“A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” ― A.W. Tozer link
Recently, I have been noticing some excellent tweets clarifying the Arminian point of view. Some tweets come from the Society of Evangelical Arminians. Due to the current dominance of Calvinists in the news, evangelicals who do not consider themselves Calvinists find their beliefs often being erroneously defined by the current rash of the Reformed big dogs. I was thrilled when I found this group and have learned much by reading their website.
Here is how they describe themselves.
The Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) is an association of evangelical scholars and laymen who adhere to Arminian theology and are united in order to glorify God, edify his people, protect them from error, and foster the proper representation of our magnificent God to the world by lovingly and respectfully (1) promoting and advancing sound, biblical Arminian theology, and (2) refuting Calvinism and diminishing the number of its adherents, through the concerted, strategic effort of Arminians networked through the society for the accomplishment of these goals as well as (3) mutual encouragement, support, and growth in the truth of God’s word. Our constitution may be found here.
Despite stark differences, SEA generally accepts Calvinists as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord who adhere to a reasonable but seriously flawed biblical theology. As an association of evangelicals, we are committed to a high view of Scripture as the word of God, which we therefore consider to be the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Indeed, it is because we trust in the Bible as the word of God that we are Arminians, for we are convinced that Arminianism most accurately reflects the teaching of the Bible. Our evangelical identity also comes to expression in our commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which offers salvation by grace through faith for all who believe. It is an exciting and profound message of good news from a good God who loves the world and has provided for the salvation of all in the death of his Son, though only those who believe will receive the salvation that God wants to give them. Such good news–salvation, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life offered to us by God as a free gift at the greatest cost to himself–the life of his own Son, Jesus Christ our Lord!
I found the following post of great help to me personally. In particular, I liked the discussion of prevenient grace. Calvinists believe that mankind is totally depraved and cannot choose to follow God due to that depravity. Therefore, God chooses those He will save and effects their salvation. Prevenient grace is the Arminian response to the doctrine of election.
I leave tomorrow morning to attend Polly's funeral and will return on Saturday afternoon. In the coming weeks, I look forward to catching up on everything that I have put on the back burner.
I want to thank the Society of Evangelical Arminians for allowing us to reprint the following discussion and the one we will present on Friday. On Friday, I will end the discussion with a rather amusing test which will help you to determine whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian.
An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism
by Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn
(To view this outline in a chart that sets the two positions side by side rather than first one and then the other, please see this attachment: FACTS vs. TULIP Chart. For a full description of the FACTS acronym with scriptural support as opposed to the outline below, see here.)
Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:
Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ
These points broadly and roughly correspond to the historic Articles of Remonstrance (though they are not specifically a representation of them), which were composed in July 1610 by early Arminians and constitute the first formal summary of Arminian theology. Article numbers have been indicated for each point for convenient comparison. The points are presented here by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation most helpfully.
- Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of divine condemnation.
- Total depravity does not mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but that sin impacts every part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful nature with a natural inclination toward sin, making every human being fundamentally corrupt at heart.
- Therefore, human beings are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from the judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel.
- If anyone is to be saved, God must take the initiative.
- God loves the world and desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- Therefore, God gave his only Son to die for the sins of the whole world so as to provide forgiveness and salvation for all people.
- While God has provided for the salvation of all people by Christ’s sacrificial and substitutionary death for all, the benefits of Christ’s death are received by grace through faith and are only effective for those who believe.
Freed by Grace {to Believe} (Article 4)
- Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All (as described above), God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith.
- God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration).
- God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction.
- Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are therefore correspondingly able to make choices.
- God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will and sovereignty.
Conditional Election (Article 1)
- God has sovereignly decided to choose only those who have faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, for salvation and his eternal blessing.
- God has foreknown from eternity which individuals would believe in Christ.
- Among Arminians, there are two different views of election conditioned on faith
- Individual election: The classic view in which God individually chose each believer based upon His foreknowledge of each one’s faith and so predestined each to eternal life
- Corporate election: Election to salvation is primarily of the Church as a people and embraces individuals only in faith-union with Christ the Chosen One and as members of his people. Since the election of the individual derives from the election of Christ and the corporate people of God, individuals become elect when they believe and remain elect only as long as they believe.
