So very excellent! I shared this on my Twitter, on my Facebook, and on the Facebook of the Society of Evangelical Arminians. This will also appear Friday on my This Week in Arminianism post.

Let me add: the author’s grammatical tone also appears a bit manipulative: i.e., implying that, if the believer wants to be a mature Christian, accepting *all* that the Bible teaches, and wants to be a fruitful believer who grants God His rightful due, then that person will become a Calvinist. This is exactly the way a manipulator speaks.

He gets people to think that their views are inferior, unspiritual, unbiblical, robbing God of His glory, and then wins them over to his side through this sneaky method. It is underhanded, in my opinion, and misleading. I’ve watched college and seminary students be convinced by this method and become “Reformed” fan boys — only later, thankfully, to abandon Calvinism altogether. I’m grateful for posts like this one!

William Birch wrote:

This is exactly the way a manipulator speaks.
He gets people to think that their views are inferior, unspiritual, unbiblical, robbing God of His glory, and then wins them over to his side through this sneaky method. It is underhanded, in my opinion, and misleading.

Exactly! I’m beginning to believe that most Calvinista leaders are manipulators.

I remember when people didn’t talk about 5 points incessantly. It was three points and a poem and a *gasp* altar call to the 1-3 and 6th verses of “Just As I Am.” Repeated as necessary. Those were the good old days…

Seriously, can we not just be persuaded in our own minds without trying to bludgeon one another into submission to our *interpretation* of a very few verses? Must we all be Systematic Theology fanatics who cram every single verse problematic verse into our tight system? Clobbering the clobber verses until they surrender to our System? What did people believe before Calvin and Arminius made everything fit? Before Augustine and Pelagius?

To me it is not clear what the intent of this article is. If it was intended to persuade, I think it might persuade more people to re-think their allegiance to the “Doctrines of Grace” as they are currently defined within the sub-culture in which they thrive. Perhaps some might de-convert from YRR-style uber-Calvinism to something more modest and less abrasive. I know some of those folks, thankfully, and they are the ones who realize that things are not as neat and tidy as we might like in order to make us feel comfortable that we fully understand God and his ways and his plan. Job’s buddies were quite confident…

@ Christiane:
Good point. What is the position of the RCC on these “points?” I ask because of Augustine who seems to be the beginning of this line of thinking.

Bunny: “A bit prideful to think that one can dissect the Bible like a dead frog and think one has God all figured out!”

Love it!

Gram3 wrote:

@ Christiane:
Good point. What is the position of the RCC on these “points?” I ask because of Augustine who seems to be the beginning of this line of thinking.

Hi GRAM 3,
this is what I know: in my Church, we believe that in any work of salvation, God initiates the process, but that He does not decide for us what we choose . . . that a part of the dignity of the human person IS the opportunity-curse-freedom to choose life or not to choose life

We differ from evangelicals in one major way, this: Our Vatican Catechism states:
“”Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.”

We are on the same page with evangelical Christians in that we do believe that whoever IS saved, is saved by Our Lord Himself.

Bill M wrote:

The jaw of my heart fell out of my chest and crashed onto the sidewalk.

I’ve heard of mixing metaphors, this is a demolition derby. Who talks like that?

why, Shel Silversteing of course in ‘Where the Sidewalk Ends’

This whole belief system is more horrifying that I can express. How is it that these Calvin believers—those who believe a deity “sovereignly” created untold millions of people (or even one!) to consign them to eternal torture—find any joy in their belief? Are they cruel at heart? To my mind, finding joy in such a “truth” is just sick.

Interesting to note that WW’s “pastor”, Wade Burleson, is a five point calvinist. He seems like a genuinely likeable guy. Notwithstanding, teaching that multiplied millions of humans have been and are being born into the world without a Savior. Also teaching that the One who says, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” vacillates between “yes” and “no” with regard to His desire for everyone to be saved. Additionally teaching that Our Heavenly Father has a “secret will” (not revealed in the Scriptures) that is diametrically opposed to His will that is stated in the Scriptures for all to read and understand. I have questioned Wade on these calvinist “truths”, but have not gotten a reply.

Alan House wrote:

Additionally teaching that Our Heavenly Father has a “secret will” (not revealed in the Scriptures) that is diametrically opposed to His will that is stated in the Scriptures for all to read and understand.

That does seem to run contrary to what Jesus said in the Bible:

“What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.” (Matthew 10:27)

I am always mystified by people like Aaron Menikoff. He holds a PhD in church history but his thoughts and writing are more indicative of indoctrination than education. Some seem to get more arrogant with education, others end up more open to questions than answers. In this case Menifoff takes an incomplete understanding that we all work from and ends up with complete confidence. He represents a good example of self-enhancement bias, his view is better than anyone else (who disagrees). Such a lack of self-awareness likely has repercussions within the institution he heads up.

He reminds me of bad bosses I’ve seen over the years, the self-deluded types that are heedless of opposing viewpoints, especially from those considered subordinates. I’d hate to be the bearer of bad news in his organization.

Christiane wrote:

does it seem to anyone that Calvinism is a ‘thought system’ where the pieces have to all be accepted in order for the whole to make any sense?

No, I think it’s more like a house of cards that – if you try to take out even one card – will collapse.

Bill M wrote:

I am always mystified by people like Aaron Menikoff. He holds a PhD in church history but his thoughts and writing are more indicative of indoctrination than education. Some seem to get more arrogant with education, others end up more open to questions than answers.

Where is his Ph.D. from?

I carefully vet peoples’ credentials. My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.

Alan House wrote:

Well, Daisy, there are just any number of things that seem so plain that a fourth or fifth grader could read and explain them but, according to calvinist thought, mean more or less exactly the opposite of the plain meaning of the text.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
but it all comes down to
LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!

How do people even begin to think they can follow God AND be dishonest? This basic paradox boggles my mind.

I completely agree with this post… It is supreme arrogance to think one can really, deeply, understand all of this. As I have said before, how does one truely understand the trinity, let alone all the rest?

bunny wrote:

I took two semesters of systematic theology, taught from a Calvinistic viewpoint (although they did explain Arminianism as well.) After years of pondering these things I have to say I identify as neither Calvinist nor Arminian. God’s truth is more wonderful, more mysterious and more complicated-and yet beautifully simple at the same time-for a mere puny man (or woman) to totally understand. Has it occured to these folks that God is way smarter than they are and that their understanding is at a very very juvenile level compared to the truth of God and how He has orchestrated reality? A bit prideful to think one can dissect the Bible like a dead frog and think one has God all figured out!

Velour wrote:

Bill M wrote:

I am always mystified by people like Aaron Menikoff. He holds a PhD in church history but his thoughts and writing are more indicative of indoctrination than education. Some seem to get more arrogant with education, others end up more open to questions than answers.

Where is his Ph.D. from?

I carefully vet peoples’ credentials. My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.

Spot on. Too many preachers (and many more non-reformed than in the reformed camp) running around with “doctorates” that were either bestowed as honorary or obtained from some diploma mill, albeit with a christian label on it.

I don’t have a PhD but friends who do say that it is considered poor form to refer to yourself as “Dr” on the basis of a doctorate that you did not actually earn. My wife, though she’s not a PhD, works in science research surrounded by several PhD scientists and says that she would have serious questions about the integrity of those who market themselves as “doctors” who didn’t actually earn it.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

If a person’s suffering is for God’s glory, who are we to interfere?

HUG often compares NeoCalvinism to Islam, but here I see a parallel with the way some people might approach a belief in karma. If people are poor or made to suffer, and if I’m convinced that their hardships are just punishment for their sins in a previous life, then what motive do I have to reach out to them in compassion, encouragement or help? After all, I would only be interfering with their purification, and their attainment of nirvana.

(My apologies to anyone if I have misrepresented the doctrine of karma, or how it is actually practiced by Hindus or Buddhists.)

“They worry a focus on human responsibility will eclipse the precious truth of God’s sovereignty.”

And that sums the Neo Cals up in a nutshell.

If you are a responsible adult you won’t need the specially anointed leader. And that is a problem for them.

Velour wrote:

I am always mystified by people like Aaron Menikoff. He holds a PhD in church history but his thoughts and writing are more indicative of indoctrination than education. Some seem to get more arrogant with education, others end up more open to questions than answers.
Where is his Ph.D. from?
I carefully vet peoples’ credentials. My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.

From Dr. Menikoff’s Church Site:

Aaron and his wife, Deana, came to Mount Vernon in June 2008. They have four children: Rachel, Jonah, Natalie, and Tori. They moved to Atlanta from Louisville, KY after Aaron completed his Masters of Divinity in Biblical and Theological Studies and his Ph.D. in American Church History from Southern Seminary.

Apparently Southern Seminary confers PhD’s as well. I wonder what his dissertation was, and who sat on his panel.

@ Christiane:
Thank you, Christiane.

Lydia wrote:

“They worry a focus on human responsibility will eclipse the precious truth of God’s sovereignty.”

Thanks for highlighting this among so many points for discussion. I have never, ever understood how human responsibility eclipses God’s sovereignty nor have I had it ever explained by a 5-pointer. Did the words of the human authors of the Bible eclipse the authority of the Holy Spirit? Of course not, and I think 5-pointers would agree.

Debi Calvet wrote:

How is it that these Calvin believers—those who believe a deity “sovereignly” created untold millions of people (or even one!) to consign them to eternal torture—find any joy in their belief? Are they cruel at heart? To my mind, finding joy in such a “truth” is just sick.

Debi, I’ve been reading some of John MacArthur’s articles denouncing the Roman Catholic mass (and all things Catholic for that matter—thanks a lot, Dee and Deb, for putting me through this!).

The opening lines of this article claim “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” and “no delight in people condemned to hell.”
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-318/explaining-the-heresy-of-the-catholic-mass-part-1

And then MacArthur goes on systematically to explain why Catholics are going to hell if they follow the Roman Catholic Church. He’s very good at what he does.

siteseer wrote:

How do people even begin to think they can follow God AND be dishonest? This basic paradox boggles my mind.

They are The Predestined Elect.

Amazing what a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card signed by God before the Foundation of the World can do.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

but it all comes down to
LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!

And the tragic ending to the book:

“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

“It bothered me that he didn’t choose everyone.”

And here is where they lose me. ‘For God so loved the WORLD’. Not a handful of people he pre-chose to love. And I don’t see changing my mind on this, ever, no matter how many condescending speeches I hear.

Just like I will always be a Baptist at heart on baptism, no matter if I switch denom’s a few times.

Ted wrote:

He’s very good at what he does.

And what is IT that he does?

Christiane wrote:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved

I like this. My mother told me once that she was bothered by the idea of people who had never heard of Christ going to hell, and she found a verse (I can’t remember which one) that said something very similar to this. So this is what I believe as well. Proper theology or no.

Max wrote:

Mr. Menikoff’s piece oozes with the typical arrogance characteristic of so many New Calvinists who believe they alone are the keepers of Truth.

“Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth…”
— Billy Joel, “Shades of Grey”

Christiane wrote:

does it seem to anyone that Calvinism is a ‘thought system’ where the pieces have to all be accepted in order for the whole to make any sense?

Yes, Calvinism is largely a system of philosophical thought. I call it stinkin’ thinkin’ when it claims to have a corner on the truth that the rest of Christendom has lost.

Many reformed folks are uncomfortable with their own teaching about the “Limited Atonement” of Christ. They hold to “Unlimited Atonement” and are hesitant to put Jesus in a box of dying for some, but not for others (as they should be!). Moderate (4-point) Calvinism has always seemed a paradox to me. Can “Unlimited Atonement” truly come alongside “Unconditional Election” in a reformed theology grid? In a study of this recently, I ran across the following quote. “Reformed pastor and author R.C. Sproul suggests there is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches. While he considers it possible for a person to believe four points without believing the fifth, he claims that a person who really understands the other four points must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic.” In other words, there really is no such animal as a 4-Point Calvinist … one can’t toss a petal from the tulip and be true to Calvinistic belief and practice.

Yuck, I hate all this stuff so much. I find it highly suspicious that the earliest church & Christian writers all talk of God wanting to save all people & man being able to resist, hence the repeated appeals, as though we were ‘response-able’. That’s the classical Christian line. It’d be weird if those closest to Christ, entrusted with his message, to be his ambassadors of reconciliation, before they wrote the NT down, forgot what the NC’s call the doctrines of grace. For hundreds of years. If the theological picture was reversed & God’s love for all was only posited 400 years after Christ the NC’s scorn would know no end. But it’s the other way round -the earliest understandings of all the ‘crucial’ Bible passages were non-deterministic.

Bill M wrote:

Some seem to get more arrogant with education

Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t have a problem with education (I even have some). But New Calvinists pride themselves on knowledge and intellect, rather than seeking and humbly submitting to revealed Truth in the inner man.

dee wrote:

I know a pastor who calls it *equation* Christianity. It solves everything. Anything bad that happens is *for Gods glory.* God’s glory is what it is all about. Jessica Lunsford’s kidnapping, torture and death was *for God’s glory.*

I hate this. To me, these things happen because God decided that we as humans should have free will. Why would you want to do away with free will? It’s biblically supported and it makes a much better god to worship than one who WANTS these things to happen? Honestly, I don’t think I would want to worship their version of god.

dee wrote:

Mike wrote:

They choose to accept the “new life” that comes with accepting John Calvin as their personal soteriologist and theologian!

And it is quite simple! They have the answer for everything.

Chapter and Verse from Calvin’s Institutes.
“IT IS WRITTEN!” Fundamentalism with a Calvinist coat of paint.

dee wrote:

@ Christiane:
I know a pastor who calls it *equation* Christianity. It solves everything. Anything bad that happens is *for Gods glory.* God’s glory is what it is all about. Jessica Lunsford’s kidnapping, torture and death was *for God’s glory.*

“In’shal’lah… AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”

In Old-School SF litfandom, there’s a term called “The Cold Equations”, taken from the title of a classic SF short.

Max wrote:

William Birch wrote:

This is exactly the way a manipulator speaks.

New Calvinism is characterized by manipulation, intimidation, and control.

They are imitating their God.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Presuppositional thinking like we’re seeing demonstrated by militant Neo-Calvinists is a closed system — closed to larger frames of human logic and, ultimately worse, closed to the leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and closed to correction which makes failure of the system inevitable, IMO.

Gram3 wrote:

only the elect are enabled by God t

…should have been “appointed by God” I think. It is crazymaking for a human to make sense of what God intended and what he is doing and why.

@ Bridget:

Ted wrote:

—He’s very good at what he does.

Bridget wrote:
—And what is IT that he does?

Where I live that’s not usually a compliment.

dee wrote:

Wade knows that neither of the Deebs are Calvinists. Often he knows when it is OK to debate and then he knows when it isn’t. he respects all of us enough to know that he doesn’t wish to fight with us. He believes that we are all fully his brothers and sisters unlike the Calvinistas. He also has a very different view on authority, discipline, and the role of women. He does not fit into the Calvinista box.

Granted.

Gram3 wrote:

Janet wrote:
it’s an honest appeal to rethink that bastion of hell we inexplicibly cling to.
There is a fairly good case (IMO) to be made for a form of annihilationism, even from a very conservative viewpoint. Not airtight, but neither is any other view of what happens after physical death. Basically the thought is that our view of hell stems more from Greek thought than from Hebrew/Christian Scripture. You are very brave if you raise that in *any* conservative church, however.

All I know about Hell is what Jesus said about it. He took it very seriously. I can understand the appeal of annihilation and universalism but I think it best to listen to Jesus on the topic. If we follow Him we will be with Him anyway, and that’s the best. (I have no desire to derail but just wanted to throw that in there)

Back on topic, yes, the main reason I could never be a Calvinist is I don’t like what they teach about the Elect. A lot of theological hairsplitting goes on when they talk about who can and who cannot be saved.

God is not a cosmic sadist, and I cannot ever believe that He would create people then not at least give them a chance to be saved. Otherwise He would be a monster and not a loving God. His desire truly is for all men and women to be saved!

bunny wrote:

I took two semesters of systematic theology, taught from a Calvinistic viewpoint (although they did explain Arminianism as well.) After years of pondering these things I have to say I identify as neither Calvinist nor Arminian. God’s truth is more wonderful, more mysterious and more complicated-and yet beautifully simple at the same time-for a mere puny man (or woman) to totally understand. Has it occured to these folks that God is way smarter than they are and that their understanding is at a very very juvenile level compared to the truth of God and how He has orchestrated reality? A bit prideful to think one can dissect the Bible like a dead frog and think one has God all figured out!

Exactly. My pastor emerged from this debate as a Molinist, and I emerged as an Atemporalist. AKA: we all love Jesus; let’s go get a pizza.

bunny wrote:

I took two semesters of systematic theology, taught from a Calvinistic viewpoint (although they did explain Arminianism as well.) After years of pondering these things I have to say I identify as neither Calvinist nor Arminian. God’s truth is more wonderful, more mysterious and more complicated-and yet beautifully simple at the same time-for a mere puny man (or woman) to totally understand. Has it occured to these folks that God is way smarter than they are and that their understanding is at a very very juvenile level compared to the truth of God and how He has orchestrated reality? A bit prideful to think one can dissect the Bible like a dead frog and think one has God all figured out!

Yup! As those apophatic nuns used to say, “It’s a mystery.” These guys take all the mystery out of God. How can He be God if He’s so easy to figure out?

I’ve been online friends with a hardline Calvinist guy for eons. He keeps trying to bait me into debates. Occasionally I take the bait, usually regretting it later. One time this dude was going on about God’s sovereignty. I asked him who was *he* to tell GOD precisely how He was allowed to be sovereign? I don’t think he ever answered, probably just because he lost interest.

Gram3 wrote:

Max wrote:

n other words, there really is no such animal as a 4-Point Calvinist … one can’t toss a petal from the tulip and be true to Calvinistic belief and practice.

I think it is possible to be a 4-point Calvinist, but 5-pointers deny that. The question of “for whom did Christ die” is separate, IMO, from the question of “for what reason does a person believe.” Christ may have provisionally died for all while only the elect are enabled by God to believe and thus make the atonement efficient. There are nuances within Reformed theology that are more like a spectrum from 4-5. I am blanking on a very good audio series on the history of the development of Reformed soteriology before and since Calvin and who did that series. He was a 5-pointer, IIRC. If I can find it, I’ll post a link.

Gram3, I’ve heard that there are some neo-Thomists who adhere to almost a 4-pt position as you describe it: Christ died for everyone but His Atonement is only truly efficacious for the Elect or some such thing. I may be misrepresenting this. Thomism is way over my wee little head.

@ Velour:

“My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.”
++++++++++++++

isn’t it possible he did the work? (could have been silly work, though)

@ Gram3:

This is a tricky one. And it depends on the audience they are talking to how many points there are. I realize the points came after Calvin as an easy way to teach the Institutes But what if we define them closer to the truth of Calvin and his belief system? Then it becomes a problem:

Total Depravity is total inability. Total. You are dead. You inherited Adams sin and guilt. You are born guilty and can do no good.

Unconditional Election means because you are “unable” God has to have elected
you for salvation before ‘the foundation of the world’. Before you were born, before Adam sinned, etc. You have no choice in election.

Limited Atonement: You might be one of the elected few for salvation. The Atonement was pre selective. Jesus knew when He looked at that rich young ruler and “loved” him whether he had been chosen or not. Nothing he did or did not do mattered. When Jesus went about teaching repent and believe He already knew many had not been chosen, yet it seems He was playing a bait and switch.

Irresistible Grace, You cannot say no. You don’t have the ability. It matters not what you do or don’t do. (This is one reason they never mention Driscoll, I suppose. Was he chosen to cheat in the Name of God?) Or was he this one:

Preserverence of the saints– this is a tricky one. In the Institutes Calvin claims one can look elect, act elect and believe with all their heart they are saved YET were reprobates all along. Calvin refers to this a some bit of grace for you on earth. ……So there is no real assurance.

So which one can go for the system to work? There is only one way to sell this “thought reform” about Jesus Christ: a state church with control or today, a totally unrealistic view of Gods Sovereignty which ends up making God “unable” to control His Soverienty. The Sovereingty controls God as if He has a sociopathic disorder. And it must ignore His other attributes. Especially the ones recorded of Him in the flesh among us.

This system makes God a liar and trickster. I have no interest in unity with it because there cannot be. They are different gods. And I especially worry for the young caught up in it. I already know a few who have totally walked away. They can only identify God as the cruel tyrant. I see what this movement has done to so many churches here.

bunny wrote:

His desire truly is for all men and women to be saved!

That is my understanding as well. I do not think “all” means “all kinds of” people. Really smart people inexplicably disagree with me, however.

Divorce Minister wrote:

He fails to see how his categories are inherently off-putting for genuine Christians outside of his school of thought. The categories ASSUME everyone in his congregation is somewhere on the road to accepting Reformed theology as if this theology is the same as saying “Christian.”

Or, perhaps those who disagree have departed for other churches? Maybe they are not on the road to accepting it, but rather have left because of it being taught so stridently? I’ve seen that kind of thing before with the charismatic movement back in the 70’s, for example. When an issue becomes polarized, the groups sort themselves out either voluntarily or involuntarily because the middle ground no longer exists.

Dee, I appreciate the advice for Calvinist who want to try to get along with those who disagree.

Gram3 wrote:

Max wrote:

n other words, there really is no such animal as a 4-Point Calvinist … one can’t toss a petal from the tulip and be true to Calvinistic belief and practice.

I think it is possible to be a 4-point Calvinist, but 5-pointers deny that. The question of “for whom did Christ die” is separate, IMO, from the question of “for what reason does a person believe.” Christ may have provisionally died for all while only the elect are enabled by God to believe and thus make the atonement efficient. There are nuances within Reformed theology that are more like a spectrum from 4-5. I am blanking on a very good audio series on the history of the development of Reformed soteriology before and since Calvin and who did that series. He was a 5-pointer, IIRC. If I can find it, I’ll post a link.

It’s been years since we ran into (Dr.) Eric Svendsen, but from I remember he is a 4 ptr. His analogy was something along the lines of God purchased the entire paper in order to keep the sports section. (Dr.) James White was in a tizzy with him.

Lydia wrote:

I realize the points came after Calvin as an easy way to teach the Institutes But what if we define them closer to the truth of Calvin and his belief system? Then it becomes a problem:

Everything I read about Calvin and Calvinism makes me feel ill. Talk about total depravity…

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Happens with John 3:16-17 and “world.” Someone who is a 5-pointer would need to explain why they take that POV on “all” and “world.” I’m pretty sure that hasn’t been argued over very much. 🙂

kin wrote:

(Dr.) James White was in a tizzy with him.

He’s one guy who makes me look positively and joyfully winsome. The most frequent objection I’ve heard over these many years to General Atonement is that it somehow “wastes Christ’s blood” on people who will never believe. An alternative statement of basically the same idea is that Christ failed to fulfill his mission if all he came to save are not ultimately saved. This idea of wasted blood has never made sense to me because Christ’s blood was only wasted if he came to force everyone to be saved or ensure that all were saved somehow and some were not saved.

If, however, he came to provide a way of escape which was not compulsory for every last human, then he accomplished all that he came to do when he made that provision. Nothing wasted at all. No failure of mission at all.

Gram3 wrote:

Here’s a thought experiment: what if God’s supreme attribute is Goodness or Mercy? We would have a totally different kind of God.

I’ve heard it said that the core difference between Christian and Islamic views of God is that Christianity emphasizes God’s Nature (Goodness and Mercy) and Islam emphasizes God’s Omnipotent Will.

Divorce Minister wrote:

And what about the category of Bible-believing Christians who are willing to accept the tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will as an ultimate mystery? I

I always picture this as a road between 2 deep ditches. The ditch on one side is God’s sovereignty, the ditch on the other side is man’s responsibility.

Both exist, and we walk the path between the 2. Go too far either way and you’re in a ditch.

I see the same thing with grace & law.

.

Bridget wrote:

Ted wrote:

Where I live that’s not usually a compliment.

I kind of figured that but also wondered if you had a specific IT that he does.

I think the IT that he does, and very well indeed, is the John MacArthur thing. 🙂

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

These guys take all the mystery out of God. How can He be God if He’s so easy to figure out?

To the Calvinistas, CALVIN Has God All Figured Out in his Institutes (talk about bibliolatry…)

Which leads to its own brand of Socratic Atheism.
Because if God can only act according to CALVIN’s theology, God is not God, CALVIN is God.
(My original example was Predestination; If God can only will what He has been Predestined to will, then Predestination/Fate – not God – is the REAL God.)

Kemi wrote:

This! So much this. The arrogance that thinks they have God figured out – just wow.

There is a reason the Jewish name for what we call the Holy Spirit is ha-Ruach, “wind” or “breeze”. Because the wind blows wherever it will; you don’t know where it came from or where it’s going, you can’t see it, you only feel it as it blows past.

I think there was a song in the Sixties whose chorus went “I may as well try and Catch the Wind.” And these guys have that Divine Wind (ha-Ruach, not Shinfu/Kamikaze) caught and caged in their own Perfectly-Parsed Theology Box.

Jerome wrote:

Aaron joined the CHBC staff in November of 1996

This, and the fact that he received his M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southern says everything we need to know about the good pastor/doctor.

I am a full five point Calvinist, but I have never found it difficult to “get along” with Arminians (or others). In my opinion, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus died to save sinners; how God brings that about is not so clear, so it isn’t a point worth dividing over (as long as Christ is the only way).

As an aside, I listened to a great sermon by Pete Briscoe this morning while driving to work. The title was There’s Oil in My Coffee and the sermon can be found here: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/telling-the-truth/listen/theres-oil-in-your-coffee-525162.html. It is about those who add to the simplicity of the gospel.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:
“My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.”
++++++++++++++
isn’t it possible he did the work? (could have been silly work, though)

Not a bona-fide Ph.D.

I was thinking about this all day and you know what is on my mind is the following. I wonder if working for Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield swayed Aaron Meinkoff. Here’s why I say this….in the GOP Mark Hatfield was quite liberal. He did not tow the line in the party and was quite the moderate. To be elected from Oregon he had to be. So here comes Aaron working for this extremely moderate to slightly liberal Senator. I wonder if that left him confused and he say the black and white fundamentalism of CHBC and Mark Dever as “refreshing” in light of back and forth moderate approach that Hatfield had.

Who gets involved in cults and why? I wrote this last year.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/why-do-people-get-involved-in-questionable-religious-groups-cults-and-sects/

Kemi wrote:

I see Calvinism and Arminianism in the exact same way. In our limited 3-D view of God’s universe, it has to be either-or, they can’t both logically be true at the same time. But knowing God dwells in dimensions higher than our human selves can see or imagine, I’m sure pre-destination and free will live happily together with no contradictions.

I’m somewhat of a math geek myself. A few years ago I purchased “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty” by by Morris Kline from the clearance rack (my kids laughed at me). In a nutshell, he described how mathematicians were trying to prove that Calculus is both consistent and complete (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_theory). They wanted to do this because they could not understand how Calculus could so effectively use infinity and infinitesimals to get real results. But they couldn’t prove it. Ao they went back to the gold standard or Euclidean geometry and found that not even Euclidean geometry is consistent and complete. So they basically got frustrated and checked out of reality and started doing weird stuff. Meanwhile, the physicists and astronomers continued to get spectacular results because they just used the formulas without getting wrapped up with the details that caused the mathematicians to lose their sanity.

Calvinistic is very much like this. The theologians are trying to make theology both consistent and complete. But it’s a fool’s errand. The only way to make theology work is to rely on something outside of itself – what I would call revelation.

Without going into theory, here are some working rules for dealing with Calvinism:
1) Those who don’t believe in Calvinism don’t really understand it.
2) Those who do believe in Calvinism don’t really understand it either.
3) No two Calvinists will ever explain Calvinism in the same way when given the same set of questions.
4) No single Calvinist will ever explain Calvinism in the same way when given a list of multiple questions. (Keep asking long enough and the explanations will change).

This is an interesting list of Calvinistic contradictions: http://blog.savetheperishing.com/114-contradictions-from-calvinists/. Some of them are pretty humorous.

@ dee:
I don’t think that they did reject Augustine’s view. This article suggests that they rejected Pelagius’ position.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Ironically it was a Calvinist book, Why I am not an Arminian, that brought the 529 Council of Orange to my attention. Imagine, the church explicitly rejecting a Calvinist model a thousand years before Calvin was born.

To explain my own position, which is broadly Arminian, I have to credit apologist JP Holding who turned me on to the Context Group. When I started to learn more about the culture of the people who wrote the Bible, through books like The Handbook of Biblical Social Values, suddenly a lot of things started to click. The Biblical culture is collective, not individualistic, it’s agonistic (honour/shame) not guilt oriented.

Predestination is not of individuals, but of groups, there is “the church”, God’s chosen vessel for salvation, and “the world” which is not. However, just as you could become a “righteous gentile” or undergo circumcision and become a “Jewish convert” under the previous covenant extended to the Jews, membership of those groups is your choice. As Paul told his jailer, “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Interestingly, the salvation of the jailer’s household was tied to his belief, not theirs, but that is normal in a collective culture with a patriarchal head of the family unit. Where he leads, they follow.

With the understanding of group identification comes our identification with Christ in his death, resurrection, and glorification. Whenever the Bible talks about us being chosen, note how often it qualifies that with “in him”. Because Jesus is the head of our “fictive kinship group” we are identified with him. He was chosen before the foundations of the Earth, so were we. He died, was buried, and is raised, so are we. He has ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, so have we.

The understanding of that world as agonistic (honour/shame) helped frame a concept of Hell. Those who come to Christ are honoured, those who do not are dishonoured. Those “cast into the outer darkness, with wailing and gnashing of teeth” grieve their situation, but they are not being burned or tortured. They are excluded. From the ancient perspective, where everything was about community, being excluded (cut off from their people) can be worse than death.

With eternal life and death being understood in terms of relationship with God, firstly it does away with the silly Calvinist idea that we are corpses waiting for God to regenerate us so we will believe. Like the prodigal son we are dead to God, but that doesn’t mean we can’t “come to our senses” and respond to his call. Secondly, and possibly controversially, hell becomes something that people could “get over” if they wanted to. If someone genuinely wanted to let go of their pride and join the community of the faithful they could. The thing that keeps them outside is that they don’t want to. C.S. Lewis illustrated that idea in The Great Divorce.

One of the caricatures of Arminianism is that it is synergistic, that we somehow contribute to our salvation. On the contrary, salvation is totally of God, the most that could be said of us is that, upon hearing that we’re drowning, we put up our arm so the lifeguard can drag us out of the water. Sometimes a lifeguard will have to let someone almost drown because the person is too busy fighting the water to allow him to save them.

One of the other errors I find in Calvinist exegesis is that they read the Biblical texts with the insensitivity of a fundamentalist. If you read through Romans 9 you might be forgiven for seeing a Calvinistic interpretation, but if you remember that the Jews didn’t have chapter and verse divisions in Torah, and therefore the easiest way for them to reference a passage was to quote part of it and rely on the memory of their audience (because literate or illiterate, all Jewish boys memorized a lot of scripture) it suddenly takes on a very different tone. Jesus does that on the cross, referencing Psalm 22 for his hearers, evoking both the deep distress of the speaker, but also their hope of God’s vindication. Paul references Exodus 9 and 33, Jeremiah 18, Isaiah 29, and Malachi 1, to assure his listeners that God has always made a distinction between faithfulness and disloyalty, that he is faithful to his promises, that the church is the remnant of Israel, chosen over unfaithful Israel (just as Jacob/Israel was chosen before Esau/Edom in Malachi), and that God’s judgement is just because the potter cannot be deceived by pious protestations (Isaiah 29).

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the matter. It may have gone on a bit long.

I’ve witnessed conflict when those who heartily embrace divine sovereignty encounter those who wrestle with it. An ongoing issue with the YRR brand is their refusal to engage Arminian theology or thinkers. Someone like Roger Olsen would reply that arminians heartily embrace divine sovereignty as well. That really isn’t the issue. Classic reformed scholars are much more honest about this, but for some reason the YRR crowd continues to propagate these inaccuracies. In reality, the two are so similar that reformed scholars like Bavinck lump arminians as a sub-set of reformed theology, with the only major theological divisions being Catholic, Lutheran, and Protestant.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:
“My ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist pastor claimed to have a Ph.D. He bought it from an online Bible College in the Mid-West I found out when I did my digging.”
++++++++++++++
isn’t it possible he did the work? (could have been silly work, though)

I posted a comment to you on the other threat a few days ago, since you know by ex-NeoCal pastor. He’s quite deceitful.

Besides the purchased Ph.D. from an online Mid-West Bible College, and not a bona-fide Ph.D., that he has…he also claimed to have defended The Gospel before hostile liberals at a Southern California public college (after Master’s College and Seminary) when he was taking classes to become a teacher. The State of California Teacher Credentialing supervisors said that California has NEVER credentialed anyone with his name to be a teacher. All of his stories to us ex-church members were all fabrications.

He claimed to have a ministry job at John MacArthur’s church, working with children. John MacArthur likewise called that story lies and said that he was only a volunteer and never on staff as a pastor. (The ex-NeoCal pastor excommunicated one of JMac’s long-time close personal friends, a doctor in his 70s, godly man, for what else – critical thinking skills.)

Gram3 wrote:

Janet wrote:

it’s an honest appeal to rethink that bastion of hell we inexplicibly cling to.

There is a fairly good case (IMO) to be made for a form of annihilationism, even from a very conservative viewpoint. Not airtight, but neither is any other view of what happens after physical death. Basically the thought is that our view of hell stems more from Greek thought than from Hebrew/Christian Scripture. You are very brave if you raise that in *any* conservative church, however.

Spot on.

Gram3 wrote:

There is a fairly good case (IMO) to be made for a form of annihilationism, even from a very conservative viewpoint. Not airtight, but neither is any other view of what happens after physical death. Basically the thought is that our view of hell stems more from Greek thought than from Hebrew/Christian Scripture. You are very brave if you raise that in *any* conservative church, however.

Where can I learn more about this viewpoint, Gram3?

BL wrote:

Divorce Minister wrote:

And what about the category of Bible-believing Christians who are willing to accept the tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will as an ultimate mystery? I

I always picture this as a road between 2 deep ditches. The ditch on one side is God’s sovereignty, the ditch on the other side is man’s responsibility.

Both exist, and we walk the path between the 2. Go too far either way and you’re in a ditch.

I see the same thing with grace & law.

.

Me too!! It all comes from trying to figure out every jot and tittle. We can’t, because we are not God.

@ bunny:
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!!

William Birch wrote:

“Reformed”

Why don’t they “reform” in this direction: http://nydn.us/1RHjdxn

Velour wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:
Alan House wrote:
Interesting to note that WW’s “pastor”, Wade Burleson, is a five point calvinist.
I care not if he’s a 10 point Calvinist. He’s a kind and good man.
Yes, Wade breaks the mold. He places the love for God and one’s neighbor above all else.

I’m sorry, but I simply cannot reconcile being loving with believing in the monster deity.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

I agree… Further, how does a hard core Calvanist deal with the fact that an electron has properties of both a particle and a wave (or density function)? Again, our limited minds can not comprehend what appear to be fundamental contradictions…. All of these YRRs that are so zealous need to take some phyisic to realize the limits of the human mind…

Mr. Chalmers, loved your physics related commentary; ironically, I teach high school chemistry and physics. The wave-particle duality of the electron, as well as that of all matter (think DeBroglie) is one of the fun parts of the curriculum to explore. Students find it rather mind-blowing.

@ siteseer:
You can start with a search on “annihilationism debate” or “evangelical annihilationism.”

Here’s a video debate which I have not watched, though I have listened to other debates and heard Fudge elsewhere which I cannot now recall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwOEk5cgOps

I am not advocating either position, mainly because I do not know enough about it, and particularly about Greek thought. However, I remember thinking about the Gehenna references when we were in Israel, and the word picture was a little different after seeing that the refuse from Jerusalem was “thrown overboard” into the valley into a continuously burning fire. The fire did not go out, but the refuse did not continue to burn day after day but was consumed. Similar is the idea of being “outside the camp.”

