or personal automony, have made a choice of their will not to believe, are lost therefore on their own responsibility.

  79. My personal view is that it is trivially easy for me to understand how God controls everything. I cannot imagine him being an omniscient creator and not having everything figured out in advanced. He would know all the ends for every decision he makes, including Creation itself.

    What is difficult for me to understand is how humans can possibly have freewill at all. How can we act in a world that God has created knowing all the outcomes? I don’t know- but I believe the Bible teaches we make choices, and that they are indeed our choices. So that’s mystery- I believe we have free will, but it’s a mystery.

    Thus, I evangelize like an Arminian and consider God’s grace in my own life like a Calvinist.

    To me the whole discussion seems way above things we are really meant to grasp, and therefore dividing over it is ridiculous. Which is why I take so much issue with a lot of popular Calvinists these days that make it such a big deal.

  80. @ Beth:
    Just to be clear, I get along with my mom, this has just been a recent point of contention. I think you have something there about just accepting that mutual understanding may just never be in the cards.

    @ dee:
    Thank you for your kind offer and words. ^_^ Sorry about your snow and power issues, may the power company be there quickly.

    @ Gram3:
    Thank you for the perspective Gram3, much appreciated.

  81. 2 Questions:

    1. Isn’t the fact that Calvin is responsible for killing his theological opponents reason enough not to bother with Calvinism(s)? Or any system that killed it’s theological opponents?

    2. Regarding children, don’t Jesus’ own words trump any “theologian”? He said that they believe in Him. What does that mean if it doesn’t mean that they believe in Him?

  82. I appreciate Markham’s comments about the Calvinist’s use of the term “means”. Quote – “In this article, Challies speaks much of God ‘using’ Challies’ ministry to his children ‘because these are the means God uses to save his people.’ In Calvinism, these means are merely a formality: God has already decided who he will save.”

    Does anyone else find all this Calvinist talk of “means” to be very mystifying? How does this in any way absolve God of responsibility? If I wore white socks today, did God ordain that my wife put those socks on top in the drawer? Or did God ordain that this exact package of white socks was in front in the store when I bought them? Or did he ordain that Fruit of the Loom (or whatever brand they are) make that exact pair of socks? A Calvinist would affirm that God ordained all of it (although I would point out how trivial that makes election). If God ordained the entire process leading up to those socks being in my drawer, then he is responsible that I wore them. We can see that when it is applied to something as mundane as socks, but somehow when salvation is the topic it is different.

    OK, I am done with my rant now . . .

  83. Jeff S wrote:

    What is difficult for me to understand is how humans can possibly have freewill at all. How can we act in a world that God has created knowing all the outcomes? I don’t know- but I believe the Bible teaches we make choices, and that they are indeed our choices. So that’s mystery- I believe we have free will, but it’s a mystery.

    Thanks for sharing that Jeff, I have a question if you’ve got the time and inclination to answer. What do you mean by free will in the context of your faith? What is your definition or description of “free will”.

  84. Regarding the “Are you really saved gambit” – I often see this coupled with a response that goes something like “I’d love to discuss your points rationally, but unfortunately I am forced to reject them out of hand because I question your salvation.”

    Sheesh.

  85. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    What do you mean by free will in the context of your faith? What is your definition or description of “free will”.

    I mean that I make choices, uncoerced by God, at my own discretion.

  86. roebuck wrote:

    Why did God use his ‘absolute discretion’ to call some and not others?

    There would be no point in calling those whom God knows in advance will reject him on their own responsibility.

    Whilst these types of discussions can be fruitless if they are little more than speculation, I do think reformed theology can be a useful corrective to putting man in control of the salvation process, or us as sinful human beings thinking we have ‘rights’ over against God, or that he owes us explanations. It puts us in our place as needing grace and mercy more than anything else.

    The absolute bottom line for me is that it is a mystery why some people are saved and others not, notwithstanding what I said earlier. It’s just not knowable.

  87. Doug wrote:

    1. Isn’t the fact that Calvin is responsible for killing his theological opponents reason enough not to bother with Calvinism(s)? Or any system that killed it’s theological opponents?

    Almost every theological system has had proponents that killed its theological opponents. In fact, in the case of Servatus it was really the Roman Catholic church that had him executed; Calvin was a contributor, but not the instigator.

    For me, I go by what the Bible teaches as I understand it, whether Calvin taught it or didn’t. (I haven’t read Calvin).

  88. Ken wrote:

    There would be no point in calling those whom God knows in advance will reject him on their own responsibility.

    Too weird. Why even bother with the whole charade of human life? Does God enjoy tormenting people struggling with faith? He’s not going to bother calling people he knows won’t respond? How can they, if he doesn’t call them in the first place? And if that’s all been decided, what’s the point? More can-kicking, as far as I can see.

    In any case, God’s ways are not ours, and I am willing to just call it ‘mystery’.

  89. “Dragging people into heaven screaming and kicking?”

    Any secular movie or show that I have seen that involves their version of death, heaven and hell, the character who has died has wished or hoped he/she would get into heaven, not hell. God rescues people from hell, a place they usually do not want to go, even from a non-religious person’s view. So God hardly “drags” them into a place they want to go.

    But the criteria isn’t anything other than faith in Jesus Christ and that He is God. The beauty of the doctrine of election or salvation as I read it in scripture is that it doesn’t matter how bad you have been, Christ will save. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t grow up hearing the Gospel or going to church, Christ reaches down and saves.

  90. Jeff S wrote:

    And just for the record, it seems to me the word “sovereignty” is misused by just about everyone these days.

    That is an interesting point. Sovereignty is used to describe what God does rather than something that he is. The fact that we are human limits our free will to matters which humans can control, after all, and any free will that we exercise as humans does not impinge on God’s sovereignty, ISTM, unless our view of God demands that he only create robots.

  91. Former Fundy wrote:

    Challies speaks much of God ‘using’ Challies’ ministry to his children ‘because these are the means God uses to save his people.’ In Calvinism, these means are merely a formality: God has already decided who he will save.”

    I think that the idea of means is to protect against the error of the hyper-Calvinists and to protect the necessity for evangelism. The non-hyper Calvinist sees means as an integral part of the process of salvation which God has ordained. I agree that ordaining “means” seems like a formality when the end has also been ordained.

  92. Gram3 wrote:

    Sovereignty

    If you are not an NIV fan, the word sovereign or sovereignty is hardly used in the bible.

    Whilst on this theme, the word grace does not have adjectives put in front of it either, we do that: prevenient grace, sovereign grace, free grace.

    Perhaps we might be better off if we followed the bible itself and refrained from doing this, or at least were a bit more careful with it.

  93. Jeff S wrote:

    Almost every theological system has had proponents that killed its theological opponents.

    Surely there must be at least one exception, right? For the life of me, I do not understand why people don’t use that as part of the decision matrix. If I am looking at the plethora of religious systems, wouldn’t it just be a good idea for practical reasons to throw out the ones that kill people?

    I certainly don’t see how killing dissenters (theological opponents) has anything at all to do with Christianity. Jesus and His Apostles certainly didn’t do that. Did They?

  94. Ken wrote:

    If you are not an NIV fan, the word sovereign or sovereignty is hardly used in the bible.

    So, I guess “headship” is off the table, too. 😉

    I take your point, however. The question seems to be how does God rule over his creation and how does he bring about its redemption? I like to focus on the “what” rather than the “how” or the “why” because God does not reveal everything to us, and we are not capable of understanding his ways even if he did reveal everything to us.

  95. Jeff S wrote:

    In fact, in the case of Servatus it was really the Roman Catholic church that had him executed; Calvin was a contributor, but not the instigator.

    I think you might have some misunderstanding about that. I can recommend a book, if you have a couple of months to spare…

  96. Jeff S wrote:

    Almost every theological system has had proponents that killed its theological opponents. In fact, in the case of Servatus it was really the Roman Catholic church that had him executed; Calvin was a contributor, but not the instigator.

    Jeff, How could the Roman Catholic Church burn him in Geneva in that particular year? There was actually no precedent in Geneva to burn a non citizen. especially a non citizen who had not publicly uttered heresy in Geneva. The norm was to banish them. His so called heresy was in private correspondence with Calvin in preceding years. specifically servitus engaging him in correcting Calvins doctrine which infuriated him. In fact, Calvin wrote a letter to a friend several years before Servetus showed up saying that if he ever did come to Geneva he would not leave alive.

    All of this is historically documented including the letter. if Calvin had little to do with it, why did he write Defensio?

    Catholics did want to burn him but he escaped. I hope that is not a moral equivalency argument. I urge you to please do some homework on this and not just believe what you are told. Calvin was a very tyrannical man.

  97. @ Gram3:
    Sovereignty is a strange focus to me. A sort of given. it seems to be presented by the reformed wing as God not having sovereignty over His own sovereignty as in being arbitrary.

    I am much more comfortable with a focus on His attributes and character. Even more so with Jesus as the full representation of God.

  98. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    The beauty of the doctrine of election or salvation as I read it in scripture is that it doesn’t matter how bad you have been, Christ will save. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t grow up hearing the Gospel or going to church, Christ reaches down and saves

    I do not adhere the doctrine of election as is traditionally espoused by Calvinists. I believe that God saves you no matter how bad you have been. I also believe that God reaches out to all of his people because he wishes none may perish. That includes me since I did not grow up hearing the Gospel. Your explanation merely expresses what both sides believe. I see no distinctive in your explanation of your Reformed belief.

  99. lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Sovereignty is a strange focus to me. A sort of given. it seems to be presented by the reformed wing as God not having sovereignty over His own sovereignty as in being arbitrary.

    I am much more comfortable with a focus on His attributes and character. Even more so with Jesus as the full representation of God.

    I heard once that the main difference between the Christian and Islamic concepts of God is Christianity puts primary focus the attributes and character of God while Islam puts primary focus on the sovereignty and omnipotence of God.

    And that Calvin “Islamized the Reformation” with his primary focus on Sovereignty and Predestination.

  100. lydia wrote:

    Sovereignty is a strange focus to me. A sort of given.

    For me it is one of God’s attributes. I don’t know how to make sense out of the God in the Bible unless he is sovereign. Where we get into trouble, IMO, is when we start speculating about how God exercises his supreme rule. And then we are off to the Arminian/Calvinist races.

    I don’t think it is coincidental that Dordt and Westminster were called for political reasons, not unlike Nicea, for that matter. When the church and state are so intertwined, maintaining a meticulous view of rule is very helpful for both the church and the state. I think we need to keep that historical context in mind when thinking about how God rules.

  101. @ lydia:

    Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut about Servatus. I am not inclined to do much more research than the surface level stuff I’ve read because it just isn’t worth the time to me, but however involved Calvin was, it doesn’t change my views about scripture.

    To be clear, my doctrine doesn’t come from Calvin. I share some similar views that he held, which, unfortunately, these days is labeled as “Calvinism”, but it’s far from my focus anyway.

    I really, really don’t want to get into arguments about Calvinism. The reason I stopped posting on TWW and SSB before was because of them, and I don’t want to go down that road again. So I’d prefer to just strike any comments I’ve made that would cause such an argument than delve into discussion. I should probably stay away from topics like this in the future, tbh.

    And no, I wasn’t “moral equivalency”. It’s more that just because some guy who did bad things believed many things I now believe, doesn’t make those beliefs wrong.

    I wholeheartedly agree that the “what” is more important than the “how”.

  102. dee wrote:

    The response in the Reformed community was harsh-claiming he was never a Christian.

    Typical Calvinist post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

  103. Ken wrote:

    Whilst these types of discussions can be fruitless if they are little more than speculation, I do think reformed theology can be a useful corrective to putting man in control of the salvation process, or us as sinful human beings thinking we have ‘rights’ over against God, or that he owes us explanations.

    If I invite my neighbor to dinner, she can accept or reject the invitation. How would that give her any rights or control over me?

    Of course we don’t have any rights over God. He has issued the invitation and given us a choice to believe or not. The plan for salvation is His, not ours. As for him owing us explanations, Jesus’s ministry and his work on the Cross is the best proof possible that he wanted to communicate with us.

  104. @ E.G.:
    I am not sure Calvinism could flourish in an open society without their interpretation of the book of Romans. At least in my neck of the woods which is ground zero. It is the go to book to prove their view of election. NT Wright has some interesting historical context for why that might be a myopic interpretation.

    Calvinism seems more suited to a church state environment to me.

  105. @ Wazza:

    “We’ve taken our kids to church, I’ve talked with each of them… but… I don’t know.

    They don’t want to go to church any more. It seems to be something they’re just not interested in.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Same situation here. Our churches haven’t been abusive, but he has heard things there that shocked him in how rigid/extreme they were. Like “homosexuals will go to hell” (not nuanced in any way). Or, he came away with the idea that it was a sin to date a non-Christian.

    These things did not compute with his sense of what is reasonable, with his portion of common sense. And I agree with him.

    I was shocked to hear how these things were portrayed to these young minds myself. To be honest, i’m losing confidence that even these very moderate church environments are not more trouble than they’re worth.

  106. Going back to a brief discussion upthread, on The_Immortality_Of_The_Soul.

    “Immortal” can mean different things; for instance,

     Does not die from natural causes, and
     Cannot be killed by any cause

    are not the same thing.

    Of course, theological debate has arisen over any aspect of “what it’s like to be dead” that you could wish to debate. But the context in this thread is, I think, the immortality of the soul in hell. I.e. Mark’s original comment – if I understand it – was less about the resurrection of the dead, than about the eternal conscious torment of the dead souls of bad people (dictators, mass-murderers, and women who explained facts to men without showing sufficient deference). One alternative being that rebellious feminist women do not suffer forever, but suffer and are destroyed, never to exist again – the Doctrine_Of_Annihilation.