(For more on corporate election, see here.)
Security in Christ (Article 5)
- Since salvation comes through faith in Christ, the security of our salvation continues by faith in Christ.
- Just as the Holy Spirit empowered us to believe in Christ, so he empowers us to continue believing in Christ.
- God protects our faith relationship with him from any outside force irresistibly snatching us away from Christ or our faith, and he preserves us in salvation as long as we trust in Christ.
- Arminians have differing views of whether Scripture teaches that believers can forsake faith in Christ and so perish (the traditional view, held by most Arminians), or whether God irresistibly keeps believers from forsaking their faith and therefore entering into eternal condemnation (as unbelievers).
The Calvinist position may be represented by the acronym TULIP:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
These are derived from the Synod of Dort, a local synod in Holland, which convened in 1618-1619 to contradict and condemn the Articles of Remonstrance. Here is a brief explanation of each point, with corresponding article numbers from the Articles of Remonstrance indicated for convenient comparison:
Total Depravity (Article 3)
- Same as the Arminian points
- Though we do not differ on how to describe human depravity, Calvinists do also believe that this state requires that God first regenerate a sinner before he can believe in Christ, making him alive and giving him a new, holy nature. But regeneration does not merely enable the sinner to believe; it irresistibly causes the sinner to believe.
Unconditional Election (Article 1)
- God chose some individuals unconditionally from eternity for eternal life according to his own good pleasure, completely apart from anything having to do with the person, including merit, good works, or foreseen faith.
- God withheld his mercy from the rest of humanity, ordaining them to dishonor and wrath for their sin.
- Thus, by the decree of God and for his glory, some people are unconditionally predestined to eternal life, and others are left (and so ordained) to eternal death because of their sin, making two specific and static groups of individuals that can never be changed. (Some Calvinists believe that God purposed to glorify his name by unconditionally choosing some individuals for eternal blessing and some individuals for eternal Hell, and that God ordained the Fall and decided to create the world to accomplish this goal.)
- Christ died only for those certain individuals whom God chose unconditionally from eternity for salvation, enduring the punishment for their sins in their place.
- Christ’s death for those who have been unconditionally elected irresistibly brings about their salvation and everything necessary for it, including repentance and faith in Christ.
Irresistible Grace (Article 4)
- Those whom God has unconditionally elected, and for whom Jesus died, God will draw irresistibly to faith in Christ by his grace through regeneration (making faith inevitable).
- When God brings elect sinners to Christ, he irresistibly causes them to be willing to come to Christ and to come to him in faith freely. (While we are presenting the Calvinist view objectively and typically without comment, the self-contradiction here is just too obvious to let pass: “irresistibly causes them to come willinglyand freely?”)
- While God calls all without distinction to faith in Christ (the general call), he only calls those he has chosen unconditionally in a way that cannot be resisted (the effectual call).
- Those God has not chosen will reject the gospel call of their own will and cannot do otherwise.
Perseverance of the Saints (Article 5)
- Those whom God has unconditionally elected and for whom Jesus has died and whom God has irresistibly drawn to faith in Christ will inevitably persevere in their faith and can neither totally nor finally fall away from Christ, because God will irresistibly cause them to persevere. Therefore, their blessed eternal destiny with God is secure.
- This perseverance is not based on the believer, who may waver and actually fall into serious sin for periods of time, but is rather based on the continued grace of God.
- Those who appear to be believers, but fall away from the faith and die without faith in Christ, demonstrate that they had not truly come to saving faith in the first place.
I am not a Calvinist but their summary of the way of salvation appears closer to what I read in the Bible. I just wish they were more kind to others who disagree.
First…No way
Like I said… No way.
Dee I’m glad you did this. I encourage the folks to watch the videos that SOEA puts out. Besides the truth that they back up, what you will notice is the meir additude they are produced in compaired to the Calvies
At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.
I am a retired inner city police officer and former lay elder in a BGC church in California. When I went to SBTS, I couldn’t take the level of unkindness and lack of love from my more theologically trained brothers. I policed with godless brutal officers who knew how to be kinder than most seminary students. Very sad to see.
Lydia wrote:
I’ve been asking myself lately—How do strict Calvinists deal with the children’s song “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”?
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?
@ Ted:
Years ago on one of the Calvinists blog they had an article about VBS. What I remember was the advice not to sing songs in VBS such as Father Abraham because they didn’t want children singing “Many Sons had Father Abraham and I am one of them and so are you..” because there was no way to know who were actually children of Abraham and they didn’t want to give children the wrong idea that they were Abraham’s sons when they had not demonstrated any signs of regeneration.
Ted wrote:
Mark Driscoll once sang “Jesus Hates Me” during a service. It is mentioned here:
The Sinner’s Guide to the Evangelical Right
https://books.google.com/books?id=7I460CymIUQC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=mark+driscoll+%22jesus+hates+me%22&source=bl&ots=GUDASITcDb&sig=pFzZ5bK5wx5OJ2STPUqq_-rUZeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzz46x8cnOAhVKwiYKHXm3AScQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=mark%20driscoll%20%22jesus%20hates%20me%22&f=false
From the Patheos blog “Unreasonable Faith,” whose author quoted Driscoll as saying (taken from a You Tube video or some video sermon of Driscoll’s):
Driscoll is too harsh but that may have little to do with teachings from the Bible that are summarized by Calvinists or by Armenians. Non believers may mistakenly lump all of us professing Christians in with Driscoll. It is difficult to show mercy to all and correct with gentleness, isn’t it?
Daisy wrote:
Mark Driscoll is a nut, a depraved lost soul. Why anyone gives this creep the time of day is beyond me, but oh well.
@ Celia:
Sang that song with my daughters when they were young.
So I guess there are a number of wonderful Christian children's songs that kids in the Calvinist camp will never learn. How sad! 🙁
roebuck wrote:
What does that say about the theology he and his associates sell?
@ Michael:
Thank you for your service as a police officer. The ones that I have known are amongst the most compassionate folks I have met.
@ Celia:
Yuck!
@ Celia:
I wonder how many of them believe that their kids are the ones who are not among the elect?
So consider the case when a Christian family has a child who is profoundly autistic. Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes. Traditionally, the Armenian says no. Since this was one of the fundamental disagreements between the two positions historically, it seems odd that you would ignore it in this treatise. (reference: see the Canons of Dort)
It really boggles the mind why Calvinists bother with anything if it’s all predetermined. Why the effort and arguments against the rest of us?
As to their lack of kindness, they believe in a God that predestines people to hell from birth. At least in that they are consistent.
me wrote:
Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”
Maybe it is my philosophical bent or my Mennonite roots, but I lean towards the Arminian camp. I could never stomach the idea or reading of Scripture that taught limited atonement or double election. That’s not the God I serve. Also, if humans do not have a meaningful free will, then that logically would make God the author of evil as God would be damning or directing people to do evil.
dee wrote:
And there are still adherents to this sick and twisted religion?
F.A.C.T.S.
There are five point Arminians?
@ Muff Potter:
Hurting a baby is just plain wrong and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.
@ Bill M:
I think it was invented to irritate the Calvinists.
I have posted a new update on the open discussion thread. Thank you.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-7/#comment-276397
Divorce Minister wrote:
Exactly. A common phrase when someone does something bad is, “The devil made me do it!” Would a Calvinist say, “God made me do it!”? If there is no free well, then temptation and Satan have no influence on us – God controls and causes every thing we do.
@ Muff Potter:
I agree with you. This is one of those issues that make me unable to accept Calvinism in all of its glory.
@ Ted:
On the Puritan Board, about a year ago, this very thing was discussed. (This is a group of _very_ Calvinistic people.)
The general agreement was that they could not tell their children that God loved them, because “we just. don’t. know.”
(This is the point at which I put my hands over my ears and yell “nonononononononono”.”)
I do not believe in this god.
If we do not have free will, we are not made in God’s image and likeness.
PaJo wrote:
This is true.
And if we did not have free will, you wouldn’t find this in sacred Scripture:
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed” (from Deuteronomy 30:19)
dee wrote:
This must be at the root of the Pearls’ wicked teaching about beating infants to ‘break their spirits’.
dee wrote:
I’ll give five points a try:
Life
Opportunity
Variety
Every
Day
LOVED
Bill M wrote:
Are there explanations of each point?
I don’t think you will find a lot of contention, but that is because there isn’t a lot of meaning expressed in definition.
Michael wrote:
Okay, I’m going to be brutally frank here. This is because they (the Calvinists) were only imitating the god they believe in.
Ted wrote:
To be theologically consistent, they would have to prohibit their children from singing such a song. After all, God just might have predestined any or all of those children to be damned before they were ever born.
Deb wrote:
And their children won’t have Bible stories from the gospels because depicting Jesus in a drawing is violating the Second Commandment. I was once put on suspension for posting a drawing of Jesus, and warned that I would be permanently banned if I ever did it again on a Calvinist Facebook site.
me wrote:
Wait a minute. It’s the Calvinists that will say God could send your child to hell, not the Arminians. Their reasoning is that if that child was not among the elect, God would be just in sending them to hell. Finally, the stance of most Calvinists in this matter – whether the child is an infant or autistic – is that one cannot know for sure if this child elect – only God knows. So they are left with trusting that God is just in all that He does, even if he predestined your child to everlasting torment.
Kemi wrote:
Actually, they believe that God predestined people before the foundation of the world. That sucker never had a chance because it was predetermined *by* God that he would be a reprobate.
dee wrote:
Hmmm….I’d never read that quote before, or if I did, I don’t remember it. But I do know then that some Calvinists have departed from this rigid concept of Calvin’s. I’ve read many posts and followed various threads on Calvinist sites where this subject is discussed.
Dee: By the way, is that quote from Calvin from his ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion?’
Nancy2 wrote:
Calvinists believe in Compatibilism as opposed to Libertarian free will. If you’re interested, here’s an amusing link.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/whatisit.html
PaJo wrote:
I do not believe in this god either!
PaJo wrote:
That was likely the point, I’ve never been accused of putting forward a systematic theology.
PaJo wrote:
Well, the Calvinist will say that the will is only free to do evil because man’s heart is desperately corrupt.
Christiane wrote:
Exactly. Why would God give people the opportunity to choose life or death if He didn’t mean to give them a choice? The offer wouldn’t be made in that case. Furthermore, if God really doesn’t give human beings a choice, then offering them a choice would be like a hoax.
If I would have to take a guess, I think a Calvinist would say that the offer was made to God’s people who do have the ability to choose right or wrong. Of course, I would then have to wonder why they would think such a thing while still believing in God’s eternal decree.
Michael wrote:
That’s one of the reasons why I stopped debating Calvinism online. I still believe it in its general outlines, but most of my fellow Calvinists online can’t seem to get beyond the “cage phase”…
Darlene wrote:
THIS Calvinist would say that this kind of fine-detailed Theo-philosophical abstraction was never intended to be addressed by the Bible, so I would hold any formulation of how that works very lightly.
Darlene wrote:
Give us some credit… there is a LOT of empirical evidence to support that assertion. :-/
dee wrote:
Uh, you mean like Reformed Baptists?
^^^speaking of…
dee wrote:
Dee, be careful here. Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy. Although Calvin may have believed that babies are wholly inclined to evil, this does not mean that he believed that they all go to hell. God’s covenant, it is viewed, makes salvation an actuality for children inclined to evil. “Me” asked about children of Christian parents, while you answered regarding unelect children. Traditional Calvinists generally point to family as an institution that aids and nourishes faith and that God gives elect children to elect Christian families. Timothy was helped in the faith by mother and grandmother.
Steve Scott wrote:
So, I suppose the difference in belief regarding children stems from the Classical Reformed perspective which the Presbyterians who believe in paedobaptism hold to, and the Calvinist (Reformed Baptist) camp that believe in credobaptism.
Christiane wrote:
Doctrines of demons.
Many Arminians believe that, until a child has achieved the ability to discern right from wrong (love from hate?), the child is an innocent not worthy of condemnation. That salvation is a gift that must be accepted by faith and condemnation is the result of rejection of that gift. So the young child (or one mentally incapable) is not condemned.
BTW, there is an interesting idea here that an aborted fetus was predestined to be aborted, if one is a true Calvinist.
@ Arce:
Agreed. Looking back, I’m grateful that the churches we attended as my children were growing up believed what you have described. There is an ‘age of accountability’.
Praise God my two daughters were baptized (on the same day) at the ages of 7 and 10, and they continue to walk with the Lord as adults. I have such a joy in my heart.
I am starting to do some reading on whether infants go to heaven or hell, a concept that never concerned me since I have always believed infants go to heaven.
Here is an interesting article on that topic by the folks at Christianity Today.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2013/may-web-only/do-all-children-go-to-heaven.html
Theology has never made much sense. Whether Calvinist or Arminian. For example, Arminian points on conditional election. If God already planned to save certain individuals right from the get go, then free will is blown out of the water. Or I have to join a church because they will be saved. But which one? A church that believes in transubstantiation? A church that believes in a 6000 yr old universe? Or can I call up some friends and say ‘ hey, we’re a church!’
Both these views still are focused on correct thought to the exclusion &/or condemnation of all others.
@ me:
I don’t get this. Why would you believe automatically accept what detractors wrote about opponents?
@ Nancy2:
This has always been my question. Sadly, the only answer I would get is that I don’t believe God is Sovereign and just can’t understand it.
Ted wrote:
That song was not on the playlist at my most recent former church. The saddest example of the toxicity of rabid or feral Calvinism is a young couple we know who had multiple miscarriages. They worried about the eternal status of those little children they lost.
Eeyore wrote:
The question is choice. Can humans choose not to do evil?
Arce wrote:
I don’t see how Cals get around this one when it comes to ability and choice.
@ PaJo:
Good thought.
Daisy wrote:
Driscoll: “God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you.”
So much for the impassibility of God.
Steve Scott wrote:
Thank you for this correction. In fact, *me* may have meant something like this. How, then, do the baptist Calvinists who do not believe in infant baptism, apply this?
Eeyore wrote:
LOL!
@ Bill M:
I could believe this!!
@ Gram3:
I hope to have some fun with this when I dispute the use of Hosea in divorce situations.
Lydia wrote:
This and free will are my chief sticking points with Calvinism I think.
I’m not mad about total depravity but I think it depends on how ‘total’ you really think it is. It was described at my Calvinist church as simply that we have all sinned…I do believe we are all made in the image of God and have the capacity for good or evil. We make choices. That sticky will again!
Deb wrote:
I wonder if the same folks who believe that God would send a little baby to hell would even want to go to the heaven of such a God????
What kind of heaven would that be?? And what kind of god??
What kind of ‘justice’ is that? What kind of ‘glory’ does this bring such a god?
I don’t understand
dee wrote:
That should be very interesting…
Dee, I love the quote from Tozer. The Calvinist view of the nature of the sovereignty of God is, I believe, the root of the problem of Calvinism. It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit. That control-freakery is based in fear, as Tozer says, and I just do not see how the Calvinist view of sovereignty does not actually *diminish* God’s glory by, in effect, making God look like a Very Large and Powerful Human Being Who Is Very Disturbed.
We don’t use the term ‘total depravity’ in my Church. But we sure do believe that we humans are ‘wounded’ and weakened by the Fall. We still believe in choice and in the workings of moral conscience as a guide. We most certainly believe that there is evil in the world, and that human persons are prone to temptation and to sin. We do not see temptation as the same thing as sin, no.
And we do not believe that God is the author of evil. No way.
So I suppose my Church adopts a more ‘Arminian’ view of human proclivity towards sin , without calling it ‘total’ depravity. If it WERE ‘total’, I imagine we wouldn’t have a conscience able to make moral decisions and abide by them.
I’m not sure WHY the term ‘total’ depravity is used in Arminianism, but I do understand that the term is defined differently from the way it is understood in Calvinism.
@ Christiane:
Choose for yourself who you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the lord. me wrote:
I don’t know that I ever heard the word Armenian growing up, but the free will folks generally think God saves babies and children who haven’t grown old enough to choose and people who are incapable of choosing God because of mental disability. Because they start with the premise that God loves us.
Bill M wrote:
You may be a lot closer to the reality than the highly-systemitized Calvinist is. ISTM that a big part of the problem is that they have wrongly defined the fundamental relationship of a Good Father to his sons/daughters. Yes, a Good Father has authority over his children, but he does not prescribe every action a child does or every thought a child thinks. But authority is not the essence or glue of that relationship. The essence of that relationship is the love of the Father who first loved the child.
A Good Father provides everything which the child has and desires good for the child. However, there is no guarantee that the Good Father’s love will be reciprocated or that the child will desire to follow the Good Father and imitate the Good Father. The child has a separate will and can choose to run away into self-destruction rather than blessing.
The Good Father of a faithless child will never stop desiring for the faithless child to repent and return, but that does not mean that the Good Father will coerce the child into repenting and returning. If and when the child does repent and return, the Good Father rejoices and forgives the errant child and receives the child back into the household.
I do not recognize the Father as at least some Calvinists portray him. I had a good father, and he was pleased to see me develop into an adult. I stumbled in our relationship, as did he, but we never, ever stopped loving one another. That was the essence of our relationship, not his authority or his desire/ability to micro-manage my life and thoughts.
Gram3 wrote:
…systematized…
Arce wrote:
We believed this, too.
Before I typed a comment about imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness I googled the phrases. I had no idea this is a Methodist theology. Anyway, we were taught that God imputes righteousness to us until that age of accountability when he imparts it to us. So, a baby or child would be imputed with Christ’s righteousness.
Christiane wrote:
I’ve always thought it was silly that some people think you had to “pick a side”, because there are more than two options. For example, many free will Baptists believe in eternal security. I have a non-neo-Calvinist friend who thought free will Baptists were completely Arminian, and so could lose their salvation. I would think Catholics don’t quite fit into either box?
All these “three pointers” and “five pointers” or whatever is often too narrow of a way to look at soteriology. I feel like it’s helpful on a meta level, but is a way to put God in a box and make Him easy to understand for humans. I don’t know if that’s what God intended in giving us the Bible.
Gram3 wrote:
I agree. It’s always seemed to me that Calvinists have made God in man’s image, and that’s literal man and man as in human.
Eeyore wrote:
HA! Had never heard that phrase and had to look it up. There was an article called ‘warnings of adult onset calvinism’, lol.
Steve Scott wrote:
But if you weren’t born to a Christian family you’re out of luck because god doesn’t care about you? I can’t believe that.
ishy wrote:
I raised my children Free Will Baptist and we did not believe in eternal security as taught to me as a child by the Southern Baptists. Of course, there are more than one FWB denominations.
Gram3 wrote:
Which maybe explains their crazy authoritarian bent? Or they are control freaks themselves, and thus make god into that.
God is not diminished because he gives choice, to me. People who are secure in themselves do not require everyone else to be puppets of their will. I think a secure and sovereign God would not either. The angels had choice (or maybe Calvinists don’t believe that either?). Did god preordain Lucifer to lead a revolt for his glory?
ishy wrote:
Yes. My (Baptist/non Calvinist) friend always made a huge deal about this, that you can not lose your salvation.
@ Lea:
A person can be a non-calvinist baptist without being a Free Will Baptist. That is to say, believing in ‘free will’ can take various forms. Free Will Baptist folks are specific denominations of Baptist.
Lea wrote:
Several neo-Calvinists I know think God’s sovereignty makes choice impossible for Him to give. Choice is something He can’t and isn’t capable to give. The idea that God could be sovereign and allow choice completely stumped them, so they won’t even entertain it.
@ Gram3:
Best description I have seen yet.
Lea wrote:
You probably should Ask Pastor John about that, but I think he would say yes. And James White probably also has an online debate or podcast about that. 🙂
okrapod wrote:
This was why I said “many” and didn’t capitalize “free will”. I was not referring to the denomination, but the belief.
This is a very interesting point.
The problem is that the Bible supports the points that both the Cals and the Arms make.
People have been trying to sort this out for 2 millenia. We should believe all that the Bible teaches, even when it appears to teach inconsistent things. God will resolve this in eternity.
And we should not speculate about things we do not know.
Gram3 wrote:
The picture in my mind: God is like a child, and humans are the plastic toy soldiers with which he plays.
ishy wrote:
Thanks, ishy. That was how I was reading you.
I know next to nothing about the Free Will Baptist denom.
Anonymous wrote:
While I totally agree with you, I think many people feel like they “have” to know exactly how God works.
I like to tell people who annoy me too much on topics like this that if God had intended us to know everything about how God works, He would have given us a 200 volume systematic theology. Instead, He gave us Himself as a person, and a book about people.
So I think we’re supposed to trust God and invest ourselves in others (much like the two greatest commands!).
Anonymous wrote:
Eh, I don’t see any problems with speculation – which is really just thinking seriously about what these things mean.
I think the issue is when somebody comes up with a theory and says ‘my way or the highway’, even though the bible has some stuff that contradicts it.
dee wrote:
I am terrible at formatting–sorry about the above poorly formatted response. Dee, it is good to hear your voice–continuing to pray for you and your family.
@ Anonymous:
We should not speculate on whether God loves everyone?
The truth is people have not been debating/discussing this for mist if post resurrection history. Most were not allowed to disagree with prevailing doctrines within the church state structures.
When they were allowed to disagree the debate was mainly within theological Academia. It wasn’t really until the internet that the now literate pew Peasants took it to the public square.
Darlene wrote:
CRC (Christian Reformed Church) and URC (United Reformed Church) believe this as well. These are small denominations. The URC broke from the CRC in the past 20 years over several issues, one being women elders. CRC allows women. Wikipedia has a general overview.
Lydia wrote:
From what I see, yes, non Christians, even atheists are able to choose good over evil.
Lea wrote:
Piper’s answer would be “yes” from everything I have heard from him and his followers.
ishy wrote:
Their god is not sovereign then, he is made in their own fallen image 😉
Gram3 wrote:
Just saw this. We agree!
Anonymous wrote:
Good advise for female subordinationists!
Anonymous wrote:
Depends on the filter one brings to the reading. One problem I think Calvinist have is that their interpretation of God looks nothing like Jesus Christ.
That is why I think their definition of the word Grace is important in hoping people won’t think it through about those not chosen and worse, unable to choose at all.
When we focus on God’s attributes both sides can’t be consistently right.
ishy wrote:
Great comment. It is very human to be too certain about things we cannot know.
Lea wrote:
Lydia wrote:
Yes, see my response to Lea.
Bridget wrote:
It is!
Anonymous wrote:
In practice, add “Unless those speculations work to our personal advantage.”
Nancy2 wrote:
With a magnifying glass like the kid in Toy Story 2.
Lea wrote:
Make that “Both/And”.
God as Control Freak in the Sky and Me as Control Freak looking for Cosmic-level Justification go synergistic to the point you can’t find a dividing line.
Gram3 wrote:
Like Zeus?
Patriciamc wrote:
In man’s image or in their own image in the mirror?
AKA “What would I do if I were Zeus?”
Bridget wrote:
At which point, they’re over the line into Socratic Atheism.
God is not God, Predestination and Omnipotence are God and God is just the puppet on the strings.
Bridget wrote:
Doublethink: the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously and believe both of them to be absolutely True.
— paraphrase of G.Orwell, “The Principles of Newspeak”, appendix to 1984
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
Egomania and Righteousness Counting Coup.
So I’m back with another attempt, let’s see if I can get the 5 points of TWW.
Avoid AUTHORITARIAN men. Christ is Lord, none of these guys are.
THINK for yourself. Do not automatically accept or believe someone because they have the title pastor or a PhD or MDiv after their name.
WOMEN are of equal measure to men. Life consists of mutual relationships, no man is your master.
WATCH what is happening. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in Total Depravity, this include leaders. Don’t blindly trust them.
REPORT abuse. If you have evidence of abuse, act on it, report it, don’t wait to see what someone else is going to do.
aTWWr
Steve Scott wrote:
So it’s only the babies of “those other people” that go to hell…
Anonymous wrote:
Speculation is fine, just don’t cross the line to pontificate, legislate, and enforce things we do not know.
siteseer wrote:
Yes. That’s why covenant theology . . .
Darlene wrote:
And here’s the mega-tonnage-huge-nuclear-yield clobber verse that is used to shut down any dissent:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
— Isaiah 55:9 —
Gram3 wrote:
A gentlemen that worked with abused women noted those who sought relationship with men who oversaw every aspect of their lives, exhibiting “control-freakery”, found the men were very often abusers. Abuse was part of the package. Extrapolating, I can see why some would prefer not association with such a deity and would rather go poof when their existence here ends.
Muff Potter wrote:
Yes, but this verse can just as easily be used to blow up their idea of predestination 🙂
Darlene wrote:
Again, Jeremiah 17:9 is the premier clobber verse Hueyed (helicoptered) out of context and widely used to advance this doctrine. Many other verses come into play and we’ve all heard them. No wonder the authors and signers of The Chicago Statement (which reads like a who’s who in the reformed world) were careful to disallow the use of hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture.
@ Anonymous:
But I am certain God loves His Creation. I don’t, however, think you have to believe the same.
I don’t subscribe to the typical Augustine/Protestant construct so ‘what we don’t know’ doesn’t bother me as much. I think He is pleased we seek to know Him.
I get a bit testy when someone says we should not speculate on what we don’t know. I am not looking for proof but more understanding. I dont think seeking to stop that process is healthy for people. And that, sadly, is what Calvinists often do. It is a big part of their indoctrination at SBC seminaries.
Bill M wrote:
Yes. Thankfully, Arminians don’t define Total Depravity as Total Inability as Cals do.
Still, I don’t subscribe to Augustine’s dualistic Original sin theory either.
@ Muff Potter:
Taking ancient communication devices out of the equation in interpretation helps their version of God in the OT
Steve Scott wrote:
Reformed theologians are the ones who need to be careful Scott. Inclination is not the same thing as default condition, which is what they teach in the larger picture.
I spent a lot of time studying the Bible on this subject some years ago. I collected all the passages that appear to support each viewpoint -and there are many for each- and spent a lot of time on them. My own final analysis is that God must enlighten our understanding in order for us to perceive him, but we are responsible to respond, and that no one can define exactly where the line falls between these two things.
It’s when human beings start trying to define and codify exactly how God works in areas beyond our understanding -like these- that we show how meager our understanding is. I think it comes out of a desire to bring God down to our level, a desire to feel in control is what leads people to put the thoughts and actions of God into definitions that our own brains can grasp.
Bill M wrote:
Are there explanations of each point?
I don’t think you will find a lot of contention, but that is because there isn’t a lot of meaning expressed in definition.
Bridget wrote:
And to follow up: It’s only those other PEOPLE that go to hell…because obviously _I_ am “in” on the Heaven Plan.
Again, if you read the Calvinist forums, you will read things like “God hates sinners.” And, “You can’t tell people God loves them…because YOU DON’T KNOW.”
This belief system has so many bad consequences, and it raises some pretty interesting questions, as well.
–You say God is never changing, always the same. So: Did God love Adam and Eve? (Yes, but their sin … well, He had been so offended by their sin that He hated them.) So: Man’s actions are powerful enough to change an unchanging God.
–You say God hates sinners. That He can’t even look up on them. So: How did Christ, then, come and look upon them, love them, heal them, die for them? Is the Trinity disunited in its relationship with man? Or is Christ not God so He is exempt from hating the sinner?
–You say God is love, yet God hates sinners. “Is” is ontological–so: how can Love hate?
I can go on, and others could go on further…but the answers I came to led me to run away from Calvinism. It makes no experiential sense, and it makes no scriptural sense.
Bill M wrote:
This is the gist of it.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hi HEADLESS,
I have wondered how much of the control-freak version of God that is purely deterministic is an outgrowth of pagan determinism
like the old Norse concept of ‘fate’ ….you could not control what happened to you, so accept your ‘fate’
The closer a theