"Change is here to stay…"
C.J. Mahaney
Denver Broom and Shovel Sculpture
When I was working on the previous post regarding Mark Dever and his infamous 9Marks, I attempted to pull up C.J. Mahaney's blog – C.J.'s View from the Cheap Seats. Perhaps you remember some of those posts where Mahaney interviewed high profile Christian leaders, asking them a series of questions. It was always interesting to see how these men would respond to his question — "What do you do for exercise?"
Well, Mahaney's mantra "Change is here to stay" also applies to the blogosphere. Looks like 'Sovereign Grace Churches' (note the name change) are in the process of revamping their website, and things they are a-changin'.
When I searched C.J. Mahaney, Mark Dever and C.J.'s View From the Cheap Seats, here are two entries that came up (see screen shot below):
But when I clicked on each of these links, this is a screen shot of what I saw:
As of now, Justin Taylor's website over at The Gospel Coalition still features C.J. Mahaney's statement from 2011 – Why I'm Taking A Leave of Absence. You may remember that Mahaney's statement first appeared on the Sovereign Grace Ministries website but was later removed by Dave Harvey, who was serving as interim president of the SGM Board.
Speaking of Dave Harvey, I searched the new website www.sovereigngrace.com and found absolutely nothing! For those of you who may not be familiar with him, Harvey was one of the key leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) who pastored at Covenant Fellowship Church in Pennsylvania. When Mahaney stepped down as President of SGM, Harvey succeeded him (as his zoominfo shows). Dave Harvey left SGM a few years ago and now pastors at a church in Florida.
Getting back to the scrub job, when I searched 'C.J. Mahaney' on the new website these two items came up, among other posts that mention his name (see screen shot):
When I clicked on each of these links, this is what immediately appeared:
Adrian Warnock, who blogs over at Patheos, wrote a post on February 1, 2008, entitled 8th Most Read Post – Interview with C.J. Mahaney. As you can see from the screen shot below, he states that he has known Mahaney since the 1980s. What is helpful about his writing is that he documents when Mahaney launched his blog – January 2008. If you attempt to click on the link to C.J.'s blog in Warnock's post, you will see the words "Page Not Found".
And Adrian Warnock gives credit where credit is due in this 2008 post — it was Mark Dever and Company (that would be Mahaney's T4G buddies) who introduced C.J. to a 'new audience'. As we have seen in recent years, the Neo-Cals are a loyal bunch that really knows how to stand by their man.
Even though Mahaney's posts have disappeared from the Sovereign Grace website, it appears they have been transferred to a new web location called Bloglovin'. I was not familiar with it, so I consulted the Wiki article, which states:
Bloglovin is a platform that allows users to read, organize, and discover their favorite blogs on mobile and desktop. It is a design-focused platform that aggregates feeds from sources with RSS feeds, allowing users to discover and organize content.[1] As of April 2014, Bloglovin’ reaches over 16 million global users monthly.[2] Bloglovin caters primarily to the “lifestyle” crowd.[3] 90% of Bloglovin’s users are female.[4]
There is a listing of posts written by C.J., but in order to read them you have to log in. You can even 'subscribe'. It is interesting that one now has to take these extra steps to read anything written by Mahaney.
For those of you who are loyal Mahaney fans, you will be pleased to know that he's back on the conference circuit. He will be speaking July 29 – August 1 at WORSHIPGOD2015. The topic is "Triune", and the event will take place at Highview Baptist Church, which last time we checked was the church where Al Mohler is a member.
It has been interesting to see this 'family of churches" go from being called People of Destiny to PDI International to Sovereign Grace Ministries to Sovereign Grace Churches. And it still seems strange that the name of the co-founder of this church planting network, C.J. Mahaney, is nowhere to be found with the exception being the Books category under Resources.
Yep, summer is a time when many of us are busy with vacation plans and other distractions. What better time to make significant adjustments to the Sovereign Grace website, hoping those changes will slip through unnoticed?
We still don't get why those who emphasize God's sovereignty (SOVEREIGN Grace) appear to be in a constant state of transition? What a contrast to our Heavenly Father who asssured us:
"For I the Lord do not change…" Malachi 3:6 (ESV)
Thoughts?
First? and I don’t even live here…
Second!! I was posting something on the open discussion.
I’ve been so AWOL that I’m thrilled to be in the top 3 or 5!
@ Mara:
Glad you're back.
@ Ted:
Congrats! Glad to get the post up early (for a change) – speaking of change…
__
“Mr. Clean Jeans Religious Circuit Rider?”
hmmm…
scrub ba dub, Mahaney’s in da tub,
hahahahahaha
figures.
Deb,
The higher they wanna fly, the harder they haveta flap?
ATB
Sopy
—
There are a lot of inconvenient truths out there about CJ and SGM. Changing names, changing web site locations, etc., deleting posts (I think were you found it is not because of CJ or his people, but someone who wanted to preserve the stuff for later use), all of that is about hiding the inconvenient truths about CJ, about SGM, about NeoCals. The Bible does say that God is sovereign, but NeoCals do not understand what sovereignty really means. The Bible also says a lot of things that contradict NeoCal theology, including the predominant characteristic of God being love and “Whosoever believes will be saved”. The world is not a clock working out a script from the beginning of time, and our loving God did not create some of us for the sole purpose of sending us to hell. Otherwise God created some of these pastors to be abusers, perhaps because He needs an excuse for them to populate the nether regions of eternity; they get good things in this world and will pay the price for it, like Dives, in the next.
__
Flight Of Fancy: Now sexual abuse at SGM/SGC never really happened?
What?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6zTMiut2fo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJhOWu4yQs
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=sovern%20grace%20ministries%20sexual%20abuse&sm=3
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/transcripts/
https://scribd.com/sgmwikileaks
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/
***
Who will fight for the SGM/SGC victims of sexual abuse?
…has there cry fallen on deaf ears?
(sadface)
Sopy
—
Internet Archive to the rescue!
https://web.archive.org/web/20130515003341/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/
One must rewrite history in order to “rebrand” themselves?
Deb wrote:
And “speaking of Dave Harvey”
The reason you found absolutely nothing on the SG website?
*There never was a Comrade Dave– ees party line! Just like Comrade Larry!”
Seriously, I remember an announcement when he resigned from being a aPostle, in order to devote his energy to the local church. But then about 6 months later, he just disappeared from the local church, and then showed up in Florida. Did he do something to upset CJ? Or did he or a family member make some “mistakes”? I can never seem to get “changes” at SG straight.
More importantly, did TWW ever discuss the pampered pedophiles Detwiler posted about here http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/a-victims-anguished-letter-to-dave-harvey-revealing-sexual-a.html ?
“For those of you who are loyal Mahaney fans, you will be pleased to know that he’s back on the conference circuit. He will be speaking July 29 – August 1 at WORSHIPGOD2015. The topic is “Triune”, and the event will take place at Highview Baptist Church, which last time we checked was the church where Al Mohler is a member. ”
Also the church of former pastor Kevin Ezell who is now Pres of SBC NAMB and responsible for SBC monies going to plant Acts 29 churches. Russ Moore took over his preaching at Highview (double dipping while Dean at SBTS) before he was appointed to ERLC and the SBC spokesperson for all things political.
@ Lydia:
Thanks for bringing up these additional connections to Highview Baptist Church.
Deb wrote:
Most SBC entity heads have a direct connection to Highview’s most famous member – Al Mohler. Ezell was Mohler’s pastor at Highview. Russell Moore was Mohler’s Dean of Theology at Southern. New Calvinists now control 7 of 11 SBC’s principle organizations, including its leading seminaries, home mission agency, foreign mission venture, and publishing house. Mohler’s influence within SBC and the greater New Calvinist community cannot be ignored. He is the Kingpin. His stack of influence is bigger than all the rest! While the little guys like Devers and MacDonald drag a few thousand members along, Mohler is escorting a multi-million member denomination into the reformed movement with the finely executed strategy of a military general. Maybe he is smarter than all the rest of us!
My parents grew up in North Dakota and a lot of people changed their name in the late thirties and early forties, no one wanted the last name Hitler. More recently Isis, a mobile payment company changed their name with the rise of the militant Islam group.
Sometimes there is no way to redeem a bad reputation and you just have to move on. At least this indicated somebody heard the complaints.
@ Chemie:
Thank you for looking this up.
@ Ted:
Yay!!
@ Max:
“Mohler’s influence within SBC and the greater New Calvinist community cannot be ignored. He is the Kingpin.” He sound’s like the linchpin too.
Bloglovin’ is just a blog reader, just like Google Reader used to be. It only shows what is on a blog in your feed so you don’t have to go looking for new posts. I read Wartburg Watch through my Bloglovin’ feed! 🙂
As a longtime former SGM member (8 years in, 5 years to the day out since then, thank you Jesus, glory hallelujah, amen!) I would be happy enough for CJM’s teaching to disappear completely – except that I think there needs to be enough documentation left behind to serve as a cautionary tale for other wannabe celebrity church leaders.
I wrote this four years ago: http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2011/07/my-thoughts-on-cj-mahaney-and-sovereign.html
And this two years ago: http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2013/05/sovereign-grace-and-saving-face-amended.html
Thankfully, the church we were in has since left SGM. Good move.
BTW, the No Longer Quivering web site just cross-posted my article “What To Do About Toxic Power in Marriage” here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/07/what-to-do-about-toxic-power-in-marriage/
Bloglovin’ is just an aggregator that people use to follow blogs. I actually follow YOUR website through Bloglovin’. CJ Mahaney’s blog posts are NOT hosted on Bloglovin’.
You should probably consult with The Man Behind the Curtain on this one. When I look at the listings on Bloglovin’ the most recent one from CJ was from 2012. I’m not quite sure how it works, but I have had issues with Bloglovin’ in the past. I get daily notices of blog posts in my email from the blogs I follow, but occasionally the link in the email does not go to the post. Usually, it means that the author has changed the slug and so the URL is no longer valid. It looks to me like the URLs from CJ’s old posts have been recorded on Bloglovin’, but they have been deleted on the website.
I believe the motivating factor behind Sovereign Grace Ministries changing their corporate name to Sovereign Grace Churches is to better “serve” the unwashed masses – those that have no idea of the horrible history of sexual abuse in Sovereign Grace Ministries/Sovereign Grace Churches corporation.
Perhaps some individual is contemplating attending a Sovereign Grace Ministries/Sovereign Grace Churches local church. Prior to doing so this individual wisely searches the internet to garner further information on the brand. It would not “serve” him (nor the corporation) well if he googled “Sovereign Grace Ministries” and was directed to the numerous articles dealing with the sexual abuse scandal in the Sovereign Grace Ministries/Sovereign Grace Churches corporation. On the other hand, it would “serve” him (and the corporation) well if he googled “Sovereign Grace Churches” and nothing from the corporation formerly known as Sovereign Grace Ministries appeared.
You may notice in the Sovereign Grace Ministries/Sovereign Grace Churches blog that Executive Director of the SGM/SGC corporation, Mark Prater had this to say:
“A special thanks to Bryan DeWire for the amount of time and effort he put into pulling this project off. I also want to thank Church Plant Media for their tremendous help in preparing this website with us.”
http://www.sovereigngrace.com/sovereign-grace-blog/post/check-out-our-new-website
Brian Dewire is the media man for Sovereign Grace Ministries/Sovereign Grace Churches. He was hired about 18 months ago after “serving” John Piper so well in a similar position for Desiring God ministries.
Check out this link and you will see praises heaped on Church Plant media from all the usual suspects, proving once again that the neo-cals are a rather tight family!
http://www.churchplantmedia.com/testimonials
Lydia wrote:
the chocolate ration of twenty grams has been INCREASED to ten grams, comrade.
An Attorney wrote:
ChEKA changes name to OGPU which changes name to NKVD which changes name to KGB…
Whatever the name, the mass graves in GULAG still fill with victims.
Do you all remember that once upon a time, Sovereign Grace Ministries was known as People of Destiny International (PDI)? I think there had been some bad press before this. This isn’t the first time they changed names to start fresh!
@ Elizabeth Lee:
Thanks for the info. I guess what’s important is that Mahaney’s writings are no longer linked to the SGC website.
Bill M wrote:
A pattern of name changes also happens to be a common sign of a cultic or unethical organization, be it secular or religious. If an organization has a good name and a good reputation built round it, they will fight to keep it. If an organization has burned bridges and hurt people, they will do whatever they can to jettison that name and shed some of the bad reputation. This process appears to be nothing like that of the handful of occasions where they Lord gave someone a new name because it had a deep spiritual meaning.
The important thing is that the Phoenix pastor rises from the ashes again to bless us all with good Gospel™ preaching as only he can! And all the people drank their koolaid and said Ahhhhh-men.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
I remember CJ and People of Destiny a long time ago in the UK. There was a lot of talk back then that we, like King David, should ‘serve God in our generation’. If you think about it, we don’t have much choice about that, do we!
It struck me back then that a title like People of Destiny was a way of flattering ourselves – in my neck of the woods we thought we were ‘restoring’ the NT church, which is no bad aim, but can lead to pride at being better than the historic churches around. Pride and grace cannot co-exist, you’ll end up with either one or the other.
Incidentally, the bible never puts adjectives like sovereign before the word grace, so perhaps we ought to think twice before we do.
__
“The Calvinist’s Gospel is Good News?”
hmmm…
C.J. Mahaney’s gospel now includes the wonton wholesale destruction of large quanities of human souls by the god he preaches about that is some how glorified by this divine effort.
Welcome to John Calvin’s 500 year religious nitemare?
(sadface)
You decide.
ATB
Sopy
—
.
Donna wrote:
Indeed … Al Mohler is both Kingpin and Linchpin of the New Calvinist movement within SBC! As with an axle, he is the locking linchpin inserted in the end of the shaft to prevent the wheel from slipping off. While there are other key SBC reformed players on the bus, and a host of non-SBC influencers who are aggressively at work to steer a generation of 20s-40s into reformed theology … Al Mohler stands head and shoulders above the rest – he has taken on the spirit of John Calvin himself! SBC’s non-Calvinist leadership in the 1990s-2000s should have never surrendered so much ground to Dr. Mohler. His intent to reform the SBC was clear from his convocation speech during his crowning as President of Southern Seminary. Clearly opposed to SBC’s majority belief and practice, he should have been held accountable at that point. Efforts now are too little too late … but God.
Sopwith wrote:
“And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Luke 2:10).
The Calvinist Gospel that some are saved and some are damned before they ever draw breath, with no free will to respond by faith and exercise a choice in their eternal destiny, is clearly not good news for ALL people. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on the planet and look anyone in the eye and say “Jesus loves YOU; He died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do this and hold true to his faith. Delivering the Calvinist God to lost souls is not the good news we should be packing to a fallen world.
__
“Kiss Your @ZZ Goodbye?”
hmmm…
501(c)3 ‘religious’ men like C.J Mahaney. are following a 500 hundred year old religious system created by 16th century theologan John Calvin.
Present day Calvinism presents TULIP as the gospel replacing the simple words of Jesus. Their god condems men prior to birth to rot in hell, their god does this presumably just for kicks.
I kid you not. 🙁
Do diligence. Do your own research. Be a Berean.
You will be glad you did.
(All I can do is warn and tell the truth, the rest is up to you.)
Your @zz is your own…watch it, huh?
You decide.
ATB
Sopy
—
.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
Again, ChEKA rebrands themselves as OGPU which rebrands themselves as NKVD which rebrands themselves as KGB…
Max wrote:
Why even bother “delivering the Calvinist God to lost souls”?
They are Predestined as Elect or Predestined to Eternal Hell so evangelism will have no effect either way.
In’shal’lah… Eh, Kismet?
Sopwith wrote:
No, their god does this “Just Because I Will It. JUST. BECAUSE. I. CAN.”
Law Prof wrote:
Another possibility to go alongside the one you cite is that name-changes may be an expression of the ruling leadership’s own psychological needs. They may feel that they’re losing control, and a change in name – with the associated change in direction, strategy and structure – is a good way of throwing some people overboard. Or they may simply enjoy the process of steering the ship; cf Jack Sparrow’s comment: What a ship is – what the Black Pearl is – is freedom. They can have a lot of fun re-shaping the organisation, rather like I’m personally having a certain amount of fun landscaping our garden by building raised beds, paths, terraced beds and retaining walls. Hard work, obviously, but when the concrete’s set, the brickwork in place and the raspberry canes and salad leaves flourishing in what used to be an unusable rubble-strewn slope, I can look at it and think: I did that. * The CEO of a religious organisation often likes to keep leaving his mark on it and re-shaping it according to “the vision the Lord has given me”.
* OK, well, not all of it – I build stuff, and Lesley grows stuff. So the terraced bed was my bit, but transplanting the raspberry canes was Lesley’s bit.
I realise Jack Sparrow isn’t a real person, obviously.
Sopwith wrote:
Was this really invented by Calvin?
Or were there precursors? Was this sort of thinking addressed in any of the books of the bible, or writings of the “church fathers”?
Just curious.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I remember when Terry Virgo changed the rather limp Coastlands to New Frontiers, rather than meaning wanting to push the envelop as to what the group could do in terms of evangelism and church planting, he inadvertently was going to build New Barriers between his churches and many of the others. This was, I think, indicative of a certain amount of disillusionment creeping in with the outfit.
Incidentally, PDI had a song called I have a destiny I know I shall fulfill (and not a bad song either), but some English wit changed the first line to I have a vest on me, and from then on I could never hear it without thinking of the revised version wording!
I still think you are a secret henge maker. 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, that is my concern about the proliferation of New Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. This once-great denomination carried a gifting of evangelism and mission to the world; that gift appears to have been surrendered as Southern Baptists wrangle over doctrine. “Evangelism” designed to focus on harvesting the “elect” is a much different approach than taking the message and Cross of Christ to the whole world. Calvinists will tell you that’s what they do; but they are not.
refugee wrote:
The true reformers were the Anabaptists, but Calvin’s magisterial reformers attempted to snuff them out. The spirit of Calvin continues to war against the free church and the message of Christ of ALL people … whosoever will may come.
__
refugee wrote:
***
Please check out Forth Century theologian Augustine, John Calvin copied his stuff almost word for word…in his ‘Institutes’…
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
.
refugee wrote:
The best thing you can do is to do your own study and make up your own mind from there. It’s both hard and scary to step out on your own. Hard because the investigation you launch can have all the twists and turns of the Warren Commission. And scary because the onus is on you to think for yourself, not what others tell you you must buy into, but what you choose to buy into of your own accord.
@ Sopwith:
Thanks. Good to have a starting place.
@ Muff Potter:
True. I was just looking for some ideas on where to start looking. There is an awful lot of material out there.
refugee wrote:
p.s. Have been learning about Augustine this spring, and the more I learn, the more I see his influence in the patriarchy we came out of, and the more f—d up it all looks due to his seriously f—d up ideas. At least IMO.
Dave Harvey is pastoring an Evangelical Free Church in Florida. This highlights many of the issues in the Evangelical Free Church by the way.
Here’s my latest post. Ken Ham recently blamed homosexuality for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C. This is my response. I am tempted to start a “Go Fund Me” to purchase a one way plane ticket for Ken Ham back to Australia. This post also explains why there is no covenant between God and the United States.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/ken-ham-believes-homosexual-activity-is-why-the-september-11-2001-terrorist-attacks-occurred/
When I get home tonight my next post will go up. Its about atheism and losing faith. Its inspired by something I read at Neil Carter’s Godless in Dixie.
Pingback: Linkathon! » PhoenixPreacher | PhoenixPreacher
@ refugee:
Augustine has been redefined. Augustine is Catholic. He writes some stuff like City of God IIRC that I think many Neo-Calvinists ignore. HUG, Max, Lydia can you speak to this?
refugee wrote:
In my own journey, the parameters which are non-negotiable for me are the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed. They afford me a wide latitude of conscience and intellectual freedom. So much so that some of my ideas will cause Catholics, Calvinists, and unaffiliated Evangelicals to all bristle and get their hackles up.
Eagle wrote:
Oddly enough, the new calvinists of our acquaintance are holding up Augustine as some sort of paragon. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember Kevin Swanson hawking a study guide to City of God. I do remember hearing City of God mentioned in a positive light, and perhaps selections studied, in our hyper-calvinist high school homeschool co-op class. I was pretty beleaguered at the time and didn’t read everything my highschoolers were reading for that class. (‘Cause, y’know, it was offered to and by families in the *church*, and you can trust the *church*, can’t you? Um.)
@ refugee:
No, I’m wrong, Swanson’s study guide involved Augustine’s Confessions. Maybe the high school class did, too. I don’t have that reading list anymore. I recycled almost everything from that era in our life.
Huh. While following a link to something, I stumbled across an old article here on TWW about homeschool hijackers (very relevant to me today, one of the things I’ve been processing lately), and while looking for the “we’ll deal more with this issue tomorrow” I stumbled across a SBC name change article. Seems relevant to today’s discussion.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/09/20/sbc-leaders-explore-name-change/
__
refugee wrote:
Refugee,
hey,
You might find this helpful:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLAD5878E4F86B23CF&v=ch6niCdIv_Q
ATB
Sopy
—
refugee wrote:
So just like Calvin, Augustine Can Do No Wrong?
Auggie brought a lot of baggage from his prior lifestyle into his conversion, and not taking that into account has put churches onto a lot of false-trail tangents in the past. Just as a Kid Genius is nothing but a Giant Brain in a Jar (no kid connected), so this Saint is nothing but Theology in a Jar (no human being connected in any way). Kind of like how JFK the Legend now bears little resemblance to John Kennedy the man.
refugee wrote:
Like I said just above, Monica’s son Auggie brought some personal baggage into his works.
In regards to women, he lived in a male-superiority culture. In addition, before his conversion he was a real horndog and afterwards a sworn celibate living monastically; at no time did he ever interact with women as people — before they were sex objects and afterwards they were Forbidden Fruit.
And his experience in a Gnostic cult which taught that the Spiritual (GOOD!) and Physical (BAAAAAD!) were two completely-different things with NO commonality, completely opposite from the Jewish idea that body and soul, physical and spiritual were both parts of a holistic Reality.
AND NOBODY SEEMS TO TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT! IT’S LIKE HE WAS AUTOMATIC-WRITING HIS THEOLOGY DIRECT FROM GOD OR SOMETHING! WHERE’S MONICA’S SON AUGGIE (A MAN TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF HIS FAITH AND EXPERIENCE) IN ALL OF THIS?
Muff Potter wrote:
And everyone else will be driven by Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory, for Paul, or Apollos, or Hambone. Like I say far too often to my writing partner, “Did we go batsh*t crazy, or did everybody else?”
Sopwith wrote:
So Calvin was an Augustine Fanboy writing Augustinian Fanfic?
Max wrote:
More like The Spirit of Calvin continues to war against all that is Not-Calvin.
TOTAL War.
@ Sopwith:
Thank you!
Dave Harvey is also attempting to earn some coin from a new ministry he started called “Am I Called?”
http://amicalled.com
He authored a book by the same title years ago while still one of the leaders in Sovereign Grace Ministries. When I was a member at Sovereign Grace of Gilbert, AZ the church distributed those books to all the men. I assume the book was distributed at all Sovereign Grace churches.
Harvey’s fall from grace was rather rapid in SGM. Brent Detwiler has a done a good job of exposing his total lack of credibility, but that doesn’t phase the celebrity christian crowd. His website is full of endorsements by all the big shots.
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/3/4/dave-harveys-deceitful-leadership-covered-up-and-left-uninve.html
Comrade Mark Prater has served the party well with this new vebsite of shining truth!
It seems that comrade CJ has diplomatic immunity…er, I meant gospel centered diplomatic immunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jROX5HPOn8
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
him goat! him goat! ======> (Muff Potter)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
There’s a cult of “man who can say what I want to say better than I can say it” that seems to be a direct result of the human condition if not checked.
Heck, I fall into quoting CS Lewis for lots of things. I don’t worship the man, but he had a way with words that just connects to my mind. If I’m not careful that can run off the rails and lead to a world of crazy.
He was merely a man trying to comprehend.
At least CS Lewis is long dead – Mahoney and these guys seem to revel in their status in the present, before their works and lives have stood the test of time, or heck, even present-day criticism.
Muff Potter wrote:
Makes you wonder whatever would God do on J-Day without His Anointed Elect to tell him Who Is REALLY Saved — “ME SHEEP! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT!”
God is really lucky to have them, isn’t He?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
What is even MORE interesting is that AFTER he became a Christian he banished his long time concubine and mother of his child instead of marrying her because she was the wrong social class. She never got to see her son again because Augustine kept him from her. Yeah, real Christian behavior.
@ Eagle:
Augustine did not read Greek which seems to have been a part of the problem. Some of his translations of the parables is ridiculous. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why he is considered such an expert today. Not that he was the first but perhaps the first to “spread” the concept of “original sin” in his writings which frankly seems to have been brought in from the Greek Pagan stuff and Mani whom he studied vigorously.
This is a man who wanted to wipe out the Donatists because they were refusing to take communion from corrupt priests. Augustine insisted it did not matter if they were corrupt. Sound familiar? If they had correct doctrine, nothing else mattered?
Refugee, an easy read to get you started and is a sort of overview of what we are discussing would be Leonard Verduin’s, “The Reformers and their Stepchildren”. He was a historical scholar.
@ Dave A A:
Being an Apostle means never having to say you are sorry. Comrade Harvey did not have to live up to the same standards of those who sacrificed their tithes for SGM. They got to give money and put up with it.
doubtful wrote:
The question about this is why? We do know he gave lots of moola to SBTS. The seminary recorded that donation. The question is-did he ever donate money to other churches/pastors? I don’t know…
Not for nothin, but a few posts ago I jumped into the conversation by asking “why all the hatin on Calvinism” since my church experience in the Presbyterian church did NOT involve all the horrible things being ascribed to “Neocals” and then to the larger Reformed movement. I asked a few more questions and was told among other things that folks were weary of having these same discussions over and over. But I have to say, I see a lot of folks not discussing the OP so much as lashing out at the boogeyman of Calvin wherever possible, while arguing against positions I’ve never heard anyone take outside of these “new guys”.
As I brought up before, I grew up in the Presbyterian church. I still attend that church, and we hold to a pretty much Reformed model. But here are a few points for folks to condsider, since now a larger theological discussion seems to be going on:
–we’re certianly NOT authoritarian (unlike these new guys)
–we ordain women (unlike these new guys)
–we believe in Divine election, and the inability of mankind to truly repent without the influence of the Holy Spirit, but we are NOT supralapsarians (unlike these new guys)
–we still believe in evangelizing EVERYONE and taking the Great Commission seriously. (God knows who will be saved, but we don’t) We certainly would NEVER presume to know who is going to be saved, and pray for everyone.
Another random thought: You can criticize “Neocals” for “beating you over the head” with Romans 9, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take Romans 8 and 9 seriously, does it?
Anyway, I hope it’s clear that I’m not sticking up for these new “hyper” Calvinist types who seem to make the same mistakes as a lot of other “new way” churches who adopt pet theologies and make them the centerpieces of their ministries. But I will tell you right now there are a LOT of honest, loving, God Fearing folk who are NOT Free-will, Wesleyan, Anabaptists and all that. (some of them are even Roman Catholic!!) If we are all truly weary of polemic, caustic theological division, maybe we stop firing wildly at anything or anyone that doesn’t “look” like us? It wounds me in my soul to see this happening.
(debated whether to hit send…just going to hit send and see what happens. I hope nobody takes any of this personally)
Jay wrote:
Glad you brought it up Jay. I had been debating something similar. Back when I still darkened the doors of churches, I knew a Calvinist who taught an adult Bible class. I still see him around town now and again and we’re still friends even though I’ve ditched large tracts of Augustinian theology. He’s still a kind and good man, of that I’m sure. How do I know? By his deeds. I don’t give a rat’s rip what he believes or disbelieves by way of theology. His deeds speak way louder and I’d vouch for him any day of the week and six ways to Sunday.
Lydia wrote:
I highly recommend it! Verduin tells it like it was and backs it up with documented facts. You will leave that book with a better understanding of the reformation and a great respect for the Anabaptists, the true forefathers of modern Baptists … not Calvinists.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
God won’t be able to do anything until Al Mohler gets there.
Jay wrote:
Jay, you are a blessed man to have missed out on the militancy of New Calvinism. As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, “old” Calvinism of the sort you cite has peacefully coexisted with the majority non-Calvinist within SBC. It wasn’t until the young, restless and reformed movement came along in recent years, that mainline Southern Baptists were concerned about reformed theology. But the YRR message of “You have lost the gospel and we are here to restore it” is wearing a lot of folks thin who have been out and about reaching the lost long before many of these whippersnappers were born and subsequently indoctrinated by Al Mohler, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, et al. New Calvinism ain’t your grandpa’s Calvinism … it’s arrogant, aggressive and downright mean-spirited.
Jay wrote:
I, for one, think we should take all of the Bible seriously. And a big part of taking the Bible seriously is applying a serious and consistent interpretive method. And part of a consistent, serious, and conservative interpretive method is studying a text in its contexts–literary, authorial, historical, and canonical. The reason that Romans 9-11 gets so messed up is that Paul’s argument is taken apart and pieces are read as if the entire argument did not exist. Combine that with an *assumption* that the church is the New/True Israel, and you get off-track quickly. But if you remember that “Jews” means “Jews” and “gentiles” means “gentiles” and “church” means believers which might be either ethnically Jewish or ethnically Gentile, then it is easier to keep the categories straight. Paul certainly could, and he is addressing a particular question in that argument, and the question is not “which individuals did God elect and predestine to save?”
@ dee:
MOM!!! Remember Mel Gibson’s Lethal Weapon 3? It dealt with that corrupt South African ambassador that when confronted with any act of corruption would say (in a South African accent…)
“Diplomatic Immunity!!”
Can you imagine CJ Mahaney doing the same thing. We may have the script for Lethal Weapon 5? 😛
GovPappy wrote:
Lewis (even long dead) up against Mahaney (or Mohler for that matter)? Surely you jest. It’d be like the Wehrmacht against the Polish cavalry in 1939. No need to figure out who would be who in such a comedic farce.
Max wrote:
Which illustrates just how absurd the whole idea is.
@ Max:
Had a long reply typed out, but then saw this. Exactly.
I’m a relative whippersnapper, but even I notice the difference.
@ Muff Potter:
Oh you won’t get any disagreement from me here! Just saying that even as much as I love me some CS Lewis, I still realize there’s a danger of being fixated on personality(s). Just because it’s a good personality don’t make it particularly healthy, just like a tyrant that does a lot of good with his power is still a tyrant.
GovPappy wrote:
I have a friend who no longer considers herself a Calvinist because of this new crowd.
“By their fruits you shall know them.”
Something’s missing from their system of faith if these guys are becoming known for so many things other than Jesus.
Max wrote:
Ditto my American Baptist Church, and only in the past two years.
I think most people in my church aren’t in the least aware of it, but the change in the adult Sunday classes has been no-doubt-about-it New Calvinism, inspired by Mark Dever and 9Marks–also the move toward an elder-led form of church government (again, most people don’t come to meetings or get involved in church gov’t, so they aren’t aware).
The proposed elder board would not include women, as does our current diaconate, but then it would be more “biblical.”
I won’t say that about the proponents of it in my church, but I will say that what they have been doing is legalistic, authoritarian (“complementarian”), systematic, and slow but relentless. Some of the videos, however, have been quite arrogant and aggressive.
This is all behind the scenes, but a few of us are very alert to it. The 1-1/2-hour morning service shows no discernible change as of yet.
GovPappy wrote:
Exactly. It’s a huge distraction to the worship of Jesus.
I only like the neo-Calvinism in “Calvin and Hobbes”
You know how John Piper is against women being muscular, or going to gyms, or knowing karate? I found this commentary about muscular women interesting.
“Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Body Shaming Black Female Athletes Is Not Just About Race”
by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
http://time.com/3964758/body-shaming-black-female-athletes/
I think he may be on to something there, why the John Pipers of the world have problems with women who work out.
GovPappy wrote:
BINGO! If you listen closely to New Calvinist sermons, you will hear a LOT about God, with only occasional mention of Jesus, and hardly a note about the Holy Spirit. They work Jesus into the mix by calling themselves Christ-followers rather than believers and there is a lot of gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that, without actually preaching the Good News about Jesus. The five letters they need to be focused on is JESUS rather than TULIP.
Ted wrote:
Sorry to hear that ABC-USA has been infiltrated by New Calvinism. They join a growing list of denominations falling for reformed theology around the country. Sounds like the leadership at your church has used “Model 1” in Calvinizing your church: stealth and deception. “Model 2” is a much easier row to hoe for young pastors: new church plant. When members get wise to the Model 1 traditional church takeover strategy, it typically results in weeping and gnashing of teeth and a church split. Hope you don’t experience that there, but the change in church governance to elder-rule will make those in-the-know nervous, especially as church decisions become more authoritarian.
You flag an underlying problem in traditional churches when you say “I think most people in my church aren’t in the least aware of it …” When folks in the pew are uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant of this aberrant theology coming in the back door, the are easy pickins. If you bring it up, you most likely will be chastised and shunned by the elder board.
Max wrote:
Preach on!
Lydia wrote:
Augustine did read Greek to a certain extent. However, he was not very good at it. He relied predominantly on the Old Latin version, which is not the best. And that is part of the reason he comes up with his version of original sin. This then comes to us with modifications, federal headship, in modern Calvinism.
The thing with his concubine, is interesting as well. Apparently their was some issue with her social status that made her unsuitable for marriage. However, apparently he was really enamored with her for the rest of his life. Never got over her.
I am currently rereading the Confessions. He is one confused dude. We get a lot of the Platonism that exists in current Protestantism, in my opinion from him.
He is an interesting man; however, the degree to which his ideas go unquestioned in a lot of Western Christianity is a problem, imho.
Jay wrote:
Jay, keep plugging away. I think we should all be willing to talk with people about the issues in the church. It is good to hear from someone in Calvinism. One of the problems with the NewCals is they talk with their NeoCal friends and read their NeoCal books and go to their NeoCal websites. A lot, including pastors, do not have many conversations with people outside the NeoCal sphere. I think we all can retreat into our own little camps.
One thing I get from people here, is that a lot of us have been hurt by Calvinism. I went to a local church for several years. Then we go a hyper Calvinist preacher, who was is his twenties. We already had a NeoCal assistant. Of course we were soon being taught theology out of Grudem. If you are an old time Calvinist, Grudem should concern you. Anyway, after beating my head against the wall for a couple of years, I could take it no longer. Every sermon had some Calvinist shading. In the prayer group we prayed about Calvinist things. We were singing songs with a Reformed twist.
I am not a fan of Calvin. Not a fan of his Institutes. But there have been a lot of wonderful Reformed individuals in the church. Glad to see you on this site.
@ Lydia:
Thank you!
A question: Is there a name attached to the “Phoenix pastor”?
Jay wrote:
I recall someone from the Balkins who said that the populations there were still animated over a battle fought in 1389, many still nursing the wounds. I wonder if this is not part of the reason for present ill will. The reformers, Calvin and friends, were a pretty bad bunch in regards to the treatment of their fellow man. Their history of persecuting the Anabaptists, hanging them publicly was well over the top. Drowning someone who had an adult baptism?
My eyes glaze over with the debates back and forth on systematic theology, I think much of it is just a way to be wrong with confidence, to quote a former president. I could be comfortable in much of Christianity and believe our treatment of each other is much more important that our theology.
Jack wrote:
I am not a 5-point Calvinist. I am, however, a stuffed tiger Calvinist. Hmm, I wonder if anyone has ever made a T-shirt with Calvin & Hobbes, with the word “CALVINIST” at the top. Would be fun to wear to our local Neocal service.
What would that Calvin’s 5 points be?
Will M wrote:
Full disclosure, I have a copy of Grudem’s Systematic Theology on my shelf, as it was part of a class series I took a few years back. There’s a LOT of good stuff in there, but not all of it I agree with, in particular the charismatic elements. I suppose that’s the Presbyterian in me, to the end…raising an eyebrow at people who raise their hands in church…and fuggedaboudit if you talk about tongues. There’s a reason folks call us the “Frozen Chosen”. 😉
As for old wounds, I mean hey, remember that time Nicholas slapped Arius in the FACE? I mean, THAT was crazy!
(Done) Just Watching wrote:
Yes, his name is Michael Newnham. He’s a great guy!
Jay wrote:
Now this should cause you to raise your eyebrows. I, along with my husband and friend taught through the entire book. During that time, we took care to point out where we disagreed. The best one for me was this. As we got to the section on women, which I taught (to a mixed class) I started by saying that Grudem would have a seizure if he knew a woman was teaching this!
@ GSD:
We named our third rescue pug Tulip! Can you imagine what fin I have with that one?
Bill M wrote:
I know. And this is why I worry about the NeoCalvinists have too much power in any church. The DNA is still there. But the bad DNA is present in anyone who gets pleasure from being in charge, even if it is a small church. There are far too many admirals in rowboats these days. That is why I will never sign one of those membership contracts. The boys are having too much fun being *in authority.*
I also have a copy of Grudem’s Symptomatic Theology on some shelf. Not everything he says is egregious. That is as kind as I can be.
okrapod wrote:
That is the correct word that I deliberately wrote, not some misspelling.
@ Jay:
Hi Jay
I certainly do not take this personally. I love a good debate. I have made it quite clear that our beef is with the authoritarian pastors which seem to be found, in higher concentrations, in the Neo Calvinist movement. I think that is why so many young men are attracted to the group. They can be 26 years old, just out of seminary, and *take charge* often with disastrous results.
I have often said that this does not apply to what I refer to as “your Daddy’s Calvinists.” I have been contacted by a number of professors in Reformed seminaries saying that John Piper, CJ Mahaney, Al Mohler, Doug Wilson and Mark Dever do not represent them in the least. Truly, I get it.
I also have some friends who are members of the OP and I enjoy talking with them at length. They are far more gracious and open to the various beliefs in terms of election by those who don’t see it in the same way.
Then you said
Jay wrote:
Here is a sticking point for me. If one disagrees with a certain interpretation, the charge is often made “you don’t take Scripture seriously.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have always taken Scripture dead seriously. I have read Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Sproul, Horton, etc. My faith is the most important thing in my life. I can assure you that I take all of Scripture seriously, I just view the “see it proves Calvinism, young earth, baptism, etc” differently. And so do many theologians through the centuries which make me believe that i am not far off the rails. Never, for a second, think that I am not dead serious in my view in Scripture.
Why do we cover so many NeoCalvinists? It’s really quite simple. We are watching trends developing.(Note our motto-dissecting Christian trends). We discuss those trends. Unfortunately, since about 2006, the NeoCalvinists have been hopping up and down, getting recognized in the media.
Its their own fault. With publicity comes critique.They want us to look at them. We do and sometimes we don’t like what we see.
If you read this blog throughout our 6 years of existence, you will see we have also critiqued those in the iFB, the prosperity movement, The ARC (Robert Morris), Ed Young Jr., John Yoder, an abusive Mennonite, and more churches and denominations across the spectrum than I can remember.
This blog is primarily interested in abusive issues in the church. The NeoCalvinists have unfortunately made a big splash in this area with Mark Driscoll, and more recently The Village Church and UCCD.
I can well assure you that had the OP made such headlines, we would be covering them as well.
I hope this explains things in a way that is helpful to you.
Later today I will be discussing the problem with believing that repentant pedophiles are heroes. I will be discussing something personal from my own life.
Muff Potter wrote:
This comment demonstrates why I love you, Muff!
okrapod wrote:
*Chuckle*
dee wrote:
“The SS — Young, Tough, and Cocky.”
— photo caption in a Sixties-vintage WW2 history
dee wrote:
Fuehrerprinzip — “GOD WILLS IT!”
Will M wrote:
Who needs Christ when We Have CALVIN!
Jay wrote:
As an old-line Presbyterian, how do you feel about Grudem’s doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son? Do you believe, as the Gospel Glitterati proclaim, that it has always been the orthodox view of the Trinity?
GSD wrote:
It would need to be the words TRUE Calvinist.
@ dee:
Dee, I think we’re on the same track. I’m just trying to make sure we’re not painting all Reformed folks with the same brush as the aforementioned 20-something super-duper pastors. It boggles my mind that someone under 30 would be suited to lead ANY church over 1000 people, much less a “mega” church of 10k+. Someone just out of seminary with an MDiv MIGHT be considered for the youth pastor slot at our church, but the search committee in looking for a new senior pastor isn’t going to give that guy a second glance. They just don’t have the chops yet.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m more of a “coequal, coeternal” type of guy. Is this not the “traditional” Orthodox view? Did Christ as God the Son not inherit his kingdom fully from God the Father once his initial work on Earth was complete?
Gram3 wrote:
In ESS, the Father’s boot is always stamping on the Son’s face. This establishes a Great Chain of Being Heirarchy justifying the Elect’s boot stamping on the sheep’s faces.
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort
Jay wrote:
part deux: while I believe coequal/coeternal, I do not believe that the Trinity consists of three Persons who are exactly the same. I also don’t know Grudem is implying that Jesus is eternally in a submissive/servant relationship with the Father, but rather, well, a Father/(adult) Son relationship. I think it’s a matter of what does Grudem *think* he means by “eternal submission” that we would need to examine.
I personally think the Father/adult Son relationship sounds more natural, since I don’t believe the 3 Persons are just interchangeable parts. The Son exercises authority, but is this as a result of the Father’s authority over all things? I honestly don’t know, and I haven’t been to seminary, and I haven’t honestly studied this particular theological point much.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know what ESS is, and I’m not sure this comment is, shall we say, particularly edifying? 😉
Jay wrote:
ESS, derp…ok, nm.
dee wrote:
That would fit a neighborhood pug – he is totally depraved ;^)
While hyper-Calvinists tip-toe through the tulips, hyper-Arminians pick the petals off daisies (I love you … I love you not … I love you … I love you not … etc.). The Truth lies somewhere in the flower bed between them.
Jay wrote:
That’s why reformed graduates fresh out of certain SBC seminaries are lining up for church plants. If they can’t get one of those appointments, they find a way to takeover a traditional church by stealth and deception. Church planting by the young, restless and reformed is more about planting theology than churches. These young folks leave seminary indoctrinated and fired up to be a part of the new reformation … they’ll do whatever it takes to push the movement forward.
Max wrote:
I have put it on my list.
@ Daisy:
This is a very interesting take, especially coming from an athlete, who knows something of building fitness and strength.
Bill M wrote:
Nice quote. Rings true.
GSD wrote:
Hmmm. What would they spell? T-I-G-E-R, perhaps?
Max wrote:
Nice word picture.
Max wrote:
Well, this will be the umpteenth time since I started reading this blog that I’m thankful for parliamentary procedures. You get ordained in ECO (or EPC, or PC-USA) and you don’t get to just grab a new “plant”. You get to start “apprentice” mode. I suppose at the extreme other end, we may risk overlooking someone young-ish who would have been great.
Jay wrote:
Hmmm. This bothers me somehow, though I can’t articulate it. But verses are flitting through the edges of my consciousness, about the Son’s role in Creation, for starters, and “I and the Father are one.” for another.
Not that I’m claiming the “interchangeable parts” theory, either.
refugee wrote:
Transmogrification
Irresistable…cuteness
That’s two?
dee wrote:
This will be tough. I am praying for you.
I don’t know why, but I am suddenly reminded of something Catherine Marshall said about her husband Peter, who was pretty well-known in his day (though it’s a bit before my time). Wasn’t he chaplain to the Senate?
Anyhow, after his death, she said she had a vision of him in heaven. He was very low and humble, kneeling and tending a garden bed of flowers, I think. In her dream, he was anything but heroic.
Oh, I’m not saying he was a pedophile! I guess my comparison is, if this “mighty man of God” was not a hero (at least in his wife’s heavenly vision), why should a pedophile be?
Don’t mind me, I haven’t had my coffee yet. My brain is very ADDish, distractable, and unable to focus.
@ refugee:
(and the details above are fuzzy and subject to inaccuracy… the memory is from my own mother, reading aloud to me from a book written by Catherine Marshall, because the passage struck her so powerfully… so it was a long time ago that I heard it. The essentials that I remember clearly were Peter Marshall, in heaven, humbly tending a flower bed.)
refugee wrote:
I think the most common interpretation is that the Son inherits his authority from the Father in the same sense that the ancient family structure may have had a father/patriarch, who invests his authority into his grown son? I’m probably making a hash of this.
Will M wrote:
Or indeed broken by it. The possibility God was/is the God of the double predestination doctrines was the final straw that broke my faith & me during my Mum’s death, as many here know. I find myself stuck being able to neither prove/disprove it after 20+years of praying & grappling with Scripture. When I see those such as Piper delight in this God I feel like the mouse watching the cat realise it’s hungry.
Jay wrote:
I think Hobbes would adore the word Transmogrification.
refugee wrote:
I’m glad you got something out of it too.
I too found it very interesting, especially in light of some of the odd ball complementarian beliefs about women, especially things like Piper’s opinions about muscular women or women who work out in gyms.
dee wrote:
Heroes who get to teach sexual purity classes to adults to boot. I don’t know whether to puke, laugh, or cry about that.
refugee wrote:
Actually a misquote of John Adams whom I believe had a dislike for the clergy. Another quote of his: “The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.”
Jay wrote:
You are apparently unaware, as many are and as I once was, that ESS is a core doctrine of Grudem’s and Piper’s and Ware’s theology which they have passed along to their disciples. Both TgC and T4g promote the ESS heresy.
The orthodox view of the church has been that the Trinity is both Three and also One. The idea that there is a rank order in the Trinity is not orthodox, AFAIK. However, ESS makes the rank order in the Trinity the essence of the Trinity. In fact, Grudem and Ware say that the only thing that can distinguish Father from Son is relative authority. The Father has rank authority over the Son, both in eternity past and eternity future. The ESS guys cannot conceive of a Trinity united by mutual love rather than by following their Roles within the Trinity.
In my view, it is scandalous the way that this has become the normative view of so many young people who thoughtlessly accept it because Grudem or because Piper.
I’m not criticizing you, but rather inviting you to look into this doctrine. The point of that is to see that the gospel of the Gospel Glitterati is not the Gospel at all. It is a religion of power and rank where a few men at the top are self-appointed rulers over all the other men and all women. The notion that Some are superior to Others is the heart of the error, IMO, and the error which leads to so much of what we discuss here. Calvinism as a theological system has been adopted, IMO, because Calvinism’s emphasis on sovereignty (or actually a particular view of sovereignty)lends itself to their purposes. Or possibly they are attracted to Calvinism because of their own desire for sovereignty over others. I really don’t know which is the cart and which is the horse.
Gram3 wrote:
I guess my take is more Jesus is eternally the Son of the Father, which is more or less what’s in the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.”
Now, I think we should choose our words carefully here, since this isn’t a new concept, clearly, if they are talking about it in 325 AD. Eternally begotten implies (to me) subordination in the literal sense, not submission. I don’t know if Grudem, et al are taking this idea that far, but I don’t think we can say “ESS is a new idea”. Maybe ESS-XTREME is what we should call the notion of an eternal top-down hierarchy? 🙂
That is to say, Jesus was the Son before the Creation, and is eternally the Son, right? Can we get that far?
Jay wrote:
Clearly the Bible uses Father/Son language to describe two Persons of what we call the Trinity or the Triune Godhead. The question is, is that language a metaphor and if so, what does the metaphor mean? To the ESS, the Father-Son relationship is strictly one of authority. But, does the supposed absolute and essential authority relationship flowing from Father down to Adult Son arise from the human institution of patriarchy, or does the supposedly essential authority relationship between Eternal Father-Eternal Son determine the pattern for all other human relationships?
I say that ESS doctrine enshrines a sinful human system of patriarchy that is based on power, and the people who promote ESS are the same people who are promoting authoritarian sects in the church. The Kingdom has only one Power, and that is God’s alone, Father-Son-Holy Spirit. All other Kingdom relationships are based on love which comes from God. The question is, what is the essential relationship between the Persons? Is it Love or is it Power. The way we answer that question will determine the kind of religion we have.
refugee wrote:
yes, and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” John 14:9
I think the type of unity in the Trinity is difficult (if not impossible) for us to comprehend in the world of “good…better…best” filled with admiration for rank, accomplishment, title, power, etc. Perfect unity, agreement and purpose don’t compute in the land of individualism.
just some thoughts…
Victorious wrote:
Nor in the land of Grudem, Ware, Piper, and complementarians where ESS translates to women being eternally subordinated to men.
__
The Calvin/Augustine Connection: “For Further Study…”
hmmm…
The Wartburg Watch Reader might find this useful:
“An investigation into Calvin’s use of Augustine” :
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52214/40840
Also, many of the leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today:
http://jesus-is-lord.com/calvin.pdf
ATB
Sopy
—
Bridget wrote:
Agreed. And it wasn’t Jesus’ “maleness” that is emphasized in scripture, but rather His “humanity.” The irony is that His humanity came forth from a woman. But do comps ever mention Mary and the fact that Jesus was subject to her?
Jay wrote:
The question is, does our interpretation of Father-Son language flow from patriarchy which has been the dominant human organizational system throughout history? Or should we interpret what Jesus meant by Father-Son language from his own description of it? He used that language to describe the fundamental unity between Father and Son. The other difficulty which compounds these issues is that the Eternal Son has not always been the Incarnate Son with a human nature. It has been recognized until fairly recently that we need to distinguish between what fancy theologians call the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. It is interesting that the ESS guys are now saying that whatever is true of the Economic Trinity is also true of the Immanent Trinity. IMO that is because their initial ESS doctrine was unstable, and it was unstable because it was contrived.
Jay wrote:
Why? Jesus and the apostles were speaking into a Jewish culture of monotheism which had no room for the notion of a Triune God. Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of Man” but we don’t conclude from that that he is not divine. Jesus the Messiah is the Son of Man who is also the Eternal Son who is also God. Jesus, the Incarnate Son, subordinated himself to become one of us. It does not follow from that that the Eternal Son *is* essentially subordinate to the Father.
Gram3 wrote:
So in your view, what is the difference in characteristics between the three Persons of the Trinity? Do you not agree with the notion of “eternally begotten” as it says in the Nicene Creed? I’m saying subordinate isn’t the same as “Son, take out the trash” subordination/submission, is all.
Jay wrote:
I think we’re talking about entirely different animals.
I have some Presbyterian in me as well, served on the paid staff of an old-time reformed Presbyterian church about a decade ago and the leader of my college Christian group identified largely as reformed a generation ago, he was a person for whom the points of Calvinism were something he might discuss as a theological theory, but would not get his blood pumping and veins bulging (the co-leader was from the Anabaptist tradition, and I never even saw them discuss their differing beliefs, they got along like brothers in Christ).
The modern day YRR crowd is something of an entirely different order, and I think it’s largely a destructive, divisive movement peopled by everything from the well-meaning but deceived to the positively evil.
Jay wrote:
The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit. I don’t feel that I have the qualifications to go beyond what is revealed and speculate about the inner relationships among the Persons of the Trinity. I believe that the Father-Son language is a metaphor and we should not read our culturally-informed notions of what that means into the text.
I don’t think that the Nicene Creed is inspired, and I *do* think that Nicea was convened to solve a political problem. In other words, it was a consensus document which does what any other consensus document, like the WCF, does. That does not mean that God could not use it, however. I do think that the Nicene Creed has become the measure of orthodoxy, and I do not think that ESS is Nicene. I don’t think that “begotten” speaks of subordination but rather of uniqueness. There has only ever been one God-Man, and the God-Man was not always Man but has always been God.
Jay wrote:
Even Timothy spent some time under Paul, and Mark was mentored by Barnabas. They spent time training for reigning. To release a green-horn pastor into ministry before he is proven is a recipe for disaster … which we have at some SBC church plants.
Jay wrote:
Anything that diminishes Jesus in any way, any doctrine, interpretation of the Scriptures, attitude, lifting up of a worldly leader or church father, anything at all, including anything that could even be shaded as saying that Jesus is second in command or somehow eternally lesser, is not of the Lord, it is of the devil.
Gram3 wrote:
You NAILED it. EXACTLY that. That is why what the YRR, ESS crowd is teaching is not of the Lord.
Gram3 wrote:
I definitely think there’s less distance between us than we may realize. I also think that if you don’t get a headache when pondering the nature of the Trinity, you’re not doing it right. 😉
Along those lines, I really had a belly laugh at this video recently:
St. Patrick’s Bad Analogies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
@ Gram3:
Yes ma’am. Let me add that a good source about what the creeds were meant to mean and why, in historical context, can be found in the catechism of the catholic church. The catechism discusses the trinity in detail, and I just checked a few things. As I understand what they are saying they are not saying what Grudem seems to think they believe when he references the Nicene Creed on p. 251 of his tome. I do not see anything at all in the whole section of the trinity in the CCC that would offend most protestants, so I recommend it for reading. It does take some sophistication of vocabulary and some prior understanding of the issues to deal with it (this is not q and a for elementary school) but it is well worth the effort for anybody who is interested in this issue.
I bring this up because Grudem says that ESS “has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions), at least since Nicea (AD 325).” (Systematic Theology, Grudem, 251) So I checked it out. Grudem seems to be saying that certain words were used so therefore that means that certain understandings of the Trinity were there. I get a far more complicated picture from the CCC regardless of what the words are. But perhaps that’s just me.
Jay wrote:
I believe that the answer is that there are no differences in ‘characteristics’ but only in relationships, and that the principle of unity is the overriding principle in both being and doing, so to speak. But check it out and see if you think that is what the CCC is saying. Hey-Grudem himself referenced catholic thinking in trying to sustain his position.
__
“Wit Da Lit’l Piggies?”
hmmm
When Jesus comes, the demons trimble.
(grin)
hahahahahahaha
ATB
Sopy
—
Another thought regarding Calvinism that has something to do with the OP is that, IMO, the reason that Mahaney could so easily cast aside his non-Calvinism and embrace Calvinism is because the core of Mahaney’s religion is Power over others. When one’s core value is Power, then it is easy to abandon one form of Power religion (the charismatic non-Calvinist flavor) for another (the YRR cautiously open Calvinist flavor) that has more upside potential. I think that Mahaney and the other Sovereign Grace People of Destiny are not Calvinists as much as they are pragmatists who have a talent for exploiting opportunities where they are found and know how to spot a promising wave.
Just a point here. Calvin & Hobbes is named after two social, moral and religious philosophers. Calvin in the early 1500s and Hobbes in the early 1600s. If you read the strip long enough, you find that Calvin is impulsive and likely to do something rather stupid and Hobbes is a bit of a restraint on Calvin, more philosophical and moral in his analysis than is Calvin. The strip, taken as a whole, presents a contrast between the historical Calvin and the historical Hobbes. Some also see a semi-Freudian contrast between Calvin as the ID and Hobbes as sort of a Superego, but gently so.
Eagle wrote:
That’s Lethal Weapon 2 you’re thinking of. Lethal Weapon 3 is the one with the corrupt developer and the armor-piercing rounds.
Jay wrote:
An hierarchical role playing is not to be found, nor can it be rationalized given what it says in my old Lutheran hymnal from Athanasius*:
“…And in this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another…”
*Nor will I ever sign on to any form of rank and subordination in the Trinity.
okrapod wrote:
It isn’t just you. Thank you for highlighting the relevant page of Grudem’s magnum oopsie which Ware helpfully reinforces in his book. It is hard to choose the most outrageous claim he makes, but I’ll go with the one he italicizes:
How could Grudem possibly have the exhaustive knowledge of the inner relationships of the Trinity required to make such an unqualified statement? Roles that are appropriate to each Person? How in the world could Grudem make a judgement about whether his speculative Trinitarian roles are appropriate? Maybe he has written a list of Appropriate Roles for each Person like he did for women. Y’all remember that list, right? I hope someone has archived it because it, like so many other ridiculous things these men write, has been black-holed.
The hubris that Grudem and the others exhibit is really quite amazing. It would never have occurred to me to say that the “members” of the Trinity have Roles which they should play so as to behave appropriately. But, of course, I don’t have a personal power agenda to prop up with speculative Deep Thoughts.
Victorious wrote:
I wonder if they would admit that he was ever subject to her? Some of the more conservative bodies don’t seem to allow for that. In the FLDS, for example, even very little boys have power over females of any age. And I recall telling a little boy in a church of a Presbyterian flavor, that he shouldn’t do something-or-other (it was probably running and dodging in and out of people who were holding cups of scalding coffee or tea, or maybe a threat to physically upset an elderly person), and having him look at me with a “you can’t tell me what to do!” look on his face. I only figured out later, after sitting through the teaching at that church for some time, that it was not because he was a spoiled brat (his parents were very strict, of the Ezzo/Pearl variety), but more likely because he was a young male, and I was a mere female.
judgment. I used to know how to spel.
okrapod wrote:
Oh snap…you are totally correct here. Relationships is a much better way to frame thism, and agree completely on unity.
When I was in college, a classic survey of philosophy course would include consecutive sessions on Calvin, Hobbes and then a third would be a contrast. That was in the 1960s.
@ Gram3:
Huh. That’s an interesting way of looking at it.
Law Prof wrote:
And everybody said AMEN! (or should have)
I challenge folks to listen closely to New Calvinist podcast sermons – e.g., visit the media page of YRR church plants in your vicinity. Sit down with pencil and paper marked with 3 columns: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Mark each time one of those names is mentioned. At the end of the message, you will have recorded mostly “God”, with fewer “Jesus”, and hardly a mention of “Holy Spirit.” Calvinism is all about Sovereign God … Saviour Jesus pales in comparison.
(Note: I hesitate to ask folks to listen to YRR sermons for fear that they might be so open-minded to the teaching that their spiritual brains would fall out)
refugee wrote:
Check out Mahaney’s bio and see what you think. Despite his lack of education and aw-shucks feminine demeanor, I think he is a brass-knuckled self-promoter and opportunist. When I first heard about People of Destiny International, I thought of some pseudo-eastern cult. I mean, in what world does the same man name his organization that way and then go on to write a “bestseller” entitled HUMILITY? Which is then breathlessly promoted by men who appear to have normal intelligence?
An Attorney wrote:
There you go. Calvinism is a philosophy … a particular system of philosophical thoughts, rather than Spirit-led faith.
Beakerj wrote:
I have a close friend in that same predicament. I feel for him, and you – that wrestling and doubt hasn’t been brought home in stark fashion to my doorstep yet via personal tragedy like it has for you, but it just might. I’m no closer to being able to help with that question than I ever was.
I have a lot of reading to do.
@ Gram3:
I’ve never really heard any other explanation of the trinity in the churches I’ve been to other than that of roles. It kind of made an uneasy sense in my mind, and given the general headdesk nature of the trinity to begin with, I’ve never given it a ton of thought – let the wiser heads deal with these matters and pontificate upon us! (Haha).
Now I’m in the long slow process of unlearning everything and starting over.
Gram3 wrote:
My reaction to that name was “Ego much?”
As for what man names his organization that way, try “Someone who’s very full of Himself”.
Max wrote:
Add a fourth column: Calvin.
Victorious wrote:
“Christian hateth Mary whom God kissed in Galilee…”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Lepanto”
Looked up “young restless reformed” in Google, and came across this essay, which I quite liked.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/06/what-is-wrong-with-the-young-restless-and-reformed-movement-an-interpretive-essay-by-dr-paul-owen.html
GovPappy wrote:
That is due, I think, to the pervasiveness of Grudem’s ST. It was simply brilliant to write a one-volume ST and make it so inexpensive. Credit where credit is due and all that. However, the tragedy of this heretically truncated version of who our God is nearly beyond description.
I am so very sorry this is the only view you have ever heard. One way to start thinking about it and working your way out of it is to think about whether you, as a human, are a person or a role-player. Are you the sum of the roles that you play? How much more is that true of our Creator? If you think about it in the deterministic/compatibilistic framework, the notion that we are all playing a role in some cosmic play makes some sense, I suppose. But I think that what God is doing is something much greater and more unimaginable for his finite creatures than that. These men, like the pagans, have created a god in their own image–one who is insecure about his power and status and must bray about it and seize control–rather than the all-powerful and all-sufficient God revealed in the Bible and in these last days in the Son who humbled himself and did not cling to his privileges as the Son.
@ Gram3:
Couldn’t you say (and I hate to oversimplify things) that the root of the issue is men trying to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the Gospels?
The Old Testament language does indeed sometimes lend itself in my opinionto the idea of a fickle authoritarian dictator God (there, I said it out loud). We create this framework of theology about God that we more or less like, and then we explain away the passages we don’t like in the light of our theology, whether it happens to be Calvinist or Something Else. In the immortal words of bounty hunter Jubal Early, “Does that seem right to you?”
I realize I’m veering off the trinity road here, just thinking out loud. I don’t buy into ESS, for what it’s worth.
I keep coming back to the cross as the essential truth God wanted us to know about Himself, and all else pales in comparison to what that means to me.
GovPappy wrote:
Same here.
Gram3 wrote:
It is sobering to realize that in the NCFCA (one of the larger, I think, homeschooling speech and debate leagues), Grudem’s ST is a primary source for study, for the students who are competing in the Apologetics speech category.
GovPappy wrote:
Yeah, whenever I start to articulate this idea, I get accused of putting God in a box.
Jay wrote:
I don’t even get the concept. Talking of someone being “great” makes sense if you’re going to see a motivational speaker, watching American Idol or (maybe) hiring a corporate executive, it would be appropriate to discussions of high jumpers and golf pros, artists and magicians.
It has no place–in the context that people so often use it–in the discussion of church leaders. Leaders are to be elders, the older people who are generally acknowledged to be straight-shooters and sober, humble types. They’re to lead by example, never under any circumstances by compulsion. They are not to set the direction for the church, be the ones with The Vision.
That’s Old Testament–and it typically didn’t work even back then. They’re to be the least and the last, humble helpers essentially asking people “How can I help you, what’s YOUR calling?”
In a priesthood of all believers, the only greatness comes through humility, service, behind-the-scenes drudgery and giving of time to others, not on a stage with the spotlight so bright in your face and the crowds hanging on your every word.
That’s Jesus’ position, our position is to just serve one another–no room for greatness.
Gram3 wrote:
Same sort of attitude as “Acts 29”. I guess they think they’re the only ones really picking up where it all left off, restoring it all to the original First Century purity.
GovPappy wrote:
Definitely I think the cross of Jesus is the place for all of us in the New Covenant to start to think about how God’s different attributes which seem incompatible can meet. We should start our reasoning from there and see how far we can get toward understanding. I’ve not been able to fully reconcile the difficult OT accounts, but when I think that God himself was willing to take on human flesh and suffer for me, then I also think that I don’t understand that. It doesn’t make sense, but as a Christian I believe that. The problem of evil is a difficult one.
There is no doubt in my mind that God is the absolute ruler of his Creation and that he has complete and total sovereignty. The question is how he chooses to exercise his sovereign options. In other words, I think he retains the *right* to do as he pleases, but that does not mean that he ordains every last thing that happens.
One thing to keep in mind (though it does not solve the apparent problems in the OT) is that the pagan cultures surrounding the nation of Israel were depraved beyond belief. I must say that I did not fully appreciate that. We are understandably shaken by the idea of total warfare, but that is the nature of man throughout history, though it is somewhat easier to forget that in the modern U.S. As bad as some of the things in the OT sound to us, I need to think about whether the totality of the circumstances would have been better had God done what we think he ought to have done. I think that God is a realist about the facts on the ground while we tend to be idealistic. So, I don’t have an answer to the parts of the OT which are troubling, but I go back to the suffering God who knows us and has become one of us and trust that God has done and will do what is right and good.
refugee wrote:
It is a travesty that these young people are being instructed how to debate using Grudem, a man who will not reason logically and consistently. Those kids would be much better off in a public school debate program, or at least the ones I remember from way back. Things may be different nowadays, but back then we were taught to think with some rigor and be able to defend our POV. And if we did not do so, mockery was liberally employed because precious snowflakes had not yet been invented.
refugee wrote:
I think that any given observer might think that what he observes is random or “fickle” if the observer does not know all of the facts which might inform the observers conclusions if he knew those facts. But we haven’t been given all the facts, and I suspect that we would not have the capacity to draw a reasonable inference from them even if we had them. I think we are somewhat like a toddler who is old enough to think they know something about the adult world but who thinks some really wacky things about it. And more facts would not help his understanding until he matures.
@ Law Prof:
I can almost remember when I knew everything. But then life happened.
Gram3 wrote:
God is God. He knows everything, watches the dance of every atom, knows the infinite number of possibilities given an infinite number of potential actions. He is omniscient, completely beyond our comprehension.
If God told some Jewish king to wipe out an entire people group 3,000 years ago, then it’s patently absurd that anyone would’ve done anything else. To even consider otherwise would be to make God into a superhero along the lines of Hercules, just a big man with unnatural powers. But He is God. This can’t even really be expressed in words. No words are powerful enough to convey this concept.
Gram3 wrote:
The problem is that everything in my upbringing indicates that the old testament and the New is indeed all we need to know to get a picture of God and far from being the incomplete picture you might expect from a collection of writings. The fact that folks try to come up with “systematic theology” just seems off to me. Is the Bible really that kind of book?
I don’t think we’re too far apart in our understanding of these things, just again thinking out loud and musing over my upbringing.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly, this is why the older ones, the elders, ought to be leading and why the “great young men” ought to sit down, step off the stage and shut up until they’re too old to care about those things anymore. And if they never get over that lust for power and greatness even as they get old, then they’ll have proven beyond doubt that they are a person of unusually low integrity and never had no business being an elder.
“any” business…
@ Jay:
For Jay
Reflections on a New Defense of Complementarianism
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
Law Prof wrote:
AMEN! Who was it said, “when I was a teenager I thought my parents didn’t know anything. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much they had learned!!”
(paraphrased) 🙂
Law Prof wrote:
Like the Taliban restoring Islam to the original Year One of the Hegira?
I don’t think Sovereign Grace changed their name to escape their reputation or past. That’s not realistically ever going to happen, and the new name is too similar to the previous one for anyone to be fooled. They changed from “Ministries” to “Churches” after they adopted their new “Book of Church Order” polity and finally admitted that they are a denomination and not a para-church ministry, after decades of waffling on that question. The current name just more accurately describes what the organization now is.
Web site redesigns that break previously working URLs and drop features and content are unfortunately common. I’m not surprised that CJ’s blog was dropped since he had moved his attention to the Mahaney Sports blog, and he’s no longer an officer of SGC. Yeah, an archive would’ve been nice, I guess. It seems like the web site rewrite is more of an attempt to move beyond the past than the organizational name change is.
GovPappy wrote:
I don’t think it is, but I think the impulse behind developing a systematic theology is probably good. However, it presumes that we can understand God beyond what he has revealed to us and that we need to do so. I think of trying to put together a ginormous jigsaw puzzle and we don’t have all the pieces, we only have a pixelated part of the picture on the box, and we don’t even know how many pieces there are or which ones we are missing. As a result, I think too many try to make things fit or pretend that a piece goes where it actually doesn’t. Not to mention making up their own pieces to complete the picture as they envision it.
Max wrote:
Also worth consideration is Sovereign Jesus, the King of the Kingdom. And specifically, what King Jesus means for the present-day ESS notions of pecking order within the Trinity and its use to prop up patriarchy within a human pecking order. Consider:
The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands (this from John 3)
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus
As the Father sent Jesus, so Jesus sends his church, promising anything we ask in his name – a promise sealed with the same Spirit that raised him from the dead
Jesus promises that those who believe in him will do greater things than he did, at least during those three years…
But do you see * the proponents of Biblical™ [sic] gender-roles embodying this? In which leaders (for want of a better word) spend themselves in order to ensure that those around them, exceed them? Or in which husbands sacrifice themselves not to “protect” their helpless little wives, thereby fantasy role-playing as “heroes”, but to promote the called, gifted and worthy women they married?
Well, no. To the Young, Rebellious and Reformed, “hierarchy” and “roles” is all about who gets the biggest share of a limited pie.
* Obviously, the question is rhetorical here – I suspect you and I are singing from a hymn sheet on very much the same page of the bandwagon.
Victorious wrote:
Mark Twain:
When I was fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have him around. When I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.
Gram3 wrote:
And we are fairly well blind and have little sense of feeling in our hands so that we can scarcely tell which piece we’re holding.
I hate the idea of a systematic theology, it reeks of everything old and pompous and smug and Pharisaical.
@ Gram3:
The question “Why – if God is really so interested in us knowing every aspect about him and how we should interact with each other to the point we’re endlessly data-mining the bible – was his word given in the form it’s given?” seems valid to me.
James White, in an interview with a Catholic, couldn’t even give a straight answer on why we believe that the Bible is all the word of God and complete as it is today, because we don’t seem to actually know that from the Bible alone. They’ve backed themselves into a corner, in my opinion.
Point being, the fundamentalist view of scripture I grew up with just doesn’t hold up to logic or even faith, the way I’m seeing it these days.
Now I’ve really taken this off the rails. Sorry Gram.
Gram3 wrote:
I must beg to differ there. I think a systematic theology is just a golden calf, and the desire to make one is the age-old desire to worship something we can see and, preferably, have made ourselves.
Well, OK, maybe not… it all depends on the tone and/or attitude with which such a thing is written. It’s one thing to state: This is how we can best understand things so that when we come together, we can do everything decently and in order; but we honour those who have reached different conclusions. Or, for the entire Church to come together, ponder what the Holy Spirit has been doing lately, and after full discussion, declare what “seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us”. It’s quite another thing to say, this is how it is, and the Bible agrees with me.
GovPappy wrote:
Rails? At TWW?
Jay wrote:
I know this is rather thorny theology, but to adequately deal with why Grudems’s stuff is bad, here goes:
One of the things the NeoCals try to do is redefine words. Subordination is one of those words. According to Webster or any other dictionary subordinate means lesser. A person in a subordinate position is in a lesser position. This is definitional. However the ESS folks want to say that the Son is subordinate but equal to the Father. All animals are equal but some animals are less equal.
Grudem tries to say that the Son is subordinate in role but not ontologically.
But then in Systematics he states that what defines the Sons as the Son is his subordination to the Father. “Bur if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three distinct persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son”. This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed”. When something defines something as to what they are, that things is ontological. Thus in spite of his trying to redefine an ontology, Grudem is saying that the Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father, and he is less than the Father. As Law Prof has stated, that is one diabolical statement.
This gets even worse, because ESS did not come about because of some concern over the historical understanding of the Trinity, but because complementarians had to have some basis to make women subordinate to men(but equal, all animals are equal…). The traditional view of women by Protestants historically was that they were less than men. Calvin, for example, held that woman was made in the image of God, albeit in a secondary sense. By the 1970s, this view of women was no longer acceptable. Thus the comps had to come up with a theology that said women were equal in the eyes of the Godhead, but had lesser roles than men. Thus they had the Son being ontologically equal to the Father, but having a subordinate function. Thus you get a hierarchy in the Godhead that translates to a hierarchy in the family. They carry this on to other relations, defining all relations hierarchically. In the end, most everyone is subordinate to the leaders of this group. This leads, IMO, to a lot of abuse.
Law Prof wrote:
Wow, someone had the nerve to say out loud what I’ve been thinking all along. What’s wrong with the Gospels? Works for me…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Touche, good sir.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
And (forgive me Gram if I’m wrong) that’s how I took her comment – the impulse to have at least a semblance of order, structure, and consistency in thought is a good thing, but I also agree with you that the pursuit of that, as you very aptly described it, can become a golden calf – a lifetime spent in pursuit of codifying a book God clearly didn’t mean to have codified.
GovPappy wrote:
It’s a capital M Mystery – not amenable to being pigeonholed, nailed down, and owned. That’s heretical control-freakery, IMO.
There’s a reason why it’s called Faith…
roebuck wrote:
Notion not original with me; first heard wife ranting about it: “Systematic theologies are crap”, she used words to that effect.
After thinking about it some, I came to believe they were created by the arrogant for the arrogant. And of course, arrogance has no place in the Kingdom of God–a lesson I’m still sloooooowly learning (me, the one who frequently likes to say “me” and likes to go back and read my own posts and read my ratemyprofessors reviews and then occasionally deflects with false humility like this–who will save me from this body of death?)
Victorious wrote:
Mark Twain said something to that effect.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I heard in the news today that they found some writings from Islam’s holy book that they’ve dated to 20 years after the Prophet’s death.
GovPappy wrote:
Not sure what you mean by fundamentalist view of scripture, but that is the written source of our “data” about God and Jesus and the faith. I take its truth and authority by faith. I don’t “know” that Jesus is Lord, but I certainly believe it. I don’t “know” that the canon is God’s written word to us, but I believe it tells us that it is inspired and I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write it for our benefit, too. We have to start our reasoning somewhere, and each of us has to decide where that point will be, but whatever point we choose will be an act of faith, even if we choose to ignore the Bible altogether. FWIW, James White is not my favorite for a number of reasons, though ironically we would probably profess the same or a similar view of the nature of scripture. Definitely we reach different conclusions about what it teaches.
I think if God intended to leave us with a systematic theology, then he would have left us with a systematic theology. I think he intended to tell us about himself and how he desires to be in relationship with us and how his design for relationship with us has been marred by sin but that he has, by his design and power and most of all his love, made a way for us to be restored to full fellowship with him. If we look at the Bible that way–in a Biblical theology way–then I think we are getting much closer to the idea of why God gave us the words that I believe he gave us. He has called us to a walk of faith with him rather than calling us to adhere to a system.
KMD wrote:
Yes, that’s it. My dad used to quote that all the time.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Well, I was trying to assume the best for a change…
__
Grudem getzta kick Jesus in da @zz and get away wit it, and calls ‘ESS’ Systematic Theology?
(grin)
hahahahahahaha
huh?
Ask Michael, the Archangel bout Jesus, Wayne.
I think you would be really surprised.
His eyes don’t flame like fire for nott’in…
You should meet Him sometime.
ATB
Sopy
—
__
Jesus, it is Your blood that makes me whole, I need you so…
Take these broken wings,
And help me learn to fly again,
Learn to live as You have made me free,
Just open up Your book and let me mend again,
Jesus, maybe tonight!
🙂
—
Sopwith wrote:
And again, and again…
Preach it, Brother Sopy!
@ Gram3: Sorry, I’m rambling, deconstructing. Fundamentalist view meaning to me “screw historical context, lets dive into every verse like it was written directly to us today, lets parse every phrase to the nth degree, Bible is the only rule of faith and practice and science and all else is suspect, etc.” And I’m not exaggerating. I realize that definition is not inherent in the usual meaning, which makes me a goof for not defining my terms.
I largely agree with the rest of your comment. Just sometimes the faith gets a bit rocky and I look for solid concrete reasons for everything. I do believe faith should be founded on something, otherwise we could just pull anything out of our–wait we already do that a lot. But I also realize it’s called faith, and again, if God wanted everything nailed down, he’d have nailed it down for us. Deal with what we have. Still working!
__
“Lõõk, No hands!”
hmmm…
C.J. Mahaney makes a mockery of Jesus’ gospel, and then makes it look like child’s play.
How come the victims aren’t laughing?
—
GovPappy wrote:
I sometimes wonder about people who don’t struggle with their faith. Because I certainly have. Keep seeking and knocking and asking.
refugee wrote:
Twain eh? Now we’re talkin’ turkey!
Gram3 wrote:
From what I remember out of my days as a kid growing up Lutheran, this was not the case. The Bible was simply the Bible and had little significance beyond forming the basis of Lutheran faith and practice and that really was a good thing. It was safe, sane, didn’t require a large investment, and it was reasonable. You went to church, took communion and that was that. Real life and church were two separate spheres and I think the coping mechanisms for both worlds were simpler back then. There was no agonizing over this, that and the other, it simply was and you dealt with it in a pragmatic fashion. But that was back before the world had moved on so to speak. When I got reeled into the Calvary Chapel cult as a young man, they promised certainty for all of life’s twists and turns and that all of the answers lay in a Bible that has 100% linearization throughout*.
What human doesn’t want a sure thing? Who doesn’t want to beat the roulette wheel and own the croupier? If you can give people a systematic certainty, you own them.
And that’s precisely what the Pipers, Mohlers, Mahaneys, and Papa Chucks do.
*so long as you believe it means what they say it means
Gram3 wrote:
Hmm… I bet you had an ulterior motive for that…
#recursivehumour
__
“Calvin’s Hydra?”
hmmm…
“Augustinian teachings which Calvin presented in his Institutes (some 400 references) included the sovereignty that made God the cause of all (including sin), the predestination of some to salvation and of others to damnation, election and reprobation, faith as an irresistible gift from God – in fact, the key concepts at the heart of Calvinism”, and he got it all from the forth century theologian Augustine…
***
The Famed preacher, Charles Spurgeon, said:
Calvinism = The Gospel.
Mark Dever laid out in one of his sermons:
TULIP = The True Gospel that no one appears to be preaching…
hmmm…
T.U.L.I.P. anyone?
Sopy
—
Gram3 wrote:
You couldn’t possibly mean ‘I know whom I have believed’, rather than ‘I know what I have believed’ by any chance? 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for that link, Daisy…it was some heavy, but good reading!
Jay wrote:
Jay, you ran across a good site. Peter Lumpkins, blogger at SBC Tomorrow, has been recording Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention for years. There is an archive of good articles on his site about both “old” and “new” strains of Calvinism and their impacts on SBC life. I recall Paul Owen’s article that you cite … Owen tells it like it is with these young reformed rebels.
I think Jesus also wanted us to know that because of the unbreakable love bond between them, Jesus would never disobey his Father as Lucifer and Adam did. No one – not satan or Peter – could drive a wedge between the Son and his Father, because the love-trust between them is perfect. And that’s to be the example for us to follow in faith.@ Law Prof:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, the New Calvinists I know in my area spend little or no time in the Gospels, so they wouldn’t know much about any other Kingdom than Calvin’s. They are always looking for some passage in the epistles of Paul that they can take out of context to make it fit the Calvinist grid. I told one young reformed whippersnapper “lead” pastor at ripe-old age of 29 that if he reads Paul first, he might read Jesus wrong … but if he reads Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective. He didn’t seem too interested in the wisdom of an old man.
Law Prof wrote:
Professor, I don’t know what it’s like in the particular denomination you are affiliated with, but I can tell you what’s going on with the unbalance of age/wisdom in Southern Baptist ranks. These “great young men” have been convinced in certain SBC seminaries (e.g., Southern) and by a host of non-SBC reformed influencers (Piper et al.) that Southern Baptists have lost the gospel and they are have been raised up to restore it! Thus, they cut off the older ignorant generations who have not put their faith in Calvin. It’s a crying shame that we are losing so many 20s-40s to this aberrant theology. We need multi-generations in church … the energy of youth coupled with the wisdom of age … young guys to speed things up and old guys to slow it down.
Max wrote:
Regarding your last sentence, I’ll happily sit in the middle and umpire! 🙂
Regarding what you said above that, I couldn’t agree more. One of my main objections to Willow Creekism is it seeks a demographic of people who would get on with each other regardless of church affiliation. Saves the need for sanctification and cultivating the fruit of the Spirit. And it tends to neglect the elderly.
I fear the new calvinists in reaction to this man-centered approach are actually reproducing it, except the group think is now ‘how calvinist you are’, that’s how to be ‘in’ in the new group.
___
“John F. MacArthur Jr.: “…the “five points” are nothing more or less than what the Bible teaches…”
hmmm…
“…the only question that ultimately matters about the “five points of Calvinism” is whether these doctrines are biblical. ”
“The doctrines of grace and divine sovereignty are the very lifeblood of the full and free salvation promised in the gospel.”
“…the doctrines of Calvinistic soteriology must stand or fall by the test of Scripture, period.”
“Scripture speaks with absolute, unmistakable clarity on these vital issues:
(1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom 8:7-8).
(2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving Will (Eph 1:4-5).
(3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God’s wrath on behalf of His people, and his atoning work is efficacious for their salvation (Isa. 53:5).
(4) God’s saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ’s true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because :
(5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).
Those are the five points of Calvinism.
I believe them not because of their historical pedigree, but because that is what Scripture teaches…”
– John F. MacArthur Jr.
—
Max wrote:
Joseph Smith, anyone?
Does anyone remember The Way on college campuses back in the 70s?
Max wrote:
That sounds… sort of biblical, actually. John spoke to a whole range of people in his epistles. There’s also Joel 2:28-29 (which, by the way, mentions a biblical “role” for women) and Acts 2:17.
refugee wrote:
Oh yeah. I watched The Way movement blossom and fade. A daughter of some friends sold everything and joined the cult to promote it (cult = deny the trinity). The movement actually started in the 1950s when founder Victor Paul Wierwille, a reformed pastor (sound familiar?), got the Holy Ghost and launched his new & improved vision for church … the only “way” of course (sound familiar?). The ministry soon ran into problems with sex scandals (sound familiar?) and the authoritarian leadership of Brother Wierwille started to be challenged (sound familiar?). In the 1980s, Wierwille passed the mantle of leadership to Craig Martindale, who exited in 2000 following admission of sexual misconduct (sound familiar?). The Way continues to this day with a following of gullible folks who follow the teachings of men, rather than read their Bibles (sound familiar?). And, to think, Brother Wierwille’s journey started with reformed theology. Some of these folks get weirder as time goes on after they pray to accept Calvin into their hearts (sound familiar?).
@ Sopwith:
The problem with the five points scripture references is that they leave out the teaching of Jesus. “Whosoever” is pretty broad and does not speak to predestination. And there are alternative meanings to the verses cited by Piper that preserve the concept of freedom of conscience, that is, a choice by a sinner to seek salvation. And a God who knows all that can be known does not necessarily have a script from before creation through the end of time, written so that some never get to make a choice to worship the Christ and love Jesus.
refugee wrote:
And Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
And Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science).
Max wrote:
After all, Calvin’s Institutes have God All Figured Out.
Muff Potter wrote:
I’ve been living in Orange County CA since 1982.
Papa Chuck’s home turf.
Calvary Chapel used to dominate the Christianese AM airwaves in SoCal. With the de facto attitude “There can be NO Salvation outside of Calvary Chapel.”
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
The Zero-Sum Game.
Where since there’s only so much to go around, the only way to get more for ME is to take it away from YOU. The only way for ME to win is to Make You LOSE!
Somehow this doesn’t sound like Jesus.
Bravo! @ okrapod:
__
“Total denial Of Jesus’ Words?”
What?
is the calvinist calling Jesus a lier when Jesus speaks in John 3:16; “Whosoever believes in Me shall not perish, but shall receive eternal life.” ?
“Hath God said?’, Satan said that to Eve.
Is that what the Calvinist is saying as well?
i.e. “man can not believe”
i.e. “regeneration preceeds belief”
hmmm…
Jesus asks us to believe in Him.
Jesus calls the little chrildren to come to Him.
Jesus asks us to become like little childern.
You decide.
ATB
Sopy
—
Sopwith wrote:
It seems simple to me but the really tough part is why they also had to burn, hang, drown, someone who like yourself who didn’t share their “understanding”.
Sopwith wrote:
And this is the problem with Calvinism…..They worship another “god” whose name is Calvin.
Max wrote:
Precisely.
Gram3 wrote:
Amen, Sister! You preach it.
Law Prof wrote:
Yes!! I agree.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Augustine wasn’t totally whacked, but his earlier Platonism really messed with his theology. He took the Platonic “Perfect/Truth” and relabeled it “Sovereign” which effectively produces a Teflon coated Stainless Steel Gawd separated and at odds with his Creation.