__

 “Get Trusted Insights On The Scripture, Perhaps?”

hmmm…

  When we study God’s Word, we should always be watching out for those spiritual insights it offers, which might further inspire our personal walk with the Lord; these spiritural insights help us to grow stronger in Christ, and perhaps provide a greater impact wittness to others around us seeking refreshing spiritural waters to quenched their thirst.

Blessed is the fruitful believer who hungers and thirst after God’s word…

ATB  🙂 

Sopy

—

@ Gram3:

Yes. Your choices, in that system, are universalism or limited atonement. It does not occur to them that humans are involved and have a choice.

I heard the ‘wasted blood’ position for years as if all are not saved, that makes God a failure. The only way out of that is God chose “who” before Adam even sinned. (Which means God planned that, too)

No, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh was a living sacrifice for all who repent and believe.

DC wrote:

Velour wrote:
Where is his Ph.D. from?
His PhD is from Southern Seminary and this is his dissertation, Politics and Piety: Baptist Social Reform in America, 1770-1860 (Monographs in Baptist History), published as a book a couple of years ago.

Thank you.

Muff Potter wrote:

I care not if he’s a 10 point Calvinist. He’s a kind and good man.

Never said he was not kind or good. Pointed out that he subscribes to 5pt calvinism which carries some pretty ugly baggage, doctrinally.

patriciamc wrote:

You know, the teachings of Christ are pretty simple, so it amazes me how complicated Christian theology can get. I think there is some unconscious justification of jobs in there somewhere.

I’m with you. Christ’s teachings are extremely simple.

And the people who complicate it are in it for money, books, power, authority, selfish motives. I’m a Protestant but I look at Mother Teresa as a beautiful example of Christian faith lived out.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

For instance, who says that God’s sovereignty is the be-all, end-all centerpoint upon which all other elements of truth must be integrated? Did God Himself reveal that?

This is one thing of several I’ve found puzzling about Calvinism. I’d say the Bible makes God’s loving nature out to be his top attribute.

It even says somewhere in the New Testament that “God is love.”

If God were a Calvinist who was preoccupied with his Sovereignty (or getting glory), I’d think one could expect the Bible to have said, “God is Sovereign,” or “God is Glorious.”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Because if God can only act according to CALVIN’s theology, God is not God, CALVIN is God.

That might be something to ask Calvinists. 🙂

Can God act outside the teachings of Calvinism, or is God beholden to Calvinism? If God is beholden to Calvin’s teachings and interpretations of the Bible, doesn’t that mean Calvin is in charge and not God, or that God is not much of a God? 🙂

Daisy wrote:

Can God act outside the teachings of Calvinism, or is God beholden to Calvinism?

Yes, what happened to The Gospel and Christianity before John Calvin?

Ken F wrote:

Without going into theory, here are some working rules for dealing with Calvinism:
1) Those who don’t believe in Calvinism don’t really understand it.
2) Those who do believe in Calvinism don’t really understand it either.
3) No two Calvinists will ever explain Calvinism in the same way when given the same set of questions.
4) No single Calvinist will ever explain Calvinism in the same way when given a list of multiple questions. (Keep asking long enough and the explanations will change).

As I’ve said on this blog a time or two before, all that has been my experience with other Calvinists I’ve chatted with on other sites.

I’d maybe add another point: Most Calvinists I’ve talked to cannot conceive of their being any other avenues other than 1. Calvinism or 2. Arminianism.

They will insist you belong in one box or the other and there is no 3rd, 4th, or 5th option (in their view).

Daisy wrote:

That might be something to ask Calvinists.
Can God act outside the teachings of Calvinism, or is God beholden to Calvinism? If God is beholden to Calvin’s teachings and interpretations of the Bible, doesn’t that mean Calvin is in charge and not God, or that God is not much of a God?

P.S. to that.
If you do think Calvin is really accurate about God and his interpretations of the Bible, I’d hope you would make triple darn sure of that.

There are so many Christians (or groups of) who are each convinced that THEIR understanding of God or doctrines are 100% correct and that everyone else is wrong.

For example, the complementarian guys think complementarianism is really biblical and true. I used to be one.
But then I came to see as I grew older the Bible does not teach complementarianism … so you have this sad situation of a bunch of denominations (who subscribe to comp) managing to defang and de-claw half the church (i.e., women) based on THEIR wrong interpretation of the Bible.

And depending on where you are with other topics – are you into six day literal Creationism or theistic evolution, or baby sprinking vs. adult baptism, or whatever other subjects Christians feud about – you can see that some Christians are misunderstanding some topics and misunderstanding the Bible on those topics. Not everyone can be right on all this stuff.

I would think Calvinists would be open to keeping all that in mind and considering that maybe Calvinism is a big mis-read of the Bible and who God is.

Lydia wrote:

decoder ring

I think if we could market a Discernment Ring we could make a kazillion dollars! But first we must strategize and systematize it, the analyze and marketize it, then make sure to promote it and … oh wait … circular thinking. Then we’ll need to come up with some other ring when people misuse the Discernment Ring so we might do better to prevent it from happening in the first place. Okay, toss that idea.

P.S. Since we’re talking about rings, was The One Ring made in Geneva?

patriciamc wrote:

You know, the teachings of Christ are pretty simple, so it amazes me how complicated Christian theology can get.

I was saying something very much like this on Julie Anne’s blog several months ago.

The older I get the more i realize I do not know. I do think some Christians make Christianity too complicated.

I mentioned at Julie Anne’s blog my mother used to sing the song “Jesus Loves Me” to me when I was a kid. What theology I have left now is pretty much boiled down to the lyrics of that song, which I feel is the essence of the faith:
“Jesus Loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

(Not that I’m saying it’s wrong for people to think about other matters of the faith or to think about them deeply or to study them, but doing it too much, too often, personally, gives me a headache at times.)

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I think if we could market a Discernment Ring we could make a kazillion dollars!

You would just find out you need to drink more Ovaltine and then feel really disappointed.

Be sure to drink your Ovaltine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU

Velour wrote:

We could sell a high-end box of Swiss chocolates (in honor of John Calvin) with a Discernment Ring that could be given to those who make a “generous love offering” (TM).

It would seem that those who want a high-end Discernment Ring actually need one, but won’t be helped by it.

That who don’t get one perhaps know already they don’t need it. Reward with just the chocolate, if you please.

Thank you, Daisy. And Nick.

siteseer wrote:

Velour wrote:
I’m in charge of the online store for the new ministry, started right here recently on TWW by another poster, called Pound Sand Ministries (TM). I felt “called” to online retail.
This conversation is really cracking me up! I love it!
For some reason “Pound Sand” makes me picture “dramatic Dmitri” https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/e6b37f22851765.56319624b5d3b.jpg

That is a funny picture!

And theme music from Days of Our Lives and the sand going through the glass timer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98T3PVaRrHU

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Too bad so much theology is over my head as an everyday disciple. Not that doctrine is unimportant, but I’m not sure I have sufficient I.Q. for what these guys require in order to be considered right. Thankfully, we can all access the fruit of the Spirit and develop righteousness. Guess I’ll “settle” for that …

A lot of people feel overwhelmed by the complexities of theology . . . I found this advice to be comforting:
““I didn’t need to understand the hypostatic unity of the Trinity; I just needed to turn my life over to whoever came up with redwood trees.” (Annie Lamott)

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I recall watching Guy Forget on TV in his playing days. We kids used to crack up every time we saw his name displayed on screen.

@ Max:
I can remember back when Ezell and Russ Moore were claiming to be 4pointers at Highview which was a non Cal church at one time.

Personally, I don’t think Doctrine was really all that important to Mohler and his top brass of the SBC. I think it was an issue to rally young boys around. Like inerrancy was for the CR.

In the early days it was rarely brought up to big groups. Mohler made his stardom as a culture warrior.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Too bad so much theology is over my head as an everyday disciple.

It’s not over your head, so much as it’s invented behind your back.

(I know you’re fully aware of this, of course, and that I am simply picking up the satirical baton…)

If God became human, and the experience moved him not to contempt but to compassion – that changes everything. Swapping real-life stories of what this means could involve anyone with a pulse. But professional theoclergians* don’t want this. Ergo, they re-brand the interaction as a discussion of the soteriological significance of the hypostatic union. In doing so, they’ve actually made it shallower, not deeper – but as Paul observed, whereas love builds up, knowledge puffs up. Knowledge, IOW, counterfeits one of the outward effects of love; it makes you look bigger without adding any substance.

* That’s not a word, but it should be.

Serious question. If it’s all predetermined (if I understand the theology), then how do Calvinists explain the great commission? Or that Jesus said he had come so that none shall perish? So to them, creation is just a tape playing in a machine? God listening to some tunes before he gets around to some smiting? If it’s all a done deal then what’s the point? I can see why Evangelical Christians are concerned,this certainly puts a damper on being ‘evangelical’, can they be even called Evangelical?

@ Jack:
Personally, I do not believe Calvinism fits well with our very free will focused Constitution. I think that is why it, for the most part, evolved into a social Gospel focus. There have always been schisms and such but it eventually evolves if it grows big enough. History sort of bears this out. But major damage is done in the meantime.

We are already seeing they are attempting to rebrand by embracing some social issues and presenting a softer side as they control people. Russ Moore is on the forefront of this. I can see hints of it on many YRR blogs. Big talk on unity now, too. Before we did not know the true Gospel. Now they are willing to tolerate us.

If theology is *all* supposed to be about soteriology, does that mean this theology is sindoctrination?

Lydia wrote:

And then there is the idea that at some point in the pre selected persons life, God has to “activate” their election through preaching because the pre selected persons unable to respond.

That may be why some people wander into ideas like eternal justification.

Jack wrote:

how do Calvinists explain the great commission? Or that Jesus said he had come so that none shall perish?

My understanding of their position is that God ordains the means (evangelism) as well as the end (justification.) Some strains of Baptist thinking wandered away from this idea and said missions were unnecessary.

The “none shall perish” refers to those who are the elect and not to humanity as a whole, consistent with their Limited Atonement doctrine. The fact is that *if* all of humanity believed and trusted in and identified with Jesus, all would be saved. Even in the Calvinist system.

Robin C. wrote:

Why would a church have you sign a membership covenant and allow you in as a member in good standing if you don’t hold to the same confession as this particular church?

Interesting question. I suppose that ideally every member would sign on the dotted line with a strict subscription understanding of the church’s confession or statement of faith. That is one idea of “unity.” As a practical matter, that is difficult to maintain, even for denominations that require that of their ordained clergy. I think pewpeons have different “deal-breakers” like baptism while the theoclergians (thanks, Nick) have other “deal-breakers” like Female Subordination and Membership Covenants. Most times you can live together as long as you stay quiet about your disagreement and don’t have an overly pesky conscience.

Gram3 wrote:

This idea of wasted blood has never made sense to me because Christ’s blood was only wasted if he came to force everyone to be saved or ensure that all were saved somehow and some were not saved.

Wasted blood? What a bizarre concept! If he came to die, he came to die, whether it was for one person of 50 billion, the same amount of blood would be shed.

And all of this makes sense if you believe god gave us free will and allows us to make choices. If you reject that out of hand, you have to come up with all sorts of explanations, most of which make god sound monsterous.

Lydia wrote:

Personally, I don’t think Doctrine was really all that important to Mohler and his top brass of the SBC. I think it was an issue to rally young boys around.

I sort of agree with you Lydia. Mohler definitely needed an “issue” to motivate a young and restless army … so he tacked on reformed. It’s certainly clear that he is on a mission, passionate about his cause, truly believes his theological confession, and is intent on altering the SBC landscape to nothing less than a reformed entity via the release of YRR seminary graduates into SBC churches.

His 1993 convocation address at Southern entitled “Don’t Just Do Something; Stand There!” was filled with warnings which majority SBC leadership should have more effectively dealt with while the window was open (it’s closed now). In his charge to rally his Southern troops around the reformed Abstract of Principles, he made the following statements:

“The Abstract remains a powerful testimony to a Baptist theological heritage that is genuinely evangelical, Reformed, biblical, and orthodox.”

“We bear the collective responsibility to call this denomination back to itself and its doctrinal inheritance. This is a true reformation and revival … ”

There may be other drivers steering Mohler (power, prestige), but bless his little obviously unenlightened heart (to borrow from the blog title), he is wrong to throw the rest of the church under the bus with his new reformation.

@ Bridget:

The Neo Cal movement has gone to great lengths to enforce their interpretation of the legal membership covenant and Hebrews 13:17. I honestly have never seen anything like this form of authoritarianism and control before. And the only reason we know, are because brave souls told of their experience.

Bridget wrote:

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one Gram3.

Practically speaking from own experience, you are exactly right. 🙂

Bridget wrote:

There was a time (and still is)…

This is a useful variation on the theme of “A time is coming, and now is, when…”

IHTIH.

@ brad/futuristguy:

“I may have missed it in the thread above. But if someone promised chocolate in exchange for discernment, please let me know where to apply for a supply. Thank you.”
+++++++++

not cheese?

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

ION: Weather
Blighty, and Scotland in particular, continues to enjoy an unprecedented summer thanks to the polar jet-stream meandering far to the south of its normal course. Lesley and I are optimistic about a day’s rock-climbing on the Isle of Skye this weekend. By contrast, France is getting our summer at the moment; this is no laughing matter as they’re contending with a significant and widespread risk of flooding. As Wartburgers attempting to follow the French Open will be aware, a great deal of time has been lost to rain. With more rain forecast for Thursday and Friday, the tournament looks very likely to spill over into next week, although tournament director Guy Forget* is currently saying it won’t.
*”Guy Forget” is a real name, pronounced GHEE FOR-SZAY in French. By coincidence, it happens to be an English quasi-sentence.

And East Texas weather forecast…rain, rain, rain, rain….this after 6.61 inches here at my house on Friday…( the Oregon Scientific rain electronic gauge was one of my best investments…ever…)

Lydia wrote:

I heard the ‘wasted blood’ position for years as if all are not saved, that makes God a failure.

Do they also insist that the sunlight and rain that God showers on the “unjust” and “unbelievers” is also wasted? According to Jesus, God doesn’t seem to mind “wasting” his good gifts in this way…

Nancy2 wrote:

Doesn’t that belief make women God-appointed service animals …….. just another species (just a little below men) that God told men to subdue and have dominion over?

Great way to describe it!

Nancy2 wrote:

Jack wrote:
Serious question. If it’s all predetermined (if I understand the theology), then how do Calvinists explain the great commission? Or that Jesus said he had come so that none shall perish? So to them, creation is just a tape playing in a machine? God listening to some tunes before he gets around to some smiting? If it’s all a done deal then what’s the point? I can see why Evangelical Christians are concerned,this certainly puts a damper on being ‘evangelical’, can they be even called Evangelical?
Exactly! And, what about John 3:16-18??? “….whosoever believeth……
And, “Satan’s like a roaring lion, roaming to and fro, seeking whim he may devour.” Is there really a Satan? Doesn’t these teachings make God and Satan one and the same, since God makes bad things happen “for His glory”!
I also have a major problem with complementarianism, both Cavinist and non-Calvinists. Doesn’t that belief make women God-appointed service animals …….. just another species (just a little below men) that God told men to subdue and have dominion over?

And I will add I think Calvinisms determinism is a horror for victims of all stripes. There is just no way around the end result that God is controlling every molecule 24/7. Some view it as heir chance to suffer for piety, ala Piper and others. But for some, it is a reason to walk away.

@ Serving Kids In Japan:

That part I think they call common grace. When horrible things are done to innocents, I don’t really want to contemplate why as much as I want to fix and prevent it. I really do get the impression our Lord agrees that is our responsibility.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
not cheese?
Yup. If you’re from Wisconsin. And it’s cheddar. White cheddar. Wisconsin white cheddar. Only. All other forms of Wisconsin products, cheddar, and non-Consin white cheddar are non-elect.
(Wow. Just wow. And that’s how it all gets started. Neo-Cheddarism for the foodological elites.)
(Whereas chocolate can be for the masses of populist disciples.)

That would be NO American cheese for Nadia Bolz Weber! :o)

Jack wrote:

how do Calvinists explain the great commission? … If it’s all a done deal then what’s the point?

Your questions frame the concern that the majority of Christians have with the tenets of Calvinism. Of course, reformed folks would respond that they are engaged in the Great Commission but the GC to them takes on an entirely different meaning. Their mission is to harvest the elect, not reach the lost. That’s why you don’t hear passionate pleas coming from their pulpits for lost folks to repent of their sins and accept Christ. There is no need for altar calls, sinners’ prayers, and “accepting” Christ … you already have your ticket punched or not. Essentially, if you keep coming to their services, you obviously have been chosen and don’t need to do much about it. Oh, you need to at some point to express faith and get baptized … but the process certainly doesn’t look like evangelism practiced by the rest of Christianity. Calvinists are not evangelical in the true sense of the word.

Gram3 wrote:

I suppose that ideally every member would sign on the dotted line with a strict subscription understanding of the church’s confession or statement of faith. That is one idea of “unity.”

In these authoritarian church (9Marks, Acts 29, John MacArthur-ite) “unity” means blind obedience to the pastors/elders and church discipline and excommunication/shunning for the slightest disagreement.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Brad, you knocking my adopted home state! Wisconsin?

Nope. Just telling the Neo-Cheddarist truth. I take no responsibility for it being true; don’t shrill the messenger.

@ brad/futuristguy:

no, not from Wisconsin, and it’s not cheddar. it’s epoisse from france and wensleydale with cranberries from yorkshire, england & that’s just or starters.

all neo-cheddarists can live in their make-believe unicheese world if they want, but why postpone cheeseheaven for the afterlife when you can enjoy all the varieties now!

elastigirl wrote:

all neo-cheddarists can live in their make-believe unicheese world if they want, but why postpone cheeseheaven for the afterlife when you can enjoy all the varieties now!

That’s just *grate* (TM).

The bacteria that make for cheddar cheese are the only ones unaffected by The Fall. Hence, Neo-Cheddarism is the only true cheese free from that curse. Non-cheddarists think their cheeses are true, but they don’t understand the facts of cheddar bacteria. We have the one, true, perfect, tasty, chosen cheese.

Lydia wrote:

I missed this earlier. I agree. It is one reason, I think, that the YRR were taught to frame every doctrinal point within a Calvin/Arminius dichotomy.

INGSOC and Goldsteinism.

Daisy wrote:

Can God act outside the teachings of Calvinism, or is God beholden to Calvinism? If God is beholden to Calvin’s teachings and interpretations of the Bible, doesn’t that mean Calvin is in charge and not God, or that God is not much of a God?

That is Socratic Atheism.
Because if a god is beholden to or controlled by something else, then that thing which controls the god is the REAL god and the god is only a puppet.

@ Jason:
Hello again. I hadn’t read anything about the Council of Orange until the subject was mentioned here the other day. So I did a bit of googling. I referred to one website and you were good enough to reply. Ive googled some more and found another website that has been quite helpful.

http://www.crivoice.org/creedorange.html

I quite like Cousin of Eutychus’ analogy of two eyes for depth perception and applies it to Calvinism/Arminianism

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Neo-Cheddarists are for cowformity!

Calf-inism, as it were.

roebuck wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Neo-Cheddarists are for cowformity!

Calf-inism, as it were.

Brilliant commentary! You guyz are on today.

Something to restore faith in humanity… 300 male and female firefighters flew from South Africa to Alberta to help combat the devastating Fort McMurray fire (now the size of the Everglades). When they arrived at the Edmonton airport after a 22-hour trip, they sang together in baggage claim:

https://youtu.be/F0nbAQm-N_4

roebuck wrote:

Just what I’d expect some Cheddarista to say

Dagnabbit, you other cheese blockers are ignorant and annoying!

You don’t know what you’re talking about!

You’ll never understand true Cheddarism!

You’re misrepresenting us!

You’re the ones with the holes in your cheese, and we’re the only ones with The Whole Cheese!

Get your cheese block, and stop cowmenting on ours!

@ lowlandseer:

Thanks for the link! Very interesting and succinct. My only quibble is how most theological historians present Pelagius. We really only have what his detractors documented that he believed and a few things he wrote that survived destruction from his detractors. I often wonder if his infamous reputation as a heretic is deserved. It seems like he was more concerned with our living out our beliefs and personal responsibility than the doctrinal minutia of Augustine.

I have posted my latest update on the open discussion thread…

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-255983

As a post-script to all things Cheesey, I am a believer in the Second Blessing of lemon zest/juice in my cheese sauce, as regular Wartburgers will have observed already.

Velour wrote:

You guys are *milking* this.

Am I too latte to chime in?

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

It does seem odd, doesn’t it?

This membership contract thing smells of greed. I think churches like this want the tithes and overlook the gaps in doctrinal allegiances. I’m too cynical, I suppose, but ‘contracts’ to me are LEGAL documents, and are way out of place in a faith community.

Daisy wrote:

They will insist you belong in one box or the other and there is no 3rd, 4th, or 5th option (in their view).

Precisely! They tend to limit all conversations to extreme views. For example:
– You are either Calvinist or Arminian. The reality is these two views are much closer than Calvinists will concede. I am neither.
– God decrees every detail of the universe, or he is sovereign over nothing. I think the only thing we can positively state about his sovereignty is that he can do whatever he wants to do with it and is in no way constrained by our theological systems.
– You either believe in limited atonement or you are a heretical universalist.
The list goes on and on.

It’s this type of thinking that energizes the four rules I proposed. It’s not possible to consistently describe one’s theology when there is so little room for nuance. When they paint themselves into a corner they come out swinging rather than reflecting on how they got there.

I’ve described in earlier threads how I often feel like I am running with scissors theologically because of the questions I’ve been asking and the stuff I’ve been reading over the last year. Here is some of the more interesting stuff I found so far:
1) Baxter Kruger is so much a fan of “The Shack” that he wrote a book on the theology behind it and became good friends with the author. The YRR crowd is so fanatical against “The Shack” that this alone interested me. Kruger has a very interesting take on unlimited atonement that is worth considering. Here is a short sample: http://baxterkruger.blogspot.com/2012/09/universalism_10.html. For those who have time to listen, this is a very interesting series of lectures:
http://perichoresis.org/the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag/. He seems to be pointing back to the early church.
2) I discovered Kruger through listening to a series of interviews here: https://www.gci.org/youreincluded. I’ve been working my way through this list when I walk my dog in the evenings. I don’t agree with everything I hear, but the contrast with what the YRR crowd teaches is stunning. After a year of getting depressed by researching Calvinism it was these interviews that helped me get out of the rut. The scary part for me is that CGI was once a very bad cult, worse in almost all ways than anything associated with the YRR. Their story of repentance is unusual (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Communion_International). I have not spent lots of time diving into CGI’s theological distinctives, but I have found the “You’re Included” interviews very helpful because they interview theologians from a variety of denominational backgrounds.
3) I’ve done lots of internet searches where I include the word “orthodox” in the search string. This has led me to some great perspectives from Eastern Orthodoxy (but their articles can be quite lengthy). Their theology has remained mostly free from the issues that have dogged Catholics and Protestants.

The potential answers are much broader than what Calvinists tell us.

Velour wrote:

According to Mark Dever (Capitol Hill Baptist Church), founder of 9Marks, you have to have a visible membership (via church membership contracts) and it is what holds Christians together (not of course Jesus Christ).

He is definitely preaching a different gospel!

Ken F wrote:

This is why it makes so little sense to try to argue with them.

Debating is not preaching the gospel. These guys spend more time arguing and defending aberrant theology, than being salt and light to a dying world.

Lydia wrote:

It seems They want Unity when it comes to the money flowing in.

Or to buy them time while they complete Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention! SBC’s “Unity Committee” a few years ago essentially advised all dissenters concerned about the proliferation of reformed theology to sit down and shut up, agree to disagree, get along to go along, and make room under the big tent for the New Calvinists. History will show that this was a mistake, as the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America surrenders its identity for the sake of “unity.” It is not wrong to call for unity – after all, God commands the blessing to be where there is unity – but, New Calvinists are not unifiers they are dividers – they will do whatever is necessary for the sake of their movement.

@ Velour:

Yep.

This was interesting

“In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Paul challenges the Corinthian church to judge those who are inside the church and leave judging outsiders to God. How did the Corinthians know who was in and who was out? They knew whom Paul was talking about because some people had formally, publicly identified themselves with the church in Corinth while the rest of the city had not. Those who had were inside the church. They were the church’s members. Those who hadn’t were not.” IX Marks

The members of the church in Corinth had formally, publicly identified themselves. Right.

Hi All,

Jeannette Altes, a long-time poster here on TWW, has been going through tough times (job loss, tumor and treatment, etc.). Her rent is due and she needs $520 to be donated.
Is there any way that 10 of us could donate $52 each to help her? (GoFundMe takes a little bit out). Rest of discussion to be over on the Open Discussion tab. (To the right on the screen.) http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp

Thank you.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I shan’t diss a brie!

@ Velour:
Thank you.

I was going to comment on here more today than I did, but my computer froze up and crashed awhile ago.

One thing I wanted to say about Calvinists. A lot of them have a lot of intellectual pride and snobbery. (They are the flip side of the coin from the anti-intellectual Independent Fundamentalist Baptists.)

One of my problems with Calvinism, or certain types of Calvinists (the ones who revere education and book reading) is that the faith itself is presented by Jesus as being so simple that a small child can grasp the essentials, and that’s all that is needed.

Jesus never said a person needs a 120 I.Q. and ten advanced college degrees to be his follower.

Apparently, you have to do a lot of reading or study to grasp Calvinism (maybe according to a lot of Calvinists.)

If God does not expect people to be very studios or book worms to accept the Gospel, why would Calvinists act like people have to be that way to be a Calvinist and/or a Calvinist Christian?

It’s as though some Calvinists add stipulations on to the faith that even Jesus did not.

@ Jim G.:
Jim G. wrote:

The Neoplatonic “One” can no longer be mapped onto the triune Yahweh, as has been from Origen and Augustine, down through scholastic Reformed theology and the YRR

Debi Calvet wrote:

In my mind, creating people for eternal torture is infinitely more cruel than being complementarian.

I have a hard time believing in eternal torture whether God specifically created the evil to suffer it or they reject him on their own.

@ siteseer:

I recently gave a message in favor of Conditional Immortality, or Conditionalism, which holds that hell is not forever, and that at some point the sufferer is annihilated. A good website to go to is Rethinking Hell. They published a helpful book under the same title. If you want an exhaustive treatment of the subject, read The Fire That Consumes, by Edward Fudge. He also wrote a much shorter book on the subject called Hell: A Final Word. There’s actually a fairly good movie about this guy, called Hell and Mr. Fudge. Finally, a book that defends the traditional view of hell against annihilation and other views is Hell Under Fire, ed. by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson.

Jim G. wrote:

I’d like to see my SBC embrace the Trinity (the full ramifications thereof, not just a lip-service point in a doctrinal statement). When God is viewed as an eternal communion of self-giving and other-centered persons, this whole narcissistic understanding of his “glory” in his “sovereignty” is blown to bits. The Neoplatonic “One” can no longer be mapped onto the triune Yahweh, as has been from Origen and Augustine, down through scholastic Reformed theology and the YRR.

Amen.

JeffB wrote:

Many here would be pleasantly surprised, even if not won over.

Won over to what? I really don’t understand why you think anyone needs to be won over to what ever it is you think they might need. Is it Calvinism that you think people need? Not all, but most people here, are believers, so what besides Christ, do they need to be won over to?

lowlandseer wrote:

@ Jason:
Hello again. I hadn’t read anything about the Council of Orange until the subject was mentioned here the other day. So I did a bit of googling. I referred to one website and you were good enough to reply. Ive googled some more and found another website that has been quite helpful.
http://www.crivoice.org/creedorange.html
I quite like Cousin of Eutychus’ analogy of two eyes for depth perception and applies it to Calvinism/Arminianism

Let’s not forget that Dordt was a deck stacked by Calvinists who subsequently murdered some of the Arminians who went to debate their position. Calvin was a liar and murderer from the beginning, and his followers never strayed far from his path.

Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded after siding with the Arminians against the Synod of Dordt. Whether that was the exact cause of his death though, I cannot determine.

JeffB wrote:

I’d like to recommend yet again Michael Horton, particularly his book “For Calvinism.” Many here would be pleasantly surprised, even if not won over.

If any TWW readers elect to read Horton’s book, make sure you follow it with “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson. They were written as companion books, with contrasting perspectives. Olson provides a scholarly challenge to the weaknesses of Calvinism as he addresses the underlying objective of this writing: “Calvinist theology has been debated and promoted for centuries … is it a theology that should last?” He speaks to the concern I have had about the proliferation of New Calvinism in the Generation X and Millennial generations in his final chapter: “I would like to persuade fellow Christians to avoid Calvinism, not because it will kill their faith or spirituality but because I want people to think better of God than Calvinism allows.” Essentially, he is emphasizing what Dave Hunt’s book title does “What Love Is This?” From the book cover “Roger Olson suggests that Calvinism, also commonly known as reformed theology, holds an unwarranted place in our list of accepted theologies.”

…antinomian…An evergreen and multipurpose slur.

Lydia wrote:

Some of us see the concept of election as corporate not individual.

Lydia, it continues to amaze me that reformed folks who pride themselves in their superior intellect miss this point entirely as they read Romans 9. It’s clear in the context of the whole passage that Paul is referring to national not personal election. Adrian Rogers booklet “Predestined to Hell? Absolutely Not!” provides the right perspective in this regard as he concludes “When you come to Jesus, you are predestined for heaven; but when you are born, you are never predestined to hell.” Heaven is populated by the whosoever wills working in tandem with the sovereignty of God for their salvation. As you note “Believers are elect because they chose to believe Jesus Christ, Jew and Gentile.” I keep praying for God to elect a bunch more – the days are short.

@ Jason:
The Victor’s write the official history.

@ Bridget:
I thought He said Repent and believe.

@ lowlandseer:

“You will see from this blog alone that Scripture is regularly lampooned as “Scribsher”, preachers called “Men of Gawd” and occasionally “God” himself posts a random thought. And that is where the problem seems to lie. We want to be God. We want to be able to explain His unexplainable ways, we sit in judgment of Him and what He does and how He does it. In short, we think we are better than we are.”
+++++++++++++++

on the contrary, I think we’re sick of others who wear Christian leader hats who seem to want to be God, seem threatened by Jesus’ popularity, insist that they are the privileged privy who know how to explain His unexplainable ways, and who clearly come across as thinking they are better than they are.

I think most of us are a bit annoyed with the variety of conflicting answers from which all manner of churches pick their favorite and insist it is the only right and true option.

I think most of us are ok with the fact that there are loads of unanswered questions, so why not focus on kindness and making the world & the earth a better, safer, healthier place because we were here.

@ elastigirl:

As I’m sure you’ve guessed, I was in the middle of writing the above thesis when you posted…

Gram3 wrote:

My impression is that he believed and intended to convey what he said.

I thought that would be your answer. No surprise on my part. According to some in the Reformed camp, if we are not with them, we are doomed.

lowlandseer wrote:

You will see from this blog alone that Scripture is regularly lampooned as “Scribsher”, preachers called “Men of Gawd” and occasionally “God” himself posts a random thought.

So you read the other TWW articles and posts and conveniently ripped the responses out of context? It wasn’t Scripture being lampooned but abusive, manipulative, money-hungry, power-hungry, authoritarian pastors. Jesus’ reserved His harshest criticisms for the same types of religious men. So does the Bible over and over again.

There’s innocent humor in why one of our posters occasionally posts a remark from “God.”

lowlandseer wrote:

Am I elect?”

If God already knew in advance who was going to Heaven and Hell then there would be no need for Jesus’ death and resurrection, no need for the Cross.

JeffB wrote:

Yes, election is not the most important category in the Bible, and one’s view of it does not determine whether or not one is a believer, or even a so-called “smart” believer (oy!) However 1) It is a part of the Bible; 2) There are “hard sayings” in the Bible; 3) Sometimes these sayings involve election. May we agree on that? I’m not saying that, for instance, Rom. 9:6-23 should be isolated from the rest of Scripture and a doctrine formed from that alone. But it is part of God’s revelation, and no part of His revelation should be ignored. Neither should the passages that, at the least, seem to disagree with it. I write “seem” only because of our limited understanding and because I don’t think God contradicts Himself. Though I think the view of many of the Reformers (not just Calvin) were correct concerning election, I might, of course be wrong. I think it’s okay to have an opinion on it while keeping in mind that there is a lot that God has not revealed to us, and even some of what He has revealed might not be perfectly clear.

I identify with many on this site who do not classify themselves as “Calvinist” or “Arminian.” I believe the subject of free will/election is beyond the human mind’s ability to grasp. I note the passages that seem to state one position and those that seem to state the other- I have a long list of passages both pro and con that I have been adding to over many years, and I ponder these things at times. I can see why some land on one side of the debate and some on the other side. It’s something I find perplexing and intriguing on one hand but non-essential and divisive, on the other. Believing it is beyond the comprehension of the human brain, I very much appreciate your mindset of realizing you may be wrong. We should all have this attitude of appreciating how wrong we may be in our attempt to understand the difficult issues. It’s a subject that should never be put before the essentials of the faith- the person of Christ being first and then love, of God first and then of the brethren.

That being said, there is a great deal more to Calvinism than free will vs election. A great deal. And the current flavor of Calvinism, especially, has picked up an immense load of extra-biblical baggage. And the fruit is not good.

@ God:

Many thanks!

Bridget wrote:

Many here would be pleasantly surprised, even if not won over.

I wrote that because I didn’t want to give the impression that I was trying to get people to take a Calvinist view, but it backfired. No, nobody *needs* Calvinism, as I think I made clear in my comment. But, just as there are different views of atonement, etc., there are different views of election. Also, that book would show that Calvinism is not only about election.

I posted Ken F’s good list of questions about Calvinism (dated May 17th) and his links to websites (May 22nd) at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books tab, etc.
for those who are interested in the work he has already done.

siteseer wrote:

I feel that most of what people understand about hell comes not from the Bible but from paganism and extra-biblical teachings that crept into the church.

The view of some Greek philosophy that human beings are inherently immortal has, I think, a lot to do with the belief in an eternal hell.

elastigirl wrote:

so why not focus on kindness and making the world & the earth a better, safer, healthier place because we were here.

Nahhh… Cant’ have that. Too simple. Too straight forward.

JeffB wrote:

@ Max:
Yes, a lot of Rom 9-11 deals with Israelites and Gentiles, not individuals. But not all of it. Rom 9:1-5 concerns Israelites as a whole. It seems to me that starting with Rom 9:6, Paul is talking about individual Jews, the remnant, the children of the promise, who are saved. I don’t see how vss 15 and 16 can be talking about nations. Then he talks about Pharaoh, an individual.
There are people I respect who disagree or agree. This is how I see it.

Actually, if you go back and read Exodus 9, which is the reference Paul is making, Pharaoh was indeed the one God says he could have destroyed with a plague for his crimes, but instead he made him stand/raised him up, so that his punishment would be a watchword to the surrounding nations. However Pharaoh wasn’t the sole perpetrator of the enslavement of the Hebrews and murder of their sons. That had been three generations of Pharaoh, and the Egyptian people themselves. Just as earlier Paul quotes Malachi referring to Jacob representing Israel, and Esau representing Edom, here Pharaoh represents the Egyptians, but also the Jewish leadership who had rejected Jesus.

Likewise in Romans 9:5-6 Paul is talking about a group, the believing Jews who are the faithful remnant of Israel, the ones who are obedient to God’s command. From verses 15-16, God’s word to Moses, which comes from Exodus 33, is God’s promise of faithfulness when Moses wants assurance that God’s presence would go with the Jewish people. In that culture (Pilch, Malina, The Handbook of Biblical Social Values) mercy was the payment of interpersonal obligation from a greater to a lesser within a covenant relationship. Semitic language often used parallelism and repetition for emphasis, so what God is telling Moses here is that he would most definitely fulfill his treaty obligations to the Israelites. It is a statement of God’s utter faithfulness to his treaty partners, not, as Calvinists interpret it, a statement of God’s whimsical and arbitrary selection of some for salvation.

And yes, judicial hardening does take place. Pharaoh was hardened because, after at least eighty years of enslaving and murdering Hebrews, Egypt was due some payback, and it wouldn’t have done for Pharaoh to give in before they were punished. The suggestion is that the Jewish leaders have also been hardened because of their rejection of Jesus, and persecution of the church.

Remember that the Jews didn’t have chapter and verse divisions like we do. The easiest way to bring a passage to mind was to quote a distinctive part of it so your listeners would recall it. Literate or illiterate, all Jewish boys had a lot of scripture memorized.

Isaiah 29, specifically verses 13-16, where Paul gets his comment about the pot making demands of the potter, God states outright that the people profess loyalty, but are disloyal, and their attempts to cover it up are futile because the potter knows what they’re really like.

Just as an aside, whenever you see Paul referring to human effort or exertion to merit God’s favour, it’s pretty obvious he has the keeping of the Mosaic law in mind. He is a Jew, after all. He contrasts the faithful who might (in the case of Jewish believers) keep the Mosaic law, with those who place their faith in their keeping of the Mosaic law as meriting righteousness with God. Paul says, “No. It is believing God that is accounted for righteousness,” and he goes all the way back to non-Jewish Abraham to prove it.

Muff Potter wrote:

elastigirl wrote:

so why not focus on kindness and making the world & the earth a better, safer, healthier place because we were here.

Nahhh… Cant’ have that. Too simple. Too straight forward.

People would be too independent, too. They might become responsible for their own choices and behavior which is basically free will.

lowlandseer wrote:

I thought this debate had moved on to the Open section of TWW and I will be quite happy for my comment to be moved there if it’s thought appropriate.

Thanks for your response. I think the conversation that was moved to the open discussion was the part about “my denomination is better than your denomination” (but that conversation didn’t go anywhere on the thread either). The topic of this thread is the divisiveness of Calvinism, so I think my comment is very applicable for this topic.

The passage that has bothered me for years is John 17:22-23: “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” This is not the only passage in the Bible that speaks about Christian unity, but the fact that Jesus prayed about it makes it significant. The “church” has probably never been more divided in all of human history. So does this mean that Jesus’ prayer failed? Or does Christian unity mean something else? I don’t have a good answer for this yet, but I suspect that Christian unity is more than everyone either all jumping on the same bandwagon or else everyone politely agreeing to disagree.

One thing I do know is all the various types of Christianity have the same answer on how to achieve Christian unity: “Believe like we believe and act like we act.” It’s not possible for all of them to be right because they have contradictory views. I supposes it’s possible that all are wrong, but that would mean that Christianity completely failed. So I would think that some are closer to the truth than others. But who decides who is closer? And what are the important issues? I’m now thinking that Christians are dividing over the wrong issues. I’m certain that the early church was not perfect, but I am also thinking that they may be a model to look at. They seemed to be much more tolerant about many theological issues. But they stood hard against teachings about the nature of God (revealed as Father, Son, Spirit). They stood very hard against heresies such as gnosticism, modalism, etc. Is this a good model for us? I don’t know enough yet to make that call, but I do know that I want to read more from the early church fathers.

So back to Calvinism. My own personal experience with Calvinists is a rigidity and narrow-mindedness that excludes any possibility of unity unless you believe their five points and other associated “essentials” such as penal substitution. They leave you no room for discussion because they have become convinced that any departure from their essentials is apostasy. They either fight to the end or they completely avoid the topic so as not to offend. But the main point is there is very little possibility of civil discussion because they are so unwilling to consider alternative conclusions.

If you believe in penal substitution, I would be very glad if you could take a stab at the 18 questions I posted. I cannot get anyone who believes in penal substitution to answer them. Thanks.

Lydia wrote:

The problem with Neo Cals and fundamentalism in general is that they brand scholars and theologians as if one has to agree on everything within their framework or they are totally bad.

That seems to be one of the biggest problems. But I’m pretty sure I did my share to contribute to the problem. I’m trying to do better now.

Around 23 years ago I had a chance to meet up with an old college friend. I was excited to tell him about the old earth stuff I was learning from “Reasons to Believe” (Hugh Ross). He was genuinely afraid for my salvation. He urged me to read Ken Ham books so that I could get my theology right. And he warned me about a little leaven poisoning the whole loaf. It turned out that he was attending a “separationist” church that pretty much separated from everyone who did not fit their very narrow view of the Bible. We lost contact not long after that. It was a pretty shocking experience for me because I had never before felt such strong push back to what I thought was a pretty solid approach to understanding creation. But over the years I’ve had that experience more often than I would like. It’s unfortunate that meaningful dialogue has become so rare.

JeffB wrote:

(I like “elect.”)

I do to! It’s a great Bible word! In the red hot fire of good Gospel preaching, God is still electing folks who willingly come to the Savior!

Ken F wrote:

The “church” has probably never been more divided in all of human history. So does this mean that Jesus’ prayer failed? Or does Christian unity mean something else? I don’t have a good answer for this yet, but I suspect that Christian unity is more than everyone either all jumping on the same bandwagon or else everyone politely agreeing to disagree.

Maybe everyone who is called the church is not really the church.

One thing that impressed me in regard to unity was Corrie Ten Boom’s description of how all the Christians found each other and bonded together in the concentration camps, regardless of which tradition they had come from. The unity is there, perhaps, but not always visible under normal circumstances.

People come to this site from all corners of Christianity, one thing in common to many is we have been subject to abuse and it has played out strikingly the same. Authoritarianism is a problem common most denominations I’ve tried. I think people here are very civil and caring to one another though our beliefs on the non-essentials vary widely, and I think it’s a picture of unity in Christ.

Darlene wrote:

When you are the “chosen one” then you can find joy. However, for those who are reprobated by God for nothing that they have done or didn’t do, joy is not a possibility. It is a hard-hearted belief system that posits God as being good in damning millions of people for His glory. Hence, the chosen ones must also find joy in the damning and torture of millions of people who were doomed from the beginning, otherwise they are rejecting an appreciation of God’s sovereignty and God’s glory.

Darlene, I so agree with you. I personally believe that these kind of beliefs can twist a person’s own manner of loving away from what is natural because people tend to become like the god they believe in. There is such a cognitive dissonance when you say in one breath that God is love and in the next that he is ok with creating sentient beings to burn alive, with no hope of relief, forever. Does this kind of belief bring a person to the point where they rationalize cruelty in this life?

Like Anna Sewell wrote in Black Beauty, “cruelty is the trademark of the devil.”

siteseer wrote:

One thing that impressed me in regard to unity was Corrie Ten Boom’s description of how all the Christians found each other and bonded together in the concentration camps, regardless of which tradition they had come from. The unity is there, perhaps, but not always visible under normal circumstances.

People come to this site from all corners of Christianity, one thing in common to many is we have been subject to abuse and it has played out strikingly the same. Authoritarianism is a problem common most denominations I’ve tried. I think people here are very civil and caring to one another though our beliefs on the non-essentials vary widely, and I think it’s a picture of unity in Christ.

Well said. That’s what I like about this site.

Ken F wrote:

Around 23 years ago I had a chance to meet up with an old college friend. I was excited to tell him about the old earth stuff I was learning from “Reasons to Believe” (Hugh Ross). He was genuinely afraid for my salvation. He urged me to read Ken Ham books so that I could get my theology right. And he warned me about a little leaven poisoning the whole loaf. It turned out that he was attending a “separationist” church that pretty much separated from everyone who did not fit their very narrow view of the Bible. We lost contact not long after that. It was a pretty shocking experience for me because I had never before felt such strong push back to what I thought was a pretty solid approach to understanding creation.

I found the Young Earth Creationism teaching by my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite pastors/elders to be, frankly, idiotic. The Hebrew word “yom” in the creation story has some 58 different meanings, including “a long time”. Hebrew didn’t have that many words in Biblical times and the same words were used to convey different meanings and contexts. The YCCers never said that.

I came from a background of Presbyterians, including women, who worked on Nobel Prize-winning research teams including in the 1920’s. They never believed in Young Earth Creation and the matter was not even discussed in the Presbyterian Churches they went to.
Presbyterians seemed much more concerned about missions around the world (China and Africa), helping people, and other ways to be like Jesus.

Darlene wrote:

When you are the “chosen one” then you can find joy.

NeoCalvinists seem to believe this. I found to arrogant, hateful, and aborrhent at my ex-NeoCalvinist church.

Any expression of indviduality, Christian conscience, was met with threats by the pastors/elders, public humiliation after the Sunday church service before hundreds of church members (with the narrative completely controlled by the manipulative senior pastor speaking for himself and the rest of the equally arrogant yes-men elders/friends he’d surrounded himself with), and excommunication and shunning of dear saints. And we were never supposed to speak to that person again because they “weren’t one of us” (and we’re not even talking about affairs and moral failures, just some trumped up charge).

What’s the difference between the *Church* and The MOB, or some other criminal gang (Crips, Bloods, etc)?

I just despised it. So unlike Jesus. So immature. Even unbelievers conduct themselves with more common decency, kindness, manners, civility and brains!

after a careful reading of the original post, I still don’t get it how neo-Cals KNOW they are among ‘the Elect’

I mean it is possible, given their belief system that some are chosen before birth to go to hell and suffer forever,
and WHY do the neo-Cals feel that they are in the ‘Elect’ group and spared the fate of ‘the others’ upon whom they see as hell-bound to shore up the glory of God

???? In my Catholic mind, the word ‘arrogance’ comes and the thought ‘presumption’ when I think of folks who assertain the Mind of God will be the same as their own judgments of themselves and ‘the others’

where there is no humility, there can be no grace; and without grace, a soul can grow used to darkness unless the mercy of God intervenes to awaken that soul and point it to the good path of humility before the Lord

Am short on time but wanted to ask those of you who don’t necessarily adhere to meticulous sovereignty – In the course of events that arise in life what’s your criteria for determining what comes directly from God and what does not?

Also, I’m not here to argue theology or to change anyone’s mind as I’m okay with people who differ on this topic (have friends with beliefs all over the spectrum). Am more interested in the practical outcomes in one’s conversation with Jesus in day to day living.

@ Ken F:
Where are the 18 questions? Sorry to be thick but I missed that.

Lydia wrote:

@ Ken F:
Where are the 18 questions? Sorry to be thick but I missed that.

If you’re looking for Ken F’s questions, I posted them (dated May 22nd, I believe) at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, then the Books, etc. tab.

I also copied Ken F’s links of resources on those topics over there (dated a few days later).

Ken F wrote:

Or does Christian unity mean something else? I don’t have a good answer for this yet, but I suspect that Christian unity is more than everyone either all jumping on the same bandwagon or else everyone politely agreeing to disagree.

The ‘unity’ Our Lord calls for here is a bond of the same love that is shared by the Persons of the Holy Trinity;
Christian people are invited into that love through Christ. The love that bonds the Holy Trinity is seen by my Church as the strongest force in the universe, the source of creation, the source of all that is good, and the Church recognizes that this love permits the diversity in the Trinity, while bonding it eternally

If there is any real unity in Our Lord’s Church, the Body of Christ with all of its diversity, then that unity can be and IS found in the kind of love that is self-giving, an unselfish sacrificial love that deeply wants only good for ‘the other’

Lydia wrote:

@ Jason:
It’s not just his Doctrine that bothers me. It is the actual historical Calvin who I believe was a sociopathic monster. Just reading his letters should make that a tad bit more obvious to people!

You won’t get any argument from me on that. We all have a tendency to remake God in our own image. Calvin’s view of God tells you an awful lot about Calvin himself. Except for his most biased critics, people spoke highly of Arminius’s graciousness, even under fire. He held to toleration, that the magistrate should have no authority over matters of opinion, only over criminals.

John Calvin on the other hand… not so much. Sabastian Castellio, who was a friend of Calvin, said that, “If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope [John Calvin], but one who burns men alive while the pope at Rome strangles them first.”

elastigirl wrote:

I’ve often thought about these kinds of things. and I promise you that when a natural disaster hits, or alien invasion, or should one enter a time warp and find oneself on the Titanic in the middle of the Atlantic it won’t matter what a person’s secondary or tertiary Christian beliefs are, let alone their religion, gender, or sexual orientation. these mere window dressings will disappear, revealing ALL that we have in common as we pull together for the common good.

wow, GREAT comment!

your thinking brings to mind, this:

““And I saw the river over which every soul must pass to reach the kingdom of heaven
and the name of that river was suffering:

and I saw a boat which carries souls across the river
and the name of that boat was love.”

(Saint John of the Cross)

^correction: “Jesus who healed a man on the Sabbath and BROKE all kinds of religious rules”

Lydia wrote:

@ Jason:
Yes. He ruined his protege Castellio for daring to dissent. Banished him to poverty.

Any good reliable websites or books where I could learn more about this and other dastardly things Calvin did?

@ Jason:

Thank you.

@ Lydia:

Thanks, Lydia!

@ brad/futuristguy:

sounds like an amazing book.

what amazing resources are to be found here amongst the comments. things I would have never heard about otherwise.

Ken F wrote:

They leave you no room for discussion because they have become convinced that any departure from their essentials is apostasy. T

There is no doubt that the American church at large is apostate – a great falling away from what is right would characterize much of what we see on the church landscape. Just read TWW!! Indeed, the word apostasy would best define the church age we are currently in. A.W. Tozer called it “Christless Christianity” … there’s not enough Christlikeness in pulpit and pew across America to set us apart from the world around us. But, not adhering to reformed theology is to blame. Calvinism has enough apostates of its own, particularly this New Calvinism with its “culturally-relevant” message which keeps lowering the moral bar by dragging just enough world into its ranks to still appear Christian.

elastigirl wrote:

JeffB wrote: (I like “elect.”)

I meant that Max was clever when he wrote: “If any TWW readers elect to read Horton’s book, make sure you follow it with “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson.”

But I do like the word.

Jason wrote:

Likewise in Romans 9:5-6 Paul is talking about a group, the believing Jews who are the faithful remnant of Israel, the ones who are obedient to God’s command.

A group consists of two or more people of any classification. A group is not a nation unless explicitly designated so. God chose individuals to be saved from a nation.

“From verses 15-16, God’s word to Moses, which comes from Exodus 33, is God’s promise of faithfulness when Moses wants assurance that God’s presence would go with the Jewish people. In that culture (Pilch, Malina, The Handbook of Biblical Social Values) mercy was the payment of interpersonal obligation from a greater to a lesser within a covenant relationship. Semitic language often used parallelism and repetition for emphasis, so what God is telling Moses here is that he would most definitely fulfill his treaty obligations to the Israelites. It is a statement of God’s utter faithfulness to his treaty partners, not, as Calvinists interpret it, a statement of God’s whimsical and arbitrary selection of some for salvation.”

Yes, Ex. 33:19 is God’s promise of faithfulness to the Jewish people. (I was wrong to write that it wasn’t.) However, it seems also to be a general description of God’s character, esp. when you compare the promise to its enactment in Ex. 34:5-6. Both mention the proclamation of His Name and then His compassion and graciousness, as if His Name first of all meant these qualities. (Later, in 34:7, He talks about His justice.)

“Pharaoh represents the Egyptians, but also the Jewish leadership who had rejected Jesus….The suggestion is that the Jewish leaders have also been hardened because of their rejection of Jesus, and persecution of the church.”

Please tell me where I can find this suggestion.

Lydia wrote:

@ Jason:
It’s not just his Doctrine that bothers me. It is the actual historical Calvin who I believe was a sociopathic monster. Just reading his letters should make that a tad bit more obvious to people!

I’ve never read any of Calvin’s letters. Where can one find them? Unless you mean The Institutes – I’ve read portions of that.

@ JeffB:

I agree, it was clever.

I hate the word.

but i’d still bake you a pie.

@ Darlene:

There is a site I book marked on my old laptop years ago that linked to quite a few of his letters. I liked it because the link outlined who the letter was written to and the date. I will try to find it.

Calvin wrote over 4000 letters in addition to everything else. They are a gold mine but tedious to slog through. But in them a line or two can be pivotal.

For example, long before Servetus comes to Geneva, Calvin writes a colleague that if Servetus ever comes to Geneva, he won’t leave alive. His burning was premeditated. And the fact there was no law for burning foreigners for heresy. They were usually banished.

We can also see that he actually colluded with a magisterial French Catholic on Servetus. Calvin hated him because Servetus had dared mark up his writings with what he thought was error and sent them to Calvin. (There is evidence they attended the same school in France at one time)

After the burning. Calvin whines like a school boy in a letter about how people were treating him. (I got the sense some lost respect for him)

The letters give us insight into his dark psyche. I will link when I find it. There are books you can buy with his letter compilations but the site I found years ago was free. And the letters not edited from what I could tell. I tend not to trust some sources on this. But that is just me.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

The one non-fiction book I have read the most times is *Grey is the Color of Hope* by Irina Ratushinskaya. (About once every 2 years for the last 20 years.)

Thanks for the tip, Brad, I just ordered this book, looks like a good read!

Darlene wrote:

Max, I thought you were going to change that to “Dever Drivel” since Mark Driscoll doesn’t seem to be much of a Calvinist any longer.

Yes, I forgot to do that. Thanks for the reminder! I forgot who came up with “Mahaney Marlakey” on TWW, but I borrowed it since it fits.

I need to check to see if Driscoll has any sermon podcasts posted. I’ve been wondering which direction he will go. He will have to come up with a “new” thing of some sort to recapture his market share of book sales.

@ Jerome:
Sounds like the anti TNIV propaganda!

Good find. I feel like survivors of these evil leaders from history should be remembered and honored in some way. And we all say, never again.

@ Ken F:
Wow! Yes, the men with power (or protected like Luther) in those days where brutal toward their detractors. I mean brutal.

Have you read any Luther? All women are only good for breeding (ok if she dies in childbirth, just get another woman) and Jews are satanic. The peasants should be wiped out for daring to rebel.

Some people make “men of their time arguments” for their words and behaviors. But I would have to believe the Holy Spirit was AWOL during that time to buy into such arguments.

…and further advice for Calvinists who want to have good relations across the Body. Remember that bigots hate you because they create easy categories in which to capture large groups of people. Terms like “Calvinista” and other ‘clever’ catch alls make it easy to dehumanize people and avoid thinking about ideas. You can find a lot of friends who will labor for the Lord across the divide of views on sovereignty and free will but when it comes to winning over bigots, as John Calvin said, “Good luck.”

Lydia wrote:

Wow! Yes, the men with power (or protected like Luther) in those days where brutal toward their detractors. I mean brutal.

Have you read any Luther? All women are only good for breeding (ok if she dies in childbirth, just get another woman) and Jews are satanic. The peasants should be wiped out for daring to rebel.

You’ve probably seen “The Luther Insulter”? http://ergofabulous.org/luther/

@ siteseer:
Hee hee. Yes. Too funny!

Lydia wrote:

@ Jason:
It’s not just his Doctrine that bothers me. It is the actual historical Calvin who I believe was a sociopathic monster. Just reading his letters should make that a tad bit more obvious to people!

I believe he was a sociopath, too.

Just A. Christian wrote:

Terms like “Calvinista” and other ‘clever’ catch alls make it easy to dehumanize people and avoid thinking about ideas.

Au contraire … I would suggest that term Calvinista came into being precisely because those who apparently coined the term spent a long time studying the movement and thinking about the ideas.

Below is an excerpt from a 2012 post I wrote about this term. For additional historical and linguistic background, see the link.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/

In the past few years, a militant, neo-Reformed theological presence within the conservative-evangelical-fundamentalist wings of the Western Church has made itself known. This has been in both the church and in culture. Some have referred to this movement as the “Calvinistas,” and for them, it holds a negative connotation. The term was coined late in the 2000 decade by Dee and Deb – originators of The Wartburg Watch blog – to describe this emerging movement that includes neo-Reformed theologians, pastors, church planters, etc.

[…]

TWW’s term Calvinistas is now used in a far wider context, especially among the spiritual abuse survivors’ community. But the most extensive investigations and documentations of the individuals and organizations involved are still found in the Calvinism/Calvinista category at TWW. But since the facilitators of that blog coined the term, it is important to consider their definition of it, found on the TWW Definitions subpage under their page called “The Basics.” So – here is their original definition of the term they created:

Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn’t agree with them is utterly wrong. They spend lots of time running around to conferences, getting together with other guys (women have no place in this discussion) who also agree with them 100%. In fact, they spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches.

@ brad/futuristguy:

P.S. Since 2012 when I wrote that post, there has been some significant discussion about the use of terms like “Neo-Reformed” and “Neo-Calvinist” for this phenomenon. Neo-Reformed isn’t used so much anymore because of that discussion, and sometimes Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan is used instead. More often we see “YRR” (Young, Restless, and Reformed) or “Neo-Cals” to distinguish the virulent form of this doctrinal system from the denominations and theological streams within the Reformed and Calvinist theologies that have centuries of tradition instead of the few decades the YRR/Neo-Cal/Calvinistas have.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

TWW’s term Calvinistas is now used in a far wider context, especially among the spiritual abuse survivors’ community. But the most extensive investigations and documentations of the individuals and organizations involved are still found in the Calvinism/Calvinista category at TWW. But since the facilitators of that blog coined the term, it is important to consider their definition of it, found on the TWW Definitions subpage under their page called “The Basics.” So – here is their original definition of the term they created:
Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn’t agree with them is utterly wrong. They spend lots of time running around to conferences, getting together with other guys (women have no place in this discussion) who also agree with them 100%. In fact, they spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches.

I love the term Calvinistas. It describes the rabid, abusive YRR NeoCalvinists that so many of us have been exposed to, that have destroyed Christians’ reputations, friendships, marriages, families, and churches. That have harmed the name of Christ and The Gospel.

Just A. Christian says it’s a way to “dehumanize people and avoid thinking about ideas”….and how precisely would you classify this enormous amount of spiritual, psychological, and emotional abuse going on in their authoritarian, NeoCalvinist churches?
Isn’t that dehumanizing? Has Just A. Christian given any thought to that?

I’d use far worse terms to call these NeoCalvinist, rabid thugs than The Deebs used (Calvinista) and I think The Deebs were generous in their naming.

Lea wrote:

Just A. Christian wrote:
Terms like “Calvinista” and other ‘clever’ catch alls make it easy to dehumanize people

I’m amused at the idea that ‘calvinista’ is dehumanizing!

BTW, although I am not a calvinista, I am a proud maxinista!

Just A. Christian wrote:

Remember that bigots hate you because they create easy categories in which to capture large groups of people. Terms like “Calvinista” and other ‘clever’ catch alls make it easy to dehumanize people and avoid thinking about ideas.

You don’t have to have a catchy term in order to capture large groups of people and dehumanize them AND avoid thinking about any of their ideas.

I see it done with the word “woman” on a regular basis.

Women called penis homes.

Women told that their husband needs to get them in line, or it will be done for them.

Women are to be conquered, colonized, planted.

Women are told to shut up on blog threads, when men making the same points of disagreement are allowed to continue.

Does that strike you as dehumanizing or do you find such is acceptable in the case of ‘women’?
.

Lea wrote:

Velour wrote:
Well it obviously hit a nerve with a fan-boy NeoCalvinist who doesn’t want to think about the larger, dehumanization of millions of Christians who have been subjected to authoritarian NeoCalvinism.
I think it hit a nerve because it’s girly. Girls = not human, ergo Calvinisita = Dehumanizing. I have cracked the code!

Of course, the feminine ending “a”.

@ Jason:

I cede to you the point about Pharaoh and the Jewish leaders. I forgot about what it implies about that in Rom 11.

I would say that, in Rom 9-11, the relation between Jews and Gentiles is a subset of the major question: Has God failed in His promises to the Jews?

It seems to me that there are parts of Rom 9-11 that, even in context, must refer to individuals. For instance: “on us whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” “I ask, then, has God rejected His people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite…” “I magnify my ministry, if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them.” Also, I don’t see how the olive tree branches cannot be individuals, some from the Jews, some from the Gentiles.

Just A. Christian wrote:

Terms like “Calvinista” and other ‘clever’ catch alls make it easy to dehumanize people

Kinda like referring to people here as bigots