    The Bible clearly teaches Eternal_Conscious_Torment. It also clearly teaches Annihilation. It all depending on what your favourite scriptures are… as usual.

  107. Everyone please note. Services like Tinyurl are not allowed to shorten links in comments. I noticed some of these today and have fixed them. Please use full links in your comments.

  108. @ dee:

    I do not visit there because I do not want them to have my ISP. I consider them obviously dangerous. But I have been reading about it…in several different venues. I personally think they crave controversy that brings them attention. This is another way to get people talking about them. It almost seems like they love to be hated because it makes them feel even more right.

  109. Someone should ask our Coptic and Assyrian Christian friends–who are fighting for survival in the Middle East–what they think of this kind of First World argument…

  110. My present understanding of this issue is somewhat enlightened by the fact that I cannot claim any causal responsibility for why I was adopted into a family where I was not molested (like my other sibblings were), but heard the gospel of Christ as a young child (while my other sibblings did not). Why me and not them (too)?

    Being graced spiritually in Christ and believing that the procuring cause of this grace was not found *in me* makes that Grace so much sweeter, as it does the thought that my parent’s chose me over alt the other possibilities. My smarts (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with either.

  111. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “So what if I rack him ’til he die? For I shall have Saved His Soul.”
    — “The Inquisitor”, Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

    Twain had little patience with religion and its accoutrements.

  112. Dee–good post!

    Some of us believe in election, but believe it is not individuals that are elected but rather the whole shooting match of those “in Christ.” Corporate election.

    It boils down to believing that God elected that all who would believe in Jesus would be saved eternally, that He gave prevenient grace to allow all to come to faith, and that He really did give us free will enabled by grace. That means He has given us all we need to believe, and the choice is ours. IF we believe we join the elect and all the promises to the elect apply.

    My theology continues to evolve as I mature and learn and study. As to the Hitlers and Pol Pots, I believe even they can be saved. And if they are not believers, I am moving more and more to the idea of eternal punishment being final total annihilation rather than eternal torment. And more to optimistic amil or even post mil and less and less dispensational.

    And I am still strongly once saved always saved, but see more evidence in the scriptures that even among the saved there will be eternal rewards and then again those that arrive empty handed (metaphorically) and smelling of smoke. Which takes away the charge that you can get saved and sin all you want with no consequences.

  113.   __

      The United States Government does not, (as a rule) i.e. by constitutional law, infringe upon the equal rights of the conscience of its citizens, nor of their freedom of speech, or of their use of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases; then why do religious leaders of certain religious sects here in this country ‘believe’ they can of their parishioners or members?

  114. Someone once said, or wrote (and I paraphrase): “God created man in His image, and ever since then man has tried to return the compliment.”

    I was an Arminian (though I don’t think I knew the word) before being a Calvinist. The catalyst was an article by J.I. Packer. I was somewhat shocked by it. Calvinism seemed to be against common sense and fairness.

    I was convinced only after examining Scripture; it was later that I read Calvin. I found that God did not always do things according to what we deemed correct, or see things the way we see them. For instance, He says that there are “none who do good; no, not one.” What? How can this be? Albert Schweitzer? Our neighbor who is always helping us out?

    He also says that we come into this world spiritually dead. This means that, not only are we unsaved, we are unable to save ourselves. (It doesn’t mean that we only do nasty things.) We have free will in many things, but we are not free to choose God – unless God makes us spiritually alive. God decided to regenerate some, but not all. If anyone can find in Scripture that God gave all something called “prevenient grace,” and left it to us to utilize it, please let me know where it is.

    This is strange stuff. So is the idea of God becoming a man and dying a horrible death. All we can do is read the Bible in good faith and do our best to interpret it accurately. I realize that there are passages that, at least, *seem* to contradict some of what I’ve written here. But the evidence for it seems to me to be almost overwhelming.

    I agree with those who have written that there is still much mystery in all this, and that we should concentrate on the “what,” not the “how.”

    Ken, you wrote: “i) Those who are being saved and headed for heaven are only doing so based on God’s grace, his provision of salvation, his willingness in his absolute discretion to call them. It’s nothing they have done.

    ii) Those who are lost and excluded are in this condition because they have asserted their moral or personal automony, have made a choice of their will not to believe, are lost therefore on their own responsibility.”

    Scripture says that our natural condition is to be self-seeking and against God, not that we are neutral. So we are all in the second category until/unless God does a work in us.

  115. JeffB wrote:

    But the evidence for it seems to me to be almost overwhelming.

    So what do you do with folks like me who sees the evidence as overwhelming in the other direction? You must remember that all of us, Arminian or Calvinist, believe that God must do a work in us as well. We just see it from another point of view.

    And people like Albert Schweitzer were responding to the common grace given to all of us.

  116. @ Through a glass darkly:
    I read the article, but all I saw in it was that there is a particular gene that is apparently responsible for monoamines which affect emotions and which is *correlated* (to what degree?) with certain measures of “spirituality” or transcendent feelings. That doesn’t seem like a lot to hang a theoretical hat on. Definitely not seeing what an economist would make out of this, especially when there is no demonstrated relationship between this gene and a particular religious belief which causes particular behaviors.

    ISTM that the relationship between perceptions/emotions and brain chemistry is non-controversial, so I don’t get what this adds to the discussion. That said, I do believe that the soul and body are united somehow. The nature of consciousness (soul/spirit?) is a fascinating question.

  117. dee wrote:

    However, the cardinals look beautiful agains the snow. I shall try to get a picture and put it on the blog.

    I’d be much obliged if you did dee! It’s been too many moons to count since I’ve seen a Cardinal in snowscape. When I was a kid in Wisconsin the Cardinals always came to our backyard winter feeder.

  118. JeffB wrote:

    For instance, He says that there are “none who do good; no, not one.”

    I read that that text from Paul, as well as the OT verse he takes that from as hyperbole. Paul in his case is simply saying that Jews are no better than Gentiles as far as righteousness goes, they’re both in the same boat. But it does not mean we are all sinners all the time, we just have the capacity to choose to sin or not sin but no one is so good that they never sin. If all we do is sin and are incapable of ever doing anything that isn’t sinful, then you have to say that God stripped us of our imago dei at what many call “The Fall”, but nowhere in Genesis 3 does it say that.

    Many use “The Fall” as an explanation for the introduction of natural disasters, death, and human total depravity when not one of those is pronounced by God as a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit. The only consequences God pronounces is a curse on the serpent, that women will toil more with more pain in childbirth, to Adam he says the ground is cursed because of him and that he’s going to have to grow his own plants from now on and it’s going to be a miserable job contending with the thorns and thistles. That’s it, that’s all Gos said were the consequences and attributing anything more goes way beyond the text.

  119. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The Bible clearly teaches Eternal_Conscious_Torment. It also clearly teaches Annihilation. It all depending on what your favourite scriptures are… as usual.

    It also clearly teaches God’s desire and ability to save all. For example:

    2 Peter 3:9 “He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent.”

    John 12:32 “And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw everyone to myself.”

    2 Cor 5:19 “For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them.”

    My personal spiritual journey has brought me to the point where I just want to believe something good and hopeful about God and myself and the world. I don’t really care about being right anymore.

  120. @ JeffB:
    I kind of found your comment odd, to be honest. I mean, you basically said that you read an article, and then read Scripture, and you were impelled to change your mind and become a Calvinist. You do realize that there are dozens (probably thousands) of extremely gifted theologians, pastors, and scholars who have read the Bible far more times than you ever will, in the original languages, and completely disagree with you, right? I just mean that it seems odd to me to base your argument on your personal experience and understanding. I was a Calvinist at one point until I read the NT. In Greek. Multiple times. At Seminary. And I found out that Calvinism just doesn’t fit with large swaths of what is actually written in the NT. Frankly, the NT authors didn’t agree on everything or have the same perspectives anyway – at least, not if you take them at their word and on their own terms. I just don’t think Calvinism does that. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of great friends who are Calvinists, and think that is anyone’s business. I just thought your own defense of why you believe what you believe was kind of odd.

  121. dee wrote:

    I truly believe that God takes care of those who struggle with autism. He also cares for those with cognitive disabilities and the handicapped. he is a God who gets it. As I have said. He wants people to be with Him. It is His goal.
    Also, you communicate beautifully!

    He’s what was previously called “high-functioning” autistic. I was diagnosed after the DSM-V was released, and the shrink told me that previously I would have been diagnosed with “Asperger’s Syndrome”, but the correct terminology is now to refer to myself as “autistic”.

    Which, to be honest, is terribly annoying, because then people want to argue the point with me “You’re not autistic because…”

    /sigh.

    The child psych who diagnosed our son told me to tell people he’s an “aspie” as well, because of the mental picture some people and teachers have of “autistic” kids.

    I cognitively believe in God, but the whole relational thing is something I’ve struggled with my entire life. For a long time I put it down the religiously abusive environment I grew up in (hey, my dad hears directly from God!), but seeing him go through (apparently) similar issues, now I’m not entirely sure.

    Them: “It’s not about religion, it’s about relationship”
    Me: “How do I have a relationship with God?”
    Them: “You have to listen for God’s voice”
    Me: “How do I know it’s God’s voice?”
    Them: “It will line up with scripture”
    Me: “But how do I know that it’s not just my thoughts that happen to line up with scripture”
    Them: “You’ll just know”
    Me: “But how?”
    etc etc.

    I suck at maintaining real world relationships with people I can see and hear. Trying to trust that I’m having a relationship with God and not just my own voice in my head…

    I’ve always struggled to sit through a sermon.

    I don’t even know where to begin with my 14yo who’d rather play Minecraft than go to church, because “it’s boring” and he can’t sit still through a sermon…

  122. I am a Christian Universalist.

    I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that we can be born again.

    I believe that God will save every person, and I mean EVERY person that has ever lived.

    I believe that God is love and that His love and mercy extend beyond the grave to all eternity. I am not aware of any scripture that limits God’s love and mercy to only while we are alive.

    I believe that God will punish some people in the afterlife if necessary, but that punishment has a purpose, and that purpose is so people can be saved. I believe that God has a variety of means in the afterlife to get people to the point where they can be saved. What punishment will be required so people can be saved will be as unique as the individual themselves. I believe the outer darkness and the lake of fire are two means that God may use to accomplish his will.

    As to the matter of free will and rejecting God, I like what Philip Gulley and James Mulholland say in their book “If Grace is True-Why God will Save Every Person;” “God rejects your rejection.” Do you really think we can thwart God’s will?

    My road to Christian Universalism began with the book, “If Grace is True-Why God will Save Every Person” by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. This is the first book I recommend reading if you are interested in Christian Universalism.

    The second book I recommend is “The Inescapable love of God” by Thomas Talbott. The second edition of the book is now available. This book is more academic and philosophical than Gulley and Mulholland’s book, but also more comprehensive.

    The best book I have ever read on suffering is “God’s Problem-How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer” by Bart D. Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman has written many books. Two of my favorites are “Jesus, Interrupted” and “Misquoting Jesus.” These two books completely changed the way I view the bible. Dr. Ehrman also wrote “The Bible-A Historical and Literary Introduction” which is a survey of the whole bible.

    The best website with the most information on Christian Universalism is http://www.tentmaker.org.

  123. dee wrote:

    So what do you do with folks like me who sees the evidence as overwhelming in the other direction?

    In another comment, you wrote: “The list of Bible verses for the Calvinist position was a bit longer.” I don’t understand this disparity.

    I realize that Arminians also believe that God’s grace is necessary for salvation.

    @ JeffT:

    I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov. Heb. 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Before we are saved, even our best works are done without faith, so, as God sees it, they are not good.

    There are other passages which describe the effects of the Fall more extensively. For instance, Rom 6:12-21 and 8:20-22.

    @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    I don’t understand. Are you saying that only scholars are capable of examining the Scriptures in order to come to the conclusion that the Calvinist view is correct? And, if so, does this apply to other views also?

    I certainly didn’t mean to imply that it’s not possible that other views might be correct. Yet you seem to think that I did.

    Or maybe it’s this: I gave a very brief summary of how I came to Calvinism, so I didn’t mention that I read other works in addition to the Bible. Yet I didn’t read Calvin in depth until later. It’s interesting: Usually I’m the one who tries to convince others that it’s okay to consult commentaries, etc., in addition to studying the Bible. A lot of people fear that reading the views of scholars corrupts the “pure” experience of reading Scripture only. They don’t understand that it’s a privilege to have access to the work of great Bible scholars. Yet even these great minds have to be checked against Scripture.

  124.     __

    “Twisted Pretzel Religious Logic?”

    hmmm…

    Amazing ‘Grace’?

    (I came, I saw, I passed out…)

    What?

     Folks, What ever John Calvin intended, his later TULIP followers turned his ‘Institutes Of The Christian Religion’ into an Elitist Gnostic Death Cult, equipping their later followers with their own ‘god’ and ‘unique’ religion. This is certainly not the God of the bible that they are following, but another religion, and another god.

    figures.

    (can i throwup now?)

    They apparently got out their scissors, and not unlike Thomas Jefferson, hacked their bible into oblivion. Now they expect us to buy this horrendous 501(c)3 religious monstrosity, not even fit for halloween conspicuous consumption?!?

    Trick or Treat?

    (sadface)

     …definitely not treat.

    Sopy
    __
    —> somefood4thought: Is Calvinism a religious cult?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CKruD_ITHc

    ^^^

  125. JeffB wrote:

    Ken, you wrote: “i) Those who are being saved and headed for heaven are only doing so based on God’s grace, ….
    ii) Those who are lost and excluded …lost therefore on their own responsibility.”
    Scripture says that our natural condition is to be self-seeking and against God,

    My sympathies are still largely with the ‘reformed’ understanding on this issue. I agree that we are not neutral, but born rebels, and that without divine intervention we are unable to respond to the gospel. We by nature run away from God and prefer darkness to light.

    Where this gets prickly is whether in these circumstances God genuinely calls everyone who hears the gospel, and we really do have a ‘free’ choice whether to accept it because it is a good faith offer to everyone, or whether predestination is God’s way of guaranteeing that some will respond favourably who would otherwise say no. So God saves one man as an act of grace and mercy, and doesn’t save his neighbour but reserves judgement (meaning justice) for him. In both cases God is being fair because he doesn’t owe anyone salvation.

    I don’t like the labels that come with this territory. I’m also trying not to go overboard with the reformed view as a reaction to seeker-sensitivity, which really does play down the seriousness of man’s fallen condition, overplays his willingness or ability to respond, and puts man in the centre of the salvation process on a take it or leave it basis. Seekerism also overemphasises the love of God, and misses our greatest need is not love but forgiveness and the righteousness before God we by nature lack.

    I think being faithful to the NT text is what counts, and this will entail at times sounding Calvinist and other times sounding Arminian. I don’t think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, it is more we cannot and don’t need to try to tie all the loose ends up.

    And as someone said up thread, too much discussion in this area is a bit of a first world luxury, though not unimportant if it prevents the gospel being lost in sentimentality and wishful thinking.

  126. Father Tim wrote:

    The best website with the most information on Christian Universalism is http://www.tentmaker.org.

    Another great one is godslovewins.com

    Nice to meet another Christian Universalist, by the way! 🙂dee wrote:

    @ Kathy:
    @ Father Tim:
    Although I am not a universalist, I am glad that you are commenting here. It helps me to think more deeply about my own convictions.

    I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your gracious attitude. I think the possibility that God is saving all humanity is even more of a lightening rod issue in Christianity than Calvinism right now. My children have already been barred from one Christian school because we believe in the possibility of CU.

    5 years ago I had not even heard of this belief system. My post-missionary journey led me here. I could not handle the idea that people who lived in a place and time without access to the gospel are going suffer eternal torment just because they did not have the chance to hear it. (That’s what we essentially told people in order to raise financial support.) Likewise I could not handle the idea that eternally destiny was arbitrarily determined by God before humanity even existed. Christian Universalism (also called Universal Reconciliation) gave me a way to not throw out Christianity altogether. And the Christianity I’ve found is hopeful and positive.

    I think it’s GREAT that you are broaching a subject which causes you and all of us to think deeply about our beliefs. Thanks again for your gracious spirit!

  127. The interesting thing to me about universalism is that is suffers from mirror image problem usually attributed to calvinism. The problem there is if God chooses who will be saved arbitrarily, this seems unfair on those for whom he chooses nothing.

    In universalism, you have the opposite problem in that those who do not wish to obey God’s commands, who choose in their free will or for any other reason not to want to have anything to do with him will, in the end, be forced by God into the new heaven and new earth.

    Both views envisage irresistable grace, although they approach the subject from completely opposite angles. Both views negate the idea of man having free will.

  128. The turn this thread has taken is interesting to me.

    I used to be a ‘Hound of Heaven/Free Will” believer. When my faith started to slip away, I believed that God wouldn’t let me go. I did all the things I was supposed to do, asking for help with my doubts, studying the Bible more, praying more, getting spiritual counseling, but it kept slipping away. I didn’t want it to, I certainly wasn’t choosing for it to, but it happened anyway, even with me fighting against it. Even after deep down I knew I no longer believed, I refused to give up. I kept attending church, kept praying, kept asking for help with my unbelief, but the unbelief continued.

    It was very difficult during this time to hear that God never deserts those who reach out, or that God pursues you with love. That certainly wasn’t what I was experiencing.

    I never actually considered Calvinism during this time, because I wanted nothing to do with a deity like that, but I had to admit that their view fit my experiences better than the free will view did. I wasn’t chosen. Oh well.

    I did flirt with universalism because it allowed me to hope that there was still a decent sort of deity. I told myself that that deity really wasn’t concerned about my lack of faith and that was why I wasn’t getting any help in holding onto my belief. For other reasons though, it didn’t really stick and I finally accepted that what made the most sense to me is that there probably isn’t any sort of deity intervening in the world.

    I say this, not because I long to still believe (I don’t long for it anymore), but just to share that out of all the many views of God, I think the Free Will/Hound of Heaven view fits the worst with the experiences of many of those who used to believe but no longer do. I realize it does fit with experiences of those who had doubts but ended up still believing. Many of them do believe God reached out to them in their time of doubt and gathered them closer. But for those of us for whom that wasn’t the case, that view doesn’t fit.

    I don’t think we can choose our beliefs. We might be able to choose some things, but we can’t make ourselves believe something we don’t.

  129. @ Beth:

    Thank you for sharing your story with us. It truly helps me to understand more deeply what transpires in those who long for God to help them in their doubts yet he doesn’t seem to do so. Phillip Yancey wrote a book about this called “Disappointment With God” in which he agrees that God is definitely silent at times.

    I, too, went through a faith crisis a long while ago. I was shocked to discover that the women caught in adultery was not found in the earliest manuscripts. I realized that I had a shaky basis for my faith and decided to start reading skeptics of the faith and proponents of other faith systems.

    I also decided to see what those who held onto the faith believed and why they believed. I am not the brightest bulb on the block so I figured that anything that I felt or thought was probably thought of by others. I wanted to find out how they overcame their concerns.

    I spent a few years reading everything. I came to admire some communicators outside the faith like Christopher Hitchens who could make me laugh and cry at the same time.

    Then, within the faith there was JB Phillips who did a paraphrase of the Bible. I was shocked to learn that he lived his life in a deep depression and spent much of his time in a mental institution.

    I won’t bore you with too much. I ended up at this point. The Bible narrative does not answer all of my questions but the narrative best explains the world that I see around me.

    The Hound of Heaven pursues but He does not dominate. In the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis, Aslan, the lion Christ figure, appeared as a lion. But sometimes, if the children turned around quick, he would suddenly look like a lamb. That has been my experience.

    Thank you for being real with us.

  130. Kathy wrote:

    I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your gracious attitude.

    I get tired of listening to myself talk. Life is far more interesting when others challenge my suppositions.

  131. JeffB wrote:

    In another comment, you wrote: “The list of Bible verses for the Calvinist position was a bit longer.” I don’t understand this disparity.

    What I meant is that i wrote down Bible verses that seemed to tip one way or the other. The Reformed pov had a few more verses. But, the shorter list had some of Gods attributes that seemed to overcome the longer list.

  132. @ dee:

    Thanks for listening. I love hearing other people’s stories too. I think the same thing – there are so many people wiser than me out there who have struggled with similar issues and we are lucky that they have written their thoughts down so we can learn from them.

    People are endlessly fascinating to me, and I learn something different all the time. Fifty years old and still so much to ponder!

  133. @ Beth:

    Beth, this is going to sound really weird so please bear with me. But I read your comment and have talked with so many who have a similar story. After seeing the evil I saw in Christendom up close and personal in quite a few venues I decided to completely take another tact. I won’t bore you with the details but now my attitude is: What is it I expect from Jesus Christ while here on earth?

    If I heard one more person say, “Oh JEsus got me that job” or Jesus did this or that for me, blah, blah, I was going to scream. Or my personal favorite: God will provide. I now smile and if the time is right I might ask if they aren’t sure it wasn’t that new suit they bought and all the prep they did beforehand for the job interview. :o)

    I know that sounds snarky but I came to the conclusion I had a ton of wrong views about God/Jesus Christ. It finally occurred to me that perhaps He is a bit frustrated with me as in why on earth I was waiting around for Him to change things/people when He gave us dominion and if we have the abilities (cognitive or physical) we need to get to work to make this a better place while here. Be the kingdom now, sort of thing. I met some along the way who really do live like this and I would have NEVER met then at church because they don’t go.

    Now– my belief system is very lonely. To be real honest, it is not very popular in most churches. They usually refer to it as “works salvation” which tends to amuse me now. Do they really believe it is better to do nothing good for others? Sometimes I wonder….

    My late mother used to tell me that if we do not put feet on our prayers they are worthless and insulting to our Creator who made us in His Image. She used to say she was not here to see through people but to see people through. And finally she told me on her death bed that the American church is a “mission field”. Now I finally get it.

  134. Beth wrote:

    I don’t think we can choose our beliefs. We might be able to choose some things, but we can’t make ourselves believe something we don’t.

    Totally with you on this one Beth. Thanks for sharing, I also like to hear people’s stories.

  135. Lydia wrote:

    @ Doug:
    Sorry Doug, did not mean to frustrate you. She meant it was too corrupt.

    Oh no problem. That was the exact phrase that the last two Calvinistas used to justify their attempted takeover of our church. Paul Washer has a gaggle of followers who are apparently big on that idea, as are others who advocate for stealth offensives against churches who openly disagree with them.

  136. @ Doug:

    Oh.my.!!! No wonder. I can see Paul Washer saying that, btw, even though I have not paid attention to him much the last 5 years or so.

    My mom was big into “every believer a priest” so that was not what she meant at all.

  137. dee wrote:

    I, too, went through a faith crisis a long while ago. I was shocked to discover that the women caught in adultery was not found in the earliest manuscripts.

    The so-called ‘earliest’ manuscripts are not the ‘best’ manuscripts, nor even good ones. They contradict 99% of the other manuscripts from many lines. These ‘earliest’ manuscripts are really just two – one found in a garbage dump at a convent because it was such a mess (with many corrections and showing signs of 10 different hands), and one bestowed upon us from the Vatican. They even disagree with each other.

    You might want to look into manuscript traditions – Google ‘Westcott and Hort’ for a start. They were not even believers…

  138. @ roebuck:
    In this particular situation, I had Dr Dan Wallace come to the Sunday school class that I was leading at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship. He is considered one of the foremost experts on Greek languages and manuscripts. He is also a devoted Christian. I was blessed to know him as a friend. Eating dinner with him and discussing archaeological finds was a real kick. I miss being close by.

    http://www.csntm.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace

    http://danielbwallace.com

    He is the one who told our class about this. That is what got me going.

  139. dee wrote:

    In this particular situation, I had Dr Dan Wallace come to the Sunday school class that I was leading at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship. He is considered one of the foremost experts on Greek languages and manuscripts.

    Still, I would encourage you to look into it for yourself. You don’t have to be an expert in Greek or anything to see that the Critical Text is problematical…

  140. @ Lydia:

    I like what you said a lot. I’ve met others who might share your view among some of the more mainstream progressive churches – some that emphasis the social gospel. I have friends who are UCC, Presbyterian USA, and Marianist who take a similar view. For the latter two, it’s more their particular church that bends that way, but they have found homes with like-minded folk there.

  141. Doug wrote:

    Paul Washer has a gaggle of followers who are apparently big on that idea, as are others who advocate for stealth offensives against churches who openly disagree with them.

    “Stealth takeovers” like Stalin’s goons pulled off in one Eastern European country after another in the aftermath of WW2? At the time it was called “salami tactics”; the Russians would beg or threaten for just one small concession, one small slice of salami after another until one day the Russian Bear had eaten it all. A century before, the same tactic was used in European colonization/takeover of Third World countries, where it was called “the camel’s nose is in the tent”.

  142. Doug wrote:

    others who advocate for stealth offensives against churches who openly disagree with them.

    …and then after they get established in the takeover, they kick anyone out who disagrees or even asks questions. Nothing says gospel-centered like being focused on gaining and consolidating power.

  143. @ Beth:

    It still blows my mind that is called a “social gospel”. I can understand it if describes a church that is always promoting group activism in marches and protests, perhaps. But what on earth is wrong with looking to help individuals in any way you can? And that being a part of living out your beliefs? I see a Jesus who was about “doing”, too.

    We visited a progressive type CBF church a few weeks ago that I liked except they were so politicized it was a turn off. They had a calendar full of political activist types coming in to speak or organize for the entire year. Congressman, local politico’s, etc, etc. It is not only the evangelicals who get political, that is for sure. And I never saw that much political focus in any evangelical megas I worked with. I just don’t think it is a “Christian” imperative to vote for Obama or before, George Bush.

  144. @ JeffB:

    “I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I think it describes our deeds from the writer’s pov. I suspect he/she was much more religious than God ever was/is.

  145. elastigirl wrote:

    “I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I think it describes our deeds from the writer’s pov. I suspect he/she was much more religious than God ever was/is.

    The Holy Spirit *is* God.

  146. @ Beth:

    “The turn this thread has taken is interesting to me. …When my faith started to slip away, I believed that God wouldn’t let me go. I did all the things I was supposed to do, … but it kept slipping away.

    …I didn’t want it to, I certainly wasn’t choosing for it to, but it happened anyway, even with me fighting against it. ….. It was very difficult during this time to hear that God never deserts those who reach out, or that God pursues you with love. That certainly wasn’t what I was experiencing.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    an interesting turn, indeed. thank you for the totally honest comment. I appreciate it so much.

    While my experiences/non-firm conclusions are different from yours, I have all kinds of doubts as well.

    I am so bugged by people who say “God ALWAYS” does such & such, simply because things panned out favorably for them in a God context. No he doesn’t. I am amazed at the insensitivity & ignorance of such remarks.

  147. @ JeffB:

    “I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    elastigirl said: “I think it describes our deeds from the writer’s pov. I suspect he/she was much more religious than God ever was/is.”

    Jeffb said: “The Holy Spirit *is* God.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    Agreed. Why would you think I thought otherwise?

  148. JeffB wrote:

    I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov. Heb. 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Before we are saved, even our best works are done without faith, so, as God sees it, they are not good.

    The problem I have with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 3 is I think it misses the point of what Paul was doing. He was making an argument within the Jew/Gentile dichotomy and it is not a good idea to proof text it.

    In Romans 3, Paul is quoting from a couple of Psalms including 14 and 53 which are alike. psalms are “man talking to God”. It is poetry. Laments. Where is “literal” in poetry? That would be like me believing I can be saved by washing with Hyssop. It aays so in a Psalm, after all.

    Just look at the end of the same Psalm:

    God looks down from heaven
    on all mankind
    to see if there are any who understand,
    any who seek God.
    3
    Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.
    4
    Do all these evildoers know nothing?
    They devour my people as though eating bread;
    they never call on God.
    But there they are, overwhelmed with dread,
    where there was nothing to dread.
    God scattered the bones of those who attacked you;
    you put them to shame, for God despised them.

    Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
    When God restores his people,
    let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!

  149. @ Lydia:
    To piggyback a little, Paul’s argument has to do with the relationship between righteousness and the law and Jews and Gentiles. If we think in terms of good deeds that we have done (or not done), then I think we are missing Paul’s point. Clearly, as you said, he is using allusions to the Psalms and to Ecclesiastes, so as you said it is a bad idea to prooftext this. It’s a bad idea to prooftext anything, but especially Paul.

    As I read it, the issue is not whether or not there are any persons who have ever done good things. Rather the issue is that there is not one person who stands guiltless before the law or who is righteous because all of us have transgressed the law, whether that is the Mosaic law or natural law.

    Of course today is not a high-functioning day for me, so maybe I’m missing the point of this thread *and* Paul. 🙂

  150. Steve Martin wrote:

    Baptize them (the children)…then teach them of the wonderful thing that God does in Baptism.

    Is there some advantage that baptized children of believers have over children of believers who are taught the exact same things? IOW, all other things being equal, how is the infant who is baptized better off due to having been baptized?

    That is an honest question from a credo who gets paedo (I think.)

  151. Gram3 wrote:

    Is there some advantage that baptized children of believers have over children of believers who are taught the exact same things? IOW, all other things being equal, how is the infant who is baptized better off due to having been baptized?
    That is an honest question from a credo who gets paedo (I think.)

    You ought to check this out and see what you think. I am not going to get into it except to say that I am convinced of the authenticity of baptism, both adult believer’s baptism and paedobaptism, because I see it as far more complicated and nuanced than the more simple approach that I was taught as a child. You may come to different conclusions, but I just want to say that the easy answer approaches either for or against any of the conclusions about baptism mostly leave a lot out of the discussion in my opinion.

  152. @ Beth:
    I really hear you on this. I had all sorts of expectations about what God would do if things got to certain points…. and they didn’t happen, not for want of trying. And I’ve actually made myself cry by typing this, shows how much it still hurts. You are encouraged to lay the full weight of your life upon your faith, make all your major decisions based on it ( I didn’t marry someone because of it) so when your faith goes wrong, as it were, it all goes wrong.

  153. @ Father Tim:

    You referenced Bart Ehrman. I decided to read some of his stuff some months ago and have now read a moderately impressive short stack of what he has written. I note also his journey from an MBI style faith to first agnosticism and now atheism. At the same time I note that one way or another hoards of people deal with the same issues (suffering on the one hand and issues with the texts on the other hand) and do not become atheists. This fascinates me; how different people following what looks like similar paths end up at very different destinations.

    Here is my theory. It may look like a similar path but in important ways it is not. I also have dealt with (a) the biblical texts as we have them are unreliable in lots of ways and (b) the world includes so much horror while God seems to be doing nothing about it. And yet I have not ended up either agnostic or atheist. Surely there must be hoards of people who tell the same story as mine. There is something going on here more than meets the eye. I am thinking that people have different starting points and different trajectories and the issue of bible on the one hand and suffering on the other hand just happens to be where some paths cross, as opposed to being some fixed point on a straight line for everybody.

    Somebody has said that faith is not to be understood as believing something that you know good and well is not true. Given the truth of that, as I see it, the question must be dealt with of what then when one is faced with the roadblock of that which cannot be believed.

  154. Ken wrote:

    The interesting thing to me about universalism is that is suffers from mirror image problem usually attributed to calvinism. The problem there is if God chooses who will be saved arbitrarily, this seems unfair on those for whom he chooses nothing.
    In universalism, you have the opposite problem in that those who do not wish to obey God’s commands, who choose in their free will or for any other reason not to want to have anything to do with him will, in the end, be forced by God into the new heaven and new earth.
    Both views envisage irresistable grace, although they approach the subject from completely opposite angles. Both views negate the idea of man having free will.

    I see your point. Both views do negate the idea of free will. But that is not a problem for me. I don’t think we humans are as free as we think we are. For example, a person with Alzheimer’s disease may be technically free to do whatever they want, but they aren’t really free to make good choices, because of their brain dysfunction. In the same way, our sin condition impairs our ability to make good choices. We need to be free of that problem so we can choose aright. Maybe suffering serves that function. Just like the prodigal son was set free from his folly after experiencing the full consequences of his impaired decision making.

    My hope is this messed up life and world we currently live in are means of bringing us all to our senses and ultimately bringing us home, in accordance with our desire (i.e. willingly). 😉 I don’t think there is reason to cross out the possibility that post death suffering could serve the same function.

    If we say that post death torture in hell endures forever as punishment for sin, then we don’t have a God whose love endures forever either. Whether we view God’s justice as retributive or restorative is a factor here too.

  155. @ Nancy:
    I agree about the simplistic approach to Baptism probably not being the best approach. I’m trying to figure out what the differences are if all other circumstances are identical. I do think that a memorialist position on communion and a symbolic baptism of adults can lend itself to ultimately meaning nothing. And I also think that the other views can lend themselves to ritualism. I think there is more going on than we think.

  156. Beakerj wrote:

    @ Beth:
    I really hear you on this. I had all sorts of expectations about what God would do if things got to certain points…. and they didn’t happen, not for want of trying. And I’ve actually made myself cry by typing this, shows how much it still hurts. You are encouraged to lay the full weight of your life upon your faith, make all your major decisions based on it ( I didn’t marry someone because of it) so when your faith goes wrong, as it were, it all goes wrong.

    {Hug}

    I wasn’t raised in a faith tradition that overly emphasized God being involved in the little details of your life, though that view wasn’t exactly discouraged either. I have seen the comfort that view can bring for some, but I have also seen the pain it can bring when it stops working for others. It can almost be like a divorce – the God you thought you knew and trusted ends up being different and it rocks your world.

  157. elastigirl wrote:

    can you give us the list?

    Of course, everything was a bit of an exaggeration. Are you asking tongue in cheek or for real?

    For example, I listened to the Bhagavad Gita on cd. It was given to me by a devout Hindu cardiologist. I played it through as i was running around in the car. I read the Book of Mormon and I believe I have the marked up book somewhere in the house.

    I read a couple of Bart Ehrman’s books, along with Christopher Hitchens (my favorite atheist), Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (Letter to a ChristianNation). I then read some theologians and their responses to them. I attended a debate between Bart Ehrman and Dinesh D’Souza at UNC.

    I spent 5 years carefully reading Ex Christians.Net and have corresponded with Valerie Tarico after reading her book and her website on her loss of faith after Wheaton and the group she formed to set up a set of values that all people could agree to.

    I read a college book from a secular school which was an introduction to world religions. I can look up the name. I then read a similar Christian book and compared notes. They both said about the same thing.

    I already had a working knowledge of Native American religions-particularly Navajo. I got really bogged down in a book on Buddhism and I must adit that I deserted it after reading about 30%. I did some reading on the differences on religious expression within Judaism and had the opportunity to talk to a woman whose husband was the head of a Lubavitcher group.

    I read more but just in case you were joking, I’ll stop it here.

  158. @ elastigirl:
    Oh, one other thing. i decided to look at all of the difficult passages in the Bible and see if there were answers to the objections. I would say I got about 75% of my questions answered.

  159. elastigirl wrote:

    I am so bugged by people who say “God ALWAYS” does such & such, simply because things panned out favorably for them in a God context. No he doesn’t. I am amazed at the insensitivity & ignorance of such remarks.

    I agree with you. 6 weeks before my daughter got sick, I read Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. That book helped me to deal with the very real possibility of my daughter’s death and not place my hopes on a guaranteed miracle.

  160. Steve Martin wrote:

    Baptize them (the children)…then teach them of the wonderful thing that God does in Baptism.

    I know many who have and have still seen their kids walk away.

  161. @ Beakerj:

    I am so sorry for the pain that you have endured.

    I think that many of us have been sold a bill of goods as to what is going to happen to us if we are *good* Christians. Paul spent much of his life beaten and in jail. All of the disciples died as martyrs except for John who, except for his vision, spent a lousy life on a prison island.

    During my searching time, i became convinced that the happy nonsense preached by people like Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen and others was a smokescreen. In fact, life is hard. Most Christians I know have had bad things happen to them-myself included.

    In the end, I have come to realize that my sins are forgiven and then, one day, the pain will be gone. But that is one day-not now. That was a bitter pill to swallow for me but I have felt more at peace as difficult things happen.

    Recently my son was diagnosed with a rare disorder. One of these days I am going to write about it. He won’t die but he will struggle with it since there is no cure but there is some treatment available to mitigate the symptoms.

    Our past struggles have helped us to deal with this new situation. Many times, as I fall asleep and pray for all of you and my family, I often think, “One day, Lord, one day.”

  162. @ Nancy:

    I have been interested in similar questions for awhile. Why do people believe what they do, and how and why does that change? Since I no longer think there is a deity involved in that process, I understand it to be a combination of personality and environment/life experiences.

    I think we are drawn to certain concepts of God, based on our personalities and psychological needs. People have varying tolerances for ambiguity. Some like the assurances certain approaches bring, while others chafe under the restrictions. Tell me about the God you believe in, and I understand more about you than I do God.

    Life experiences challenge and alter those views. Some dig in further, some change their views and/or denominations, and some end up not believing altogether. How that happens is so interesting to me.

  163. Kathy wrote:

    If we say that post death torture in hell endures forever as punishment for sin, then we don’t have a God whose love endures forever either.

    I do not believe that hell is torture. Some of those beliefs got started when Dante published The Inferno. I need to write about this one of these days.

  164. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m trying to figure out what the differences are if all other circumstances are identical.

    I don’t see how all other circumstances could be identical. I am thinking that parents who have their babies/children baptized are apt to think differently about childhood and apt to raise their children in churches that feel differently about childhood and then the children are apt to feel differently about themselves in relation to God and church and parents from an early age. That would be an awful lot of variables to control if somebody studied the matter from the angle of all things else being equal. And in fact, the baptism of infants does include public commitments on the part of the parents, godparents and the congregation. It is not just sloshing water on some little kid. And it is not magic.

    The only two denominations I have had any experience with in this issue also practice confirmation beginning at about the eight grade and not forced on anybody but offered and encouraged. The young teen is given the opportunity of informed decision making and public declaration of faith. Can this all be ritual? Of course. Can walking the aisle and shaking the preacher’s hand be merely emotion driven ritual and/or conformity to parental or social expectations? Of course. I am not into mere ritual or magic either one, so don’t misunderstand what I am saying. Personally I walked the aisle and shook the hand and got immersed (over my parents’ disapproval) but now I think somewhat differently about the whole matter.

    Anyhow, it is an interesting topic.

  165. @ Beth:

    Yeah. Me too Beth. You have said that so well. Except that I do believe that there is God, and that makes it even more interesting since we agree on so much and yet come to different conclusions.

  166. @ dee:
    I can relate concerning Buddhism. After reading what we could, We even interviewed a Buddhist monk to try and understand it. He was a delightful man but Were still confused as ever. :o)

  167. Nancy wrote:

    I don’t see how all other circumstances could be identical. I am thinking that parents who have their babies/children baptized are apt to think differently about childhood and apt to raise their children in churches that feel differently about childhood and then the children are apt to feel differently about themselves in relation to God and church and parents from an early age.

    That may be true. But one’s view of infant baptism doesn’t necessarily impact how one views one’s children *unless* one also believes that baptism does something. Both paedos and credos hold to the “viper in diaper” view, but not all of either view have that opinion. Maybe there is something else I’m missing, however.

    I was constructing a thought experiment which assumes all things are identical. Same parents, same child, same views with the sole exception being the infant is baptized or not baptized. I’m getting at what baptism does or what other views are entailed in infant baptism that I am overlooking.

    As a practical matter, many credos dedicate their babies and ask the congregation to assist them in nurturing the child in the faith. They just don’t do a baptism. Similarly, the Reformed don’t commune a child until a credible profession of faith which is identical to the baptist view.

    So, back to the question. What difference does baptizing a baby make? How is that different from what a baby dedication is? I am missing something in addition to only considering the Reformed and Baptist views with which I am most familiar.

  168. For what it is worth there are some really good books out there concerning various beliefs on hell.

    Some do believe in eternal conscious torment. I was raised to believe that, but just do not see it in the Bible.

    Some believe there is conscious torment, but that it is not eternal. Those with a universalist leaning may see hell as very bad, very real, very much an awake and aware torment but that it is for the destruction of sin, not the person. So after a period of time or at the end of time (various views) the person emerges fit for heaven.

    Some believe in conscious torment but that what is eternal is the finality of the destruction that takes place. They see hell as another death, this time of the spirit and not just the body. They see Jesus speaking of fearing not him who can destroy or kill the body, but fearing Him who can destroy both body and soul. To them a Hitler or Pol Pot will suffer a great deal before that final death, while those who lived a better life but rejected God will suffer much less before final annihilation.

    There are those who believe most people end up in hell. There are those that believe no one ends up in hell. And there are those that believe only a few will ultimately end up in hell. They cite passages that speak of not putting out the smoking flax or breaking the bruised reed. These people tend to believe (many of them) that a person is only responsible for the light they have, that all people since the death of Christ have “the law imprinted in their hearts” or a conscience that functions, and only those that reject and refuse what ever amount of God consciousness and grace they have received will be in hell.

    Or to put it another way, you have to actually willfully,not unknowingly, or due to life experience or defect, deliberately reject and refuse the grace of God to go to hell.

    They tend to believe some degree of grace and awareness of God is offered to all and that all are enabled by God to respond positively. It preserves the justice of God, the grace of God, allows response to be genuine rather than rote or fear motivated, and is a very hopeful thought system.

    As to the Joel Osteen’s, etc, I also tend to an optimistic view of the faith. It doesn’t mean our family has never experienced tragedy or death or loss of any kind. It doesn’t mean I’ve never suffered with depression or anxiety.

    It just means I trust that like the old song says, “Farther along, we’ll know all about it. Farther along we’ll understand why.” So devastatingly painful as some life experiences are–and they are!!!–I find it easier to believe that Christ would never allow the pain unless it served a good purpose. Doesn’t mean I don’t argue with God. But the alternative, deciding life is meaningless and then you die seems to me a one way ticket to the loony bin.

    I choose to hope. And trust. Even through the tears and pain. To do otherwise would ultimately destroy me.

    But then I watched my beloved mother consistently choose the negative, cynical route. I watched the pain it brought to her and to her family and friends. If there was a flaw, a sin, or a defect in anything she could find it. She could turn the most joyous occasion sour. And she faced the end of life mostly alone and miserable.

    I simply do not want to go there.

  169. Beth wrote:

    Beakerj wrote:
    @ Beth:
    I really hear you on this. I had all sorts of expectations about what God would do if things got to certain points…. and they didn’t happen, not for want of trying. And I’ve actually made myself cry by typing this, shows how much it still hurts. You are encouraged to lay the full weight of your life upon your faith, make all your major decisions based on it ( I didn’t marry someone because of it) so when your faith goes wrong, as it were, it all goes wrong.
    {Hug}
    I wasn’t raised in a faith tradition that overly emphasized God being involved in the little details of your life, though that view wasn’t exactly discouraged either. I have seen the comfort that view can bring for some, but I have also seen the pain it can bring when it stops working for others. It can almost be like a divorce – the God you thought you knew and trusted ends up being different and it rocks your world.

    Beaker, I reread your post and wanted to say I misspoke when I talked about God being involved in the little details of your life. You weren’t talking about little details, you were talking about everything, including huge life decisions, like marriage.

    I once counseled a woman who, after careful prayer and counsel, married a guy who years later molested their oldest daughter. Her faith community had prayed for wisdom with her about her marital choice and all were at peace that the marriage was a good thing. There were no hints at the time to give anyone pause. It’s so painful to struggle with these things – to think that you are getting extra help in making these momentous decisions only to run up against the reality that that might not be the case after all.

  170. Gram3 wrote:

    So, back to the question. What difference does baptizing a baby make? How is that different from what a baby dedication is? I am missing something in addition to only considering the Reformed and Baptist views with which I am most familiar.

    Maybe what you are missing is the idea of sacrament. I am not getting into an explanation of that because the idea varies slightly among churches that believe there are such things as sacraments, and because there is a plethora of information on line and because I gave up explaining ‘for lent’–lent being the rest of my life. Baptism seen as a sacrament is different from a baby dedication. It is different itself, the parents and the churches view it differently, and the relationship to the church of a baptized person as compared to an unbaptized person is viewed differently.

    BTW, I was sitting in a presbyterian church once (the pastor was the father of a friend of my daughters and I visited there some) when he baptized an infant and went into a rather long clarification that what he had just done was actually a ‘baptism’ and not a ‘christening’ and how that needed to be clearly understood by all present and he did not want to hear it called a christening in the future. He was clearly trying to clear up some ideas among his people that he thought were mistaken. He did not explain enough about it, however, other than that clarification. I am not familiar with the presbyterian views on infant baptism, only with the catholic and anglican views. Again, it is probably all on line somewhere.

  171. @ dee:

    “Are you asking tongue in cheek or for real?”
    ++++++++++++++

    very much for real, in a tongue in cheek sort of way. thanks for your answer!

    i’d love to know more of your “list” if you have the time. I, too, am inclined to plumb the depths of something to resolve intellectual conflict. you see, you & I KNOW when we’re wearing those cognitive discopants (& no faux pas for us).

    I’ve already obtained many books on a few topics that drive me crazy.

    it all started when I perused the website for a church I was attending & looked at the staff list. I noticed that the female director of children’s programs (who I had observed working extremely hard and producing fabulous things) was listed secondarily to her husband’s name: Pastor John Smith and Mary Smith. John did nothing. Mary did all the work. But somehow he got top billing (& the title denied to her) and was credited with the work she did.

    I noticed it was the same for all the female staff. Their husbands got the title of pastor (although they were not formally installed as pastors), were listed first, followed by the wife’s name with no title. She was the one who did all the work. He did nothing.

    So, when I asked the pastor about all this, and did he believe women were subordinate to men, he cheerily replied “No, but I believe in headship!” as if it was great news. (if he only knew how silly he looked in those cognitive discopants right then!) He proceeded to take the “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” book from his bookshelf and hand it to me to borrow.

    and like the $100,000 kitchen remodel that began with a chipped tile, so began my quest to understand this new reality of female subordination as ordained by God that I was suddenly up against.

  172. Nancy wrote:

    I am not familiar with the presbyterian views on infant baptism, only with the catholic and anglican views.

    Oh, and the baptist views of my youth and young adult years.

  173. elastigirl wrote:

    astor John Smith and Mary Smith. John did nothing. Mary did all the work. But somehow he got top billing (& the title denied to her) and was credited with the work she did.

    In a former church, the women in my Sunday school class got upset because they listed my husband and another man who taught with us but they didn’t mention me. My husband wanted to quit over it.

    I told him, and the women, to bite their tongues so that they at least see a woman teaching even if she wasn’t recognized. I would have bigger fish to fry and causing a scene at this juncture wouldn’t have been prudent. So, then came the pedophile and Dee found the hill to die on.

  174. @ Lydia:
    Thank you. In some respects it is a relief for both him and us because we couldn’t figure out what was wrong. My son said “See, I knew something was wrong.” I’ll write about it soon.

  175. @ Nancy:
    Definitely the idea of sacrament is there, but I’m asking what that sacrament is or does. As a Baptist, my sacramental circuits don’t close properly, as you no doubt know already. 😉

    The Reformed view baptism as initiation into the covenant community without the regeneration of the Catholic and Anglican views. Maybe that is the distinction that the Presbyterian minister was trying to draw.

    For the Reformed it is analogous to circumcision and is viewed as a sacrament, and my understanding is that it somehow effectuates, signs and seals the promise given to believers regarding their children. I can’t find that promise in the Bible, so I’m wary of that aspect of it. I don’t see how it squares with the RPW, but whatever. Everyone is inconsistent. Even between Catholics and Anglicans there are probably differences regarding the meaning of regeneration at baptism. I’m looking into Lutheran and Methodist ideas, too.

  176. Nancy wrote:

    I gave up explaining ‘for lent’–lent being the rest of my life

    That is a pity because your explanations are helpful.

  177. elastigirl wrote:

    cognitive discopants

    This should be added to TWW lexicon. Just think of Grudem and Piper in disco pants. I keep RBMW handy as a reference text on how to avoid committing the sin of logic.

  178. @ Nancy:
    To Gram3: I am a little confused, as you and I covered a *lot* of the same things you’re asking Nancy a couple of days ago. Her answer then (as well as mine) was to suggest that you look into (in general) views/beliefs re. baptism as a sacrament.

    There is so very much out there that goes into detail on this. I really would encourage you to look into it, because I honestly think a lot of it is geared toward folks who are asking the same kinds of questions you are. I am confused as to why you are repeating the same questions today, with slightly different phrasing.

    As to Nancy’s answer, I think it is a good one.

    Regarding baptism as a sacrament, remember what I said a couple of days ago about it being about what God does, via baptism, rather than what we do per se?

  179. @ dee:

    So sorry, Dee. I hope your son finds relief. One of my sons has a health issue like that. Took a lot of work to get to the right doctors to figure it out.

  180. @ Gram3:
    while I agree, I can also sympathize with taking a long, long break on trying to explain things. It wears me out!

  181. @ numo:
    btw, I didn’t intend to be unkind, Gram. I am just thinking that there’s plenty of info. to go around. And most of it explains things *far* better than I can, or ever will be able to.

  182. Beth wrote:

    I think we are drawn to certain concepts of God, based on our personalities and psychological needs. People have varying tolerances for ambiguity. Some like the assurances certain approaches bring, while others chafe under the restrictions. Tell me about the God you believe in, and I understand more about you than I do God.

    I love this summary, Beth.

    My book club has met for over 20 years now, and more and more our discussions turn to spirituality and religion. In our core group one of us was raised observant Lutheran, one observant Catholic, one culturally Buddhist and one–me–humanist/agnostic. None of us is now a Christian.

    We read a lot of Karen Armstrong. We talk about how beliefs are delivered from parents to children, and what happens when life tests those beliefs. Why do some people abandon their faith, others double down and blame themselves for “doing their religion wrong,” and others find a way to widen their understanding of doctrine and reconcile it with the contradictions of experience? In the process, as Beth says, we learn more about ourselves and others if not more about God.

    We grope toward our own understandings of the divine. For myself, I cannot imagine it manifested in a particular deity, much less in a particular text or creed. I read the New Testament as a child, and sometimes went to church with friends, and my distaste for the central idea that someone died for my sins and I have to believe that to be saved was visceral and long-lasting. As an adult I’ve gone back to the texts with more understanding, but it still doesn’t work for me. I think this is, as Beth says, about my mix of culture, experience and personality–for one thing I appreciate and embrace ambiguity and distrust any black/white dichotomy–and so I don’t feel driven to try to convert others to my pov.

    But I’m convinced there is something of spirit, shimmering through and around us, that is as real as my breakfast. I think it is inherent in each of us. I call it grace. I look for it in everyone I meet, despite and amidst my many failures of attention and compassion. It is the foundation of my political and social beliefs and actions. I come to sites like this one to see other people, coming from different perspectives, on the same quest. And maybe paradoxically, as this loosey-goosey, definitely non-Christian spirituality has deepened in my life, I feel a bit less judgmental of many true believers, rather less likely to rant on about Bible-thumpers and doctrinaire Muslims and whoever else I find illogical. I see and feel that grace in people I would have dismissed based purely on their stated beliefs.

    People are so interesting, and we come to our conclusions with such a mixture of need, thought, and inclination. Thanks for this place to discuss and ponder.

  183. @ Gram3:

    One of the seeker Megas I worked with believed that baptism was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. Yet, I was told this was not a sacrament position. They marketed themselves as non denominational but their staff was mostly educated at a church of Christ styled spin off bible college.

    This rarely came up because it was controversial with their growth. So they took down any references to what baptism meant according to their beliefs. But it really came out in the children’s ministry where they were teaching it so they would get baptized young. .

    Sorry about the strange punctuation my iPad tends to do that

  184. @ numo:
    My question was in reference to a short comment that said people should just baptize their babies and then teach them. That’s a covenantal perspective which is not Lutheran or Catholic or Episcopalian. It is a viewpoint that is often asserted but not explained, even when I’ve researched it, so my conclusion is that I am missing something and tossing out a word that doesn’t have content *for me* doesn’t help me. The word “sacrament” does have meaning for many, many others, and I would like to get at what that might be.

    I have been looking into Lutheran views on several different topics. I understand that I do not understand sacraments, so why not ask people who do? Nancy has experience in several different denoms. I’m sorry that annoys you, but honestly I don’t know why it does.

  185. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    btw, I didn’t intend to be unkind, Gram. I am just thinking that there’s plenty of info. to go around. And most of it explains things *far* better than I can, or ever will be able to.

    I can read a lot of things about Islam but I cannot understand it nearly so well as conversing with my Muslim friends who come from various cultures. I don’t have a cultural framework for that. I can read about shame/honor culture but not understand it as well as conversing with friends from Korea or India or Malaysia or China. I read a lot about communism and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but I can understand those issues much better when I talk to a friend who grew up under the Soviet system in Ukraine. I love to talk to people and learn about their cultures because they think about the same issue in very different ways that the others may not understand.

  186. Lydia wrote:

    One of the seeker Megas I worked with believed that baptism was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit.

    Another good example of prooftexting “baptism now saves you” and making the text say exactly the opposite of what it is saying. You are not, by chance, referring to a certain “SE” church at Ground Zero, are you (at least that’s the name and denom leaning church I’m thinking about at Ground Zero.)

  187. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy has experience in several different denoms. I’m sorry that annoys you, but honestly I don’t know why it does.

    Nancy does not have the gift of inerrancy on any subject, especially religion. One time several decades ago I got so good at one particular radiological procedure (lymphangiography) that I began to have hopes of awesomeness, but alas it was not to be.

  188. @ klickvic:

    Klickvic, thanks so much for sharing that. I belong to a homeschool group that sounds very similar. We have everyone from pagans to atheists to Christians and get along wonderfully because we all share so many more values in common than differences. When groups can pull that off, it gives me hope for humankind.

  189. @ dee</
    I'm really sorry to hear abut your son Dee 🙁

    I'm not sure that what I was expecting was a bill of goods, I haven't run in those circles for years. What I expected was enough…knowledge?…understanding?…experience?…to know God truly & trust him during my darkest hours.I've never expected things, health or happiness. What I expected was relationship, to never be left or forsaken, to have some sense of the reality of God's goodness & reality, to be able to keep believing.I don't think that's out of line with what the Bible says, or Paul knew. All of those things were much more important to me & that's why it was such a shock when during the worst days of my life I had no way of knowing God well enough to trust him. I really thought that would never happen. I thought that God loved me & that he wouldn't abandon me in that way. It's really mystifying, particularly as I prayed for all of those things sincerely, for years.

  190. @ Gram3:
    It doesn’t annoy me. I guess i am not as good with answers about these things as others might think. It is a LONG time since i took catechism classes (i was in my teens), and would literally have to read up in order to provide you with answers that would mean anything. (That’s one reason i suggested Chaplain Mike’s post on Lutheran beliefs over at imonk – it is much fresher for him, and he is able to convey much that eludes me when i try.)

    I tend to look things up and read lots myself, so maybe I’m being unfait, in assuming that that works best for you or anyone else, when in reality, learning is a highly individual thing. Besides, i like to talk with others, too, but i am just not as up on the beliefs of my own church as others might think. I spent over 30 years in evangelical/charismatic circles, and have some (how can i put this?) Anglican leanings on a number of things. But that’s another story altogether.

    Here’s the thing: anyone coming into a Lutheran or Anglican or RC church (as in, wanting to be part of the denomination) has to go through catechism classes. The best advice i can give you – truly – is to read some of the material that is used in catechism classes. There should be a fair number of FAQ pages on websites associated with vatvarious churches as well. which will probably raise other questions… and I’m happy to talk about all of that, but i am not comfortable being the primary “explainer” on these subjects.

    Does that make sense?

  191. @ numo:
    I read the thread on IMonk. I think what I’m missing is not information but rather a way of thinking about information, if that makes any sense.

  192. I am blessed to have found a church that accepts the paradox of salvation-that is, that God both elects AND desires that all would be saved. Thus, I rest in a God who died for all of us and who obviously has means of grace that we cannot explain with systematic theology.

  193. @ Gram3:
    It makes a lot of sense! Nancy mentioned English, metric and some other systems of measurement on the other thread; how it all works better when we stop trying to convert from one system to another in our heads. That takes time.

    I mentioned learning other languages as a corollary. It is really like that, i think, in that every language has ways of understanding and making sense of the world built into it. That can be as basic as telling time, or as subtle as words about feelings or states of being that can’t successfully be translated into other languages.

    I kind of think you might have to not translate from one kind of theology to another, and just give things time to simmer on the back burner for a while. I know that’s not always easy, but that’s also true of learning another language, right? In time, things settle into place.

  194. @ numo:
    Thanks for that, Numo. The other thing is range of experience and the conclusions we draw from experience. For example, I have a lot of experiences with a range of Reformed and Baptist views and churches and individuals. So it is easier for me to not tag every one who wears the label with the same characteristic and also I have a reasonable basis to put them in various bins.

    I have limited experience with sacramental denominations. Those limited experiences are not good ones. I *know* that those experiences are a small and not representative sample of sacramental thought, but I don’t have a sufficient range of samples to judge the experiences. So there’s that aspect as well. Information, framework, and evaluation are part of the process.

  195. Mark Baker-Wright wrote:

    The unstated corollary to this belief is that the soul *is* immortal. But, I ask, where does that belief come from? The Bible is far from clear on this subject.

    Agreed Mark, Scripture has competing narratives which all clamor for one’s attention. I remember an instance many years back when I sat under Papa Chuck (the founder of Calvary Chapel). He was teaching through the Book of Ecclesiastes (chap. 9 at the time) and had gotten to the part where the writer describes the blank oblivion of the dead. Papa Chuck wasted no time in assuring us all that what the writer described in Ecclesiastes has all been abrogated by Paul’s letters and the belief (in many fundagelical circles) that Jesus was emphatic about eternal torture by fire for the wicked in Luke chap. 16.

    In one sense I think that one can say yes, the Bible is crystal clear on the question of the existence (or non-existence) of an immortal soul, but in another sense it all depends on which competing narrative one buys into. I once bought into the Calvary Chapel stance but no longer. I now subscribe to the view in Judaism that body and soul are an integral unit and that the soul is not a separate entity, and that no such bifurcation between body and soul exists, you can’t have one without the other. In Mathematics we call this an if and only if condition between two entities.

    In my view the only thing that leaves the body at the point of death is the life force which animates all living things (Ecclesiastes chap.3).

  196. Muff Potter wrote:

    In one sense I think that one can say yes, the Bible is crystal clear on the question of the existence (or non-existence) of an immortal soul, but in another sense it all depends on which competing narrative one buys into.

    What if the idea of “competing narratives” exists only because of the biases of the reader, and the real underlying narrative is, as some have suggested, that the Father creates a faithful, spotless, and glorious bride out of sinful humanity for the Son? Maybe John and Jake would not have turned into iconic isms?

    Sometimes I wish God would have made the Scripture easier to understand and interpret…why all this chaos and relational tension?????

  197. @ Gram3:
    I totally get that, though, from my perspective, it’s the Reformed + various baptist churches that don’t quite make sense to me. (Reformed especially.)

  198. elastigirl wrote:

    @ JeffB:
    “I don’t think “no one does good; no, not one,” is hyperbole; I think it describes our deeds from God’s pov.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    elastigirl said: “I think it describes our deeds from the writer’s pov. I suspect he/she was much more religious than God ever was/is.”
    Jeffb said: “The Holy Spirit *is* God.”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Agreed. Why would you think I thought otherwise?

    Sorry, I forgot to say that it’s the Holy Spirit Who inspires the words of the Bible, and, therefore, is the ultimate “Writer” of the Bible. So the Writer can’t be more religious than God, because the writer IS God.

  199. @ Kin:

    “Sometimes I wish God would have made the Scripture easier to understand and interpret…why all this chaos and relational tension?????”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    perhaps it was never meant to be a text book. perhaps there’s nothing wrong with uncertainty, with seeing through a glass darkly. puts the focus on God in real time — I feel like people hold on to the bible like they’re holding on to the boat, or holding on to the side of the pool (predictable, safe).

    the bible is great — inspired truth. it’s just not God.

  200. @ JeffB:

    “…it’s the Holy Spirit Who inspires the words of the Bible, and, therefore, is the ultimate “Writer” of the Bible. So the Writer can’t be more religious than God, because the writer IS God.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    I suppose we differ on what inspiration/inspired means, then.

  201. dee wrote:

    I do not believe that hell is torture.

    Thank you for saying that. The bible doesn’t use terms like torture, yet this seems to crop up frequently when people say why they don’t believe in God.

    Jesus uses various metaphors to describe hell, which we don’t need to take literally, but which we don’t need to try to explain away either. I’m sure a lot of the warning these intended to convey is to avoid being in condition or place where God is totally absent, and where human sinfulness and independence rule instead.

    I don’t see any idea in the NT of God inflicting this on anyone, it is rather what a refusal to believe and so be saved implies, and it occurs to those who love unrighteousness. It is the ultimate expression of God handing people over to their sin, and letting them reap what they have sown. It is no more and no less than those whoe have repeatedly broken God’s law being sentenced to what they deserve, analogous in part to a human judge sentencing a criminal to prison. The disanalogy is that with God, the judge has provided and offered an anmesty for the wrong committed, but this has been rejected in favour of personal autonomy.

  202. elastigirl wrote:

    perhaps it was never meant to be a text book. perhaps there’s nothing wrong with uncertainty, with seeing through a glass darkly. puts the focus on God in real time — I feel like people hold on to the bible like they’re holding on to the boat, or holding on to the side of the pool (predictable, safe).

    the bible is great — inspired truth. it’s just not God.

    Thanks. I get your drift, and I don’t think I’m suggesting I’d prefer it to read like a textbook. It’s an extremely long collection of books, and it seems like it takes 10 lifetimes to get perspective on it. Currently am reading Enns and Byas’ book “Genesis for normal people” and really am enjoying it…cerntainly is not what I was taught in school. At least with the internet perspective is easier to come by than ever before.

    Regarding the topic of children embracing or rejecting the Gospel, we have an adult child that seems to be destined to run head-long into foolishness (like many biblical characters have), all the while claiming to love Christ. No doubt, the present state of the evangelical church (spiritual abuse etc) has played a huge part. It’s tough to deal with the continual drama and consequences. But we know (and have experienced) Grace changes people, but it’s on God’s timing, not ours.

    So we continue to pray for that day. Honestly, this situation has given me a little insight on what God must feel in dealing with my own rebellion and “autonomy” (thanks, Ken above), yet has chosen to grace/love me extravagantly in Christ all the while. Our child’s waywardness is our training ground for us to learn how to love like God loves each of us. It’s tough for sure.

  203. Kin wrote:

    Thanks. I get your drift, and I don’t think I’m suggesting I’d prefer it to read like a textbook. It’s an extremely long collection of books, and it seems like it takes 10 lifetimes to get perspective on it. Currently am reading Enns and Byas’ book “Genesis for normal people” and really am enjoying it…cerntainly is not what I was taught in school. At least with the internet perspective is easier to come by than ever before.

    Great book to look at another perspective. I highly recommend it.

  204. Lydia wrote:

    Great book to look at another perspective. I highly recommend it.

    At your recommendation I just checked it out on amazon and have ordered it. It does look good. I am aware of Enns but not the other fellow. Thanks for the info.

  205. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I totally get that, though, from my perspective, it’s the Reformed + various baptist churches that don’t quite make sense to me. (Reformed especially.)

    Baptists are confusing because we come from so many sources. And maybe also because a Baptist distinctive is the priesthood of every believer. Ironically, there used to be several opinions coexisting in Baptist churches. But that is not the trend nowadays.

    The Reformed cannot be understood without understanding the unifying theology of Covenant. There are different expressions and understandings of what Covenant means exactly and the implications of that. I don’t think that Lutheranism has that understanding of an overarching Covenant of Grace (with or without the Covenant of Redemption.)

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    Baptists are confusing because we come from so many sources.

    Like, some of you were brought by the stork and others were found under a gooseberry bush?

  207. @ Nancy:

    If I got one thing from the book that really helped me is understanding that the focus in Genesis is not on creation but the nation of Israel. But where do many tend to focus—on creation issues…who ate what and when, order of creation, etc.

    I love lookikng at the larger narrative which includes the first 5 books and the larger theme there. It has really given me a different perspective of God. The God who “rescues”.

  208. Muff Potter wrote:

    I once bought into the Calvary Chapel stance but no longer. I now subscribe to the view in Judaism that body and soul are an integral unit and that the soul is not a separate entity, and that no such bifurcation between body and soul exists, you can’t have one without the other.

    This does fit with the original Christian afterlife of Resurrection of the Dead in a renewed Cosmos.

    If body and soul are two separate things and the soul is complete in and of itself, why would we need Resurrection? Why not just float around as Souls in Fluffy Cloud Heaven like Shades in Hades?

  209. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Like, some of you were brought by the stork and others were found under a gooseberry bush?

    And some of us were found under cabbage leaves. But all of us believe we’ve been adopted. Maybe Baptists are so messy because we have decided what we *don’t* believe. Rebellious, we are. 😉

  210. @ Muff Potter:

    P.S. Problem is that Papa Chuck and Calvary Chapel DEFINED Christianity for a whole generation down here. Like There Was No Salvation Outside of Calvary Chapel and CC’s theology and CC’s way of doing things and CC’s Mini-Moses Ex Cathedra.

  211. Gram3 wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    Like, some of you were brought by the stork and others were found under a gooseberry bush?

    And some of us were found under cabbage leaves.

    Cabbage Patch Baptists?
    That explains a lot…
    As well as sounds too much like an actual church name.

  212. Gram3 wrote:

    Maybe Baptists are so messy because we have decided what we *don’t* believe.

    I don’t know if you know this, but there is a special place in heaven for Baptists, to which only they have privileged entry.

    The reason for this is that they could never cope with the idea they are not the only ones there …

  213. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Cabbage Patch Baptists?

    There certainly wouldn’t be any Gothardites there, so that’s a plus. And the hipsters could say they are Kale Soul Patch Baptists. It could be problematic for old-time IFBs who would be fighting over whether the slaw should have shredded carrots and include red cabbage and don’t even think about bringing up the mayo/no mayo question. OTOH, old-time Southern Baptists would have a fabulous potluck with everyone’s favorite slaw. No kale chips allowed, however, if I’m the senior pastor. 😉

  214. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Autonomy seems to be the “unifying” theme for Baptists. :o)

    I prefer “No King but Jesus” as a unifying theme.

  215. Ken wrote:

    The reason for this is that they could never cope with the idea they are not the only ones there …

    Nah, we believe God’s grace is big enough to cover all the bad doctrine everyone else believes! Some recent Baptists, like the ones who dis-invited me from fellowship, will be shocked, I’m sure, but they will soon form networks and learn to cope.

  216. @ Kin:

    i’m sure the situation with your adult child is very challenging. I know that my own set of things that were very challenging defied everything I had learned in church about the bible & God. I had to let it go — it was tortuous not to. I did find God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in a deeper way somehow. (minus the programs)

    I hope for peace for you and God-energized change for the circumstances you alluded to.

  217. Gram3 wrote:

    Doug wrote:
    others who advocate for stealth offensives against churches who openly disagree with them.

    …and then after they get established in the takeover, they kick anyone out who disagrees or even asks questions. Nothing says gospel-centered like being focused on gaining and consolidating power.

    The Coup is always followed by The Cleansing.

  218. Victorious wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Just think of Grudem and Piper in disco pants.
    Then they’d be fighting over who had the tightest pants…. like Will Ferrell and Jimmy Fallon….

    Naah. I’m waiting for them to stick cucumbers in their pants, fight over who has the biggest cucumber, and pass out from lack of circulation.

  219. Kin wrote:

    What if the idea of “competing narratives” exists only because of the biases of the reader, and the real underlying narrative is, as some have suggested, that the Father creates a faithful, spotless, and glorious bride out of sinful humanity for the Son?

    You ask a fair question and it deserves an answer. In my opinion there will always be biases on the part of the reader with regard to Holy Writ, it’s impossible not to have them and I stand up guilty as charged. I’m biased in favor of my own reason, common sense, internal moral compass, and conscience, and I admit it up front.
    Five hundred years of Sola Scriptura has not produced consensus in Western Protestantism but rather a hodgepodge-krazee-kwilt of denominations, sects, and warring camps who can’t even agree upon the color of dog doo-doo.

  220. Muff Potter wrote:

    Five hundred years of Sola Scriptura has not produced consensus in Western Protestantism but rather a hodgepodge-krazee-kwilt of denominations, sects, and warring camps who can’t even agree upon the color of dog doo-doo.

    How true. So why don’t they see this and ask the obvious question: “What does that tell us?” I come to the conclusion that it is because they don’t want to because there is some pay-off here that I don’t see. Surely it is more than power and money.

  221. @ Muff – Thanks for the response, I agree with you. That last sentence of yours is a keeper!

    @elastigirl – thanks for the sentiments. The list is 5 years long with what this child has done, with the latest being (several days ago) they’ve admitted to taking someone’s life. Now we have to determine whether this is the truth or a lie. If true (I think it probably is), then we have to get the authorities involved in a state 1000 miles away where this most likely took place.

    Regardless of one’s view of how God saves a child, I know that in most evangelical christian circles well-intentioned parents often keep their children in line with guilt manipulation tatics. The unspoken results is often children who don’t get into mischief becuase they unconsciously fear they would lose their parent’s affection and love.

    In our case, since my wife and I both came from backgrounds somewhat like this, we decided to make an effort not to use guilt manipulation, and I often wonder if that made this child feel comfortable with the pursuit of foolishness. Still trying to figure this parenting stuff out. Have oftenn told my kids I feel so inadequate to parent them. In much need of mercy and grace from God to do so. Glad I don’t have 19 kids!

  222. Muff Potter wrote:

    Five hundred years of Sola Scriptura has not produced consensus in Western Protestantism

    Possibly because we keep bringing other stuff in, as humans are prone to do. Or maybe that’s God’s way of protecting the truth overall. I think of how a portfolio manager diversifies his/her holdings to maximize portfolio returns even though some assets or asset classes underperform at times. Putting it mildly.

    Is the RCC better off now than it was before the Reformation? I think so. I think visible or organizational unity is a human goal.

  223. __

    Muff Potter wrote:

    Muff wrote:
    “Five hundred years of Sola Scriptura has not produced consensus in Western Protestantism but rather a hodgepodge-krazee-kwilt of denominations, sects, and warring camps who can’t even agree upon the color of dog doo-doo.”

    So are you plannng a trip across the Tiber?

  224. @ Kin:

    “Still trying to figure this parenting stuff out.”
    ++++++++++++++

    I understand. I wish you peaceful sleep, and God-energized change in the circumstances you alluded to.

  225. @ Nancy:

    re: 500 years of sola scriptura & still no consensus…. ““What does that tell us?” I come to the conclusion that it is because they don’t want to because there is some pay-off here that I don’t see. Surely it is more than power and money.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    this pay-off, are you saying that logically it must be more than money, or ‘I can’t believe it all comes down to money but that may just be the case’?

    If the latter, are you thinking perhaps they’re looking forward to some kind of spiritual, hereafter pay-off (like eternal clout)?

    I suspect it does come down to power & money — the whole voraciously hungry industry:
    –seminary & its employees whose jobs are sustained by
    …students who have to be able to get jobs upon graduation, and then
    …the facilities where those jobs are located are hungry machines themselves (utilities, insurance, staff salaries, etc),
    …not to mention sentimentality over all things church and denominational culture
    …And then there’s love of power and fear of loss of power, fear of change, fear of so many things, which fuels the hunger

    The bottom line, it’s funded by people in the pews. Do whatever you can to keep them there.

    (i’m jaded & cynical, but my scrutiny is still somewhat keen)

  226. Sopwith wrote:

    So are you plannng a trip across the Tiber?

    Nah Sopy, they wouldn’t have me, I’m too much the dissenter and free thinker. Gram3 does make a good point though about the stability of the ancient liturgical traditions as opposed to the ‘every man for himself’ Protestant ethos. Simply because it’s Roman Catholic does not negate the fact that they’ve prospered for almost two millennia now. They must be doing something right.

  227. Muff Potter wrote:

    Simply because it’s Roman Catholic does not negate the fact that they’ve prospered for almost two millennia now. They must be doing something right.

    You know, I think they are doing some things right and also the sola people are doing some things right. Both systems have weaknesses.

    For me, the weaknesses of the sola systems is that they leave out the importance of such things as reason and personal conscience (though these are both risky of course) and they reject evidence from sources other than scripture (history/ tradition or experience or research.) This creates a problem because scripture does not address all the issues nor does it address all the ramifications and applications of the issues that it does address, leading me to conclude that scripture was never intended to be “sola” in the first place.

    The other system, when it does leave itself open to other things puts itself in a position where people can fall into excesses and what looks like superstitions in some things. And in relying more on decision making by the few (for example the magisterium in doctrine) creates the opportunity for the sorts of abuses that those in power tend to make, like compromises in finances (sale of indulgences for example.) But, clearly for me, the group that really does say ‘y’all come” meaning they want/welcome everybody is the RCC (and probably some similar traditions.) This: the wide welcome concept vs the “pure” church weed-them-out concept, is a big difference.

    If anybody finds a perfect system please let me know. I am dying to hurl myself into a perfect system and see if I can’t do as much damage as possible. (Sarcasm) Meanwhile, I have found a compromise that maybe I can live with, and I suspect that lots of folks do similar things–compromise and move on. Somebody said that “man is made of many needs; he feeds the one that gnaws him most.” Probably when there are religious choices we find something that helps with our most gnawing need(s) and believe we have found truth itself. We have found truth if we have ‘found’ Jesus, but neither group (sola or RCC) holds exclusive patent on Jesus.

    Now I have got to go dig everybody out of bed and feed them and get them out the door. It is cold and wet out there. I am so ready for spring.

  228. Nancy wrote:

    scripture does not address all the issues

    Isn’t the idea of sola scriptura more to do with there is no written authorititive revelation outside the bible? Tne Anglicans, for example, theoretically believe this doctrine, but are happy to have traditions and experience to some extent, but the latter don’t have any authority, they are not binding. This allows for some liberty in how you do church, not everything is prescribed. For example the Lord’s supper is commanded, but exactly what form or ceremony is not, so you are free to arrange it how you think best.

  229. @ Ken:

    Actually you are close but no bulls eye in what you have said.

    The methodists (which I am) and the episcopalians (which I am becoming) believe in prima scriptura. This upholds that only scripture is scripture but admits other avenues of information and methodology in the understanding and application of scripture. In practice it plays out differently from either the way that the sola scriptura concept plays out or the way that the concept of the equality of scripture and tradition plays out. In addition to prima scriptura the anglicans add tradition and reason as long as they do not not contradict scripture while only the methodists also add experience (the wesleyan quadrilateral.)

    Check out the article in Wikipedia on ‘sola scriptura.’ That article also describes what sola scriptura sometimes looks like in the hands of some baptists and evangelicals. All of these ideas have to be seen in the light of how they actually play out in real life, and to be trite but accurate in some of it ‘you had to be there’ to see what the effect is in people’s lives. It is not enough to take the test on paper and get a good score; this is also a lab course and if you did not do the experiments but just tried to dry lab it that won’t give the same understanding of the subject. Thus, I take the test on paper in the anglican/methodist traditions, and I ‘took the test on paper’ in RCIA, but I got baptist/evangelical splashed all over me and it almost destroyed me.

  230. Muff Potter wrote:

    Gram3 does make a good point though about the stability of the ancient liturgical traditions

    Did I do that? 🙂

    I lose track of the threads, but my general thinking is that it is possible God permits various denominations because he has put his truth in various places to keep it safe. He holds a diversified portfolio. He doesn’t put all his eggs in one basket.

    The RCC was a much better church after the Reformation. From a purely economic standpoint, that makes sense. Competition and all that. If there had been no Reformation, the RCC would have become even more corrupt, because why not? That’s human nature.

    People go from one side of the Tiber to another in both directions. I think we believe that if we have been burned on one side, the solution lies on the other side, and we may not consider other possibilities.

  231. Ken wrote:

    Isn’t the idea of sola scriptura more to do with there is no written authorititive revelation outside the bible?

    That’s my understanding of the technical use. It is in opposition to the authoritative tradition of the RCC or EO. However, as a practical matter, as Nancy has noted, certain interpretations are assigned as the “right and only possible” interpretation and, in effect, become their own “authoritative traditions of the church” which negates the Sola principle.

  232. @ Gram3:
    Particularly amongst the Reformed, the secondary standards and sundry confessions have move on from being helpful summaries of basic doctrines to a means of screening out anyone who wants to think differently from the group-think.

  233. @ Ken:

    Since I am being shunned by my former reformedish Baptist church due to non-conformity to groupthink, I am inclined to agree with that. In fairness to the Reformed, the confessions are used to judge the clergy, and the laity have more latitude in theory. But the “contumacious” card is always held over their heads as well.

    However, confessions are not necessary for the phenomenon. Bob Jones University. My Pentecostal grandmother who had stunning white hair down to her knees that she bound up on top of her head. Grape juice-only churches. Wine-only churches. Dispensational pre-mill only. Reconstructionist post-mill only. Reformed amill only. Complementarianism only churches which shun and expel obnoxious comp-deniers like me.

    Cultural traditions and denominational traditions can both serve to negate the Sola principle.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Isn’t the idea of sola scriptura more to do with there is no written authorititive revelation outside the bible?
    That’s my understanding of the technical use. It is in opposition to the authoritative tradition of the RCC or EO. However, as a practical matter, as Nancy has noted, certain interpretations are assigned as the “right and only possible” interpretation and, in effect, become their own “authoritative traditions of the church” which negates the Sola principle.

    Ken wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Particularly amongst the Reformed, the secondary standards and sundry confessions have move on from being helpful summaries of basic doctrines to a means of screening out anyone who wants to think differently from the group-think.

    In other news, the Shepherds Conference Inerrancy Summit is under way in MacArthurville, CA. Most of the usual suspects are there– Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Trueman, DeYoung, Sproul Sr… But no Mahaney. And, I would suspect, no Arminians!

  235. Dave A A wrote:

    In other news, the Shepherds Conference Inerrancy Summit is under way in MacArthurville, CA.

    Hmmm. I see that they think that it will take them many days and many speakers to convince the attendees that their particular understanding of inspiration/ inerrancy/ infallibility is correct. I wonder why. I would think that some idea if it were adequately spelled out in scripture would not take that much face time with potential converts to the idea. Or else, maybe some of the attendees are having trouble defending some particular understanding of i/ i/ i against other’s people’s take on it.

    I mean, with “Jesus saves” you can alway note that the bible says that and the church has said that for a couple thousand years and we all now say that, and it doesn’t take that much defending as an orthodox doctrine. It does make one wonder about their particular understanding of i/ i/ i if it takes all that much explaining/ convincing.

  236. Dave A A wrote:

    In other news, the Shepherds Conference Inerrancy Summit is under way in MacArthurville, CA. Most of the usual suspects are there– Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Trueman, DeYoung, Sproul Sr… But no Mahaney. And, I would suspect, no Arminians!

    And once again…no wives please.

    Please note, the Shepherds’ Conference is specifically geared for men only. Our purpose is to minister to the pastors, elders, and leaders of the local church. We encourage you to allow us to serve these men by not bringing your spouse to the conference.

    Not to worry. If they have any questions, they can ask their husbands at home. 🙂

  237. Victorious wrote:

    Not to worry. If they have any questions, they can ask their husbands at home.

    You’d think some the wives would get kind of tired of the pat answers and start searching the scriptures themselves. You’d think some of them might like to see what is written in the Bible without the male lordship lens distorting everything to the point of ridiculousness. You would think.

  238. Mara wrote:

    You’d think some the wives would get kind of tired of the pat answers and start searching the scriptures themselves.

    I would think that the wives who marry these men are not like that. (The conference does focus on men in religious leadership positions, I think.) I think that the way the system is set up in baptofundygelical circles a road to being a chief hen in the pecking order is to marry the preacher (variously defined) and ride his coat-tails to the top. The top of what I am not sure, but I think some folks see it that way. So to strike out on your own with actually trying to think and study and come to conclusions would be counterproductive as a way to get ‘to the top.’ If they had been that sort of person, surely they would have been that sort of person probably from childhood, and very probably would not marry as/ who they did in the first place.

    Now, there are christian traditions in which the wife of the leader does have an actual leadership position (variously defined but sometimes co-pastor) and that would be different for them.

  239. @ Nancy:

    I think you are right on target. The thing with wealth and power is that they are both relative values. I’m powerful if I’m more powerful than someone else. I’m rich if I’m richer than someone else.

    In the “comp” system or actually any male-exclusive or dominated system, the way for a woman to have power and possibly wealth is to advocate for the system which benefits *her* husband. That means keeping the supply of competitors out of the marketplace in general to keep her husband’s market value supported and also to exclude other women from meaningful ministry in the local church. She wins in a system in which women in general lose.

    I could make a list of women, but you probably already know their names. Real Wives of the Gospel Glitterati are the top examples of this, but the local queen bee knows how the game is played, too.

    On the i/i/i thing, I wonder if the point is to defend a view of the Bible or to defend a view of the Bible which is useful to support their authority. There is a big difference in those two things. I am undecided about whether all of them realize that. I suspect that some of them do.

    I believe in i/i/i but I acknowledge it is a *faith* position just like faith in other things we can’t know and which defy what we *do* know. However, the Holy Spirit is not limited by what any of us believes. Thankfully.

  240. Nancy wrote:

    If they had been that sort of person, surely they would have been that sort of person probably from childhood, and very probably would not marry as/ who they did in the first place.

    Yes, indeed. That makes a lot of sense.

  241. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    If they had been that sort of person, surely they would have been that sort of person probably from childhood, and very probably would not marry as/ who they did in the first place.
    Yes, indeed. That makes a lot of sense.

    But at some point, wouldn’t maturity, common sense, and interaction with others result in a growth from childhood conditioning? Not only do people grow in their understanding of politics, social etiquette, etc. but in spiritual matters as well. Unless, of course, the price is too great to pay for intellectual growth which very well may be the case.

  242. Victorious wrote:

    But at some point, wouldn’t maturity, common sense, and interaction with others result in a growth from childhood conditioning?

    Some change dramatically, and some don’t. Going away to college sometimes causes people to change greatly, and that’s probably why the uber-patriarchs don’t want their daughters to go to college. I suspect is a combination of personality and experience.

    The last person I wanted to marry was a pastor. Probably that was a good thing for all concerned considering questions are no longer allowed at church. Others think that being married to a pastor is a more “spiritual” path. I can think of a couple of instances where women chose marriage to a pastor/missionary who came from very conservative, even patriarchal culture, and who have moved toward the mutualist position. There aren’t any rules, I suppose.

  243. I have been thinking a lot about Calvinism lately. I have decided a lot about God’s omnipotence vs our free will is above my pay grade. I trust in God’s mercy, grace, and love.

  244. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe in i/i/i but I acknowledge it is a *faith* position just like faith in other things we can’t know and which defy what we *do* know.

    Do you do that, believe things which cannot be known and which defy things which are known? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying.

    I mean if, for example, if Jesus said something that would not fall into a category of something which cannot be known since we know who said it. But there are theological speculations which would fall into that category of the cannot be known. I think that when it comes to speculations one should specifically not call it a matter of faith. One might say, well that is interesting but without some evidence we have to just lay it aside. Surely one would not go further than that.

  245. Nancy wrote:

    Hmmm. I see that they think that it will take them many days and many speakers to convince the attendees that their particular understanding of inspiration/ inerrancy/ infallibility is correct. I wonder why. I would think that some idea if it were adequately spelled out in scripture would not take that much face time with potential converts to the idea. .

    Extraordinarily long for a conference, isn’t it? But of course, most attendees must already

  246. @ Nancy:

    It seems there are different definitions of “faith” being presumed. I’m not advocating a right/wrong scenario, but it is difficult to discuss a subject if we start with different definitions of that subject/word.

  247. Believe their particular understanding of i/i/i. So all these days of face time must be to train the attendees how to better convert their flocks.

  248. Nancy wrote:

    Do you do that, believe things which cannot be known and which defy things which are known?

    I believe in a God who became incarnate as the God-Man, who died, and was resurrected. Those are the kinds of things I have in mind that are issues of faith. AFAIK we can’t empirically prove any of those things, and AFAIK those things defy things which we do know empirically. We also believe that God will raise us at the Last Day. We can’t prove that, either. So, that’s the sort of thing I have in mind when I say “matters of faith.”

  249. Dave A A wrote:

    Believe their particular understanding of i/i/i. So all these days of face time must be to train the attendees how to better convert their flocks.

    Or conference fee justification. Or exposure to the books that need promoting.

  250. Victorious wrote:

    And once again…no wives please.
    Please note, the Shepherds’ Conference is specifically geared for men only. Our purpose is to minister to the pastors, elders, and leaders of the local church.

    Therefore, no egalitarians, with their female elders or pastors. And no Tim Keller-style complementarians, I suppose, who have female leaders of the local church, but just don’t ordain them as pastors or elders.

  251. @ Bridget:

    What different definitions? I see differences in ideas about what can or cannot be a matter of faith, but I don’t see different definitions of the word itself.

  252. Gram3 wrote:

    .
    Or conference fee justification. Or exposure to the books that need promoting.

    That, of course, being the bottom line!
    On the i/i/i thing, I’d go for inspired with few reservations, along with profitable, authoritative, sufficient (with caveats), etc. Infallible would require further clarification. And as for inerrant– which MacArthur chose as the conference topic, it’s meaningless to me unless we’re talking the original manuscripts, which we don’t have. And even then, it’d need defining. Is Nebuchadnezzar, for example, inerrant when he tells Daniel, “The spirit of the holy godS is within you”?

  253. Dave A A wrote:

    And as for inerrant– which MacArthur chose as the conference topic, it’s meaningless to me unless we’re talking the original manuscripts, which we don’t have.

    Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think it is entirely meaningless because it essentially acts as an axiom that grounds the authority of the texts. I don’t think it is necessary axiom because there are other grounds for the authority of the texts. And nuances are certainly called for when talking about these things.

    When I say inspired, I am making a faith statement that the words of the text are not merely the words of the human author and also that the words are not merely dictation taken by the human authors.

    By infallible, I mean that the Holy Spirit will accomplish all that he purposes to accomplish through the written word. And I should probably add the insight from Nick that we must always keep the Incarnate Word front and center. Although that tends a bit toward circularity since what we know of importance about Jesus comes from the written words.

    I can’t prove any of these, but the funny thing is I don’t need to, and consequently don’t need to argue with others. The most important thing is getting to the truth about the Incarnate Word and what he has done.

  254. @ Gram3:

    You sound like you stop short of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Is that correct?

    My problem would be with simply accepting ‘by faith’ the results and teachings of some conference of evangelical scholars while noting all the while that the same groups who might accept by faith the Chicago statement are some of the same who would deny that the historical ecumenical councils should be accepted. I can’t wrap my mind around any of that.

  255. Nancy wrote:

    I can’t wrap my mind around any of that.

    Take it by faith. 🙂

    WRT the Chicago Statement, I would need to parse it very, very carefully given the Cast of Characters who are also the Usual Suspects in other machinations. I think it has been nearly 10 years since I last read it, and then only casually.

  256. @ Nancy:

    The Chicago statement answers affirms “inerrancy” with this cognitive dissonance in Article 10:

    WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

    WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

    Sheesh! And those are the evangelical scholars!

    I am at a loss as to why Divinely Inspired has to also mean, inerrant. Inerrancy keeps us from falling in love with scripture.

  257. @ Nancy:

    That’s my point, no definition was given by anyone and it seemed like different presumptions were in play.

    The continuing discussion regarding inerrancy, etc. is a case in point. Everyone seems to have their own version (or caveats added) of what the word means 😉 to them.

    I agree with Lydia above about the Chicago Statement. Of course, if I don’t understand their statement, then I am just a deceived woman . . .

  258. Lydia wrote:

    I am at a loss as to why Divinely Inspired has to also mean, inerrant. Inerrancy keeps us from falling in love with scripture.

    I don’t think it does. Everyone is filling in some blanks. They may be different blanks and be filled in differently, but we all have blanks. If there is someone reading who doesn’t have some blanks, please let me know because I have a lot of questions!

    What strikes me from the portion you quoted is the strength of the affirmation which can be read either as an assertion of fact or as a statement of belief. It comes across to me as if they are stating a fact, and facts don’t require walking by faith. There is some appropriate modesty that is missing, IMO.

    Do you think that a belief in inerrancy of the originals *necessarily* keeps someone from falling in love with scripture?

  259. @ Gram3:
    To clarify, I don’t think that Divinely Inspired requires Inerrancy, depending on what someone means by inspired. Definitions are tricky when we are talking about God and how he works.

  260. Bonus essay question for all:

    In keeping with the main subject of the Post, can The Hound of Heaven serve as a model for the Reformed Doctrine of Irresistible Grace?
    Why or why not?

  261. Muff Potter wrote:

    In keeping with the main subject of the Post, can The Hound of Heaven serve as a model for the Reformed Doctrine of Irresistible Grace?
    Why or why not?

    Nope if applied to the individual! The hound keeps chasing after the person that is supposedly resisting or he wouldn’t keep running.

    However, if applied to the nation of Israel or the church in each generation, then perhaps it could apply a tad since it appears the hound keeps running after his people throughout time. However, I could argue against this second part just as easily as espouse it.

    🙂

  262. Gram3 wrote:

    What strikes me from the portion you quoted is the strength of the affirmation which can be read either as an assertion of fact or as a statement of belief. It comes across to me as if they are stating a fact, and facts don’t require walking by faith. There is some appropriate modesty that is missing, IMO.
    ?

    Very good point. But you know as well as I do that it is their interpretation they feel is inerrant. The battle for inerrancy in the SBC was nothing but a backlash to the culture and a battle for power. It ended with “no women teaching men” as an example of inerrancy.

    If one scribe throughout history misplaced one jot or tittle then it is NOT inerrant. They have basically redefined the word “inerrant”.

    And that is the problem because so much is proof texted and historical/cultural backdrop is ignored in interpretation, etc.

    Gram3 wrote:

    Do you think that a belief in inerrancy of the originals *necessarily* keeps someone from falling in love with scripture

    But we do not have the originals. So, to me, the point is moot. We spend too much energy on inerrancy and it is a distraction. Inerrancy has a tendency to also be understood as literal which can be a disaster, too

    The overarching narrative of “God rescues” is woven all through scripture. It is beautiful. But pastors rarely focus on the golden thread. I say this because if a scribe got one jot wrong or a translator made bad word choices for the Greek, it does not change the overarching narrative of: God rescues. That is what is Divine to me.

    I got so immersed in the details of scripture it wore me out and I finally came to the conclusion what I really wanted was the big picture. The grand and glorious theme. It is a collection of books and each book is part of the grand and glorious theme. It really is amazing. I have also enjoyed reading some of the books that a council of men in history decided should not be in scripture. :o)

  263. Muff Potter wrote:

    Bonus essay question for all:

    In keeping with the main subject of the Post, can The Hound of Heaven serve as a model for the Reformed Doctrine of Irresistible Grace?
    Why or why not?

    Because He does not need to hound you. You were chosen before the foundation of the world, before you were even born and before Adam even sinned. He has no need to hound you. It is a done deal already before you were born. The only question is when irresistible grace was set to kick in for you.

  264. @ Lydia:
    Thanks for that, and I see your point. I agree that “inerrancy” was the cloak for a power grab. And I agree that they mean to enforce their interpretations as the only inerrant interpretation, and if someone disagrees with them that person is disagreeing with God himself. The pride and arrogance which you and I, I believe, have seen in person is something to behold. I haven’t been behind the same scenes as you, but the play is certainly the same.

  265. Victorious wrote:

    And once again…no wives please.

    No wives?? Good Lord. It’s the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. How exactly is the presence of spouses supposed to keep them from serving the pastors?

  266. Reader wrote:

    How exactly is the presence of spouses supposed to keep them from serving the pastors?

    Maybe they want to talk to the attendees about porn use-including their own.

  267. Norman Workman wrote:

    In the poem, “Hound of Heaven,” can anyone explain what the final stanza, “Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.” means? Thank you.

    Norman Workman wrote:

    In the poem, “Hound of Heaven,” can anyone explain what the final stanza, “Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.” means? Thank you.

  268. Norman Workman wrote:

    n the poem, “Hound of Heaven,” can anyone explain what the final stanza, “Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.” means? Thank you.

    “He is speaking to the running, those who are running from God. The weakest and the blindest who cannot see that God loves them and wants to shower them with his love. But they don’t find the love they are seeking because they have rejected it from God. God is saying, “You drove love away from yourself because you have driven my love away from you.”

    http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-last-line-of-Francis-Thompsons-poem-The-Hound-of-Heaven-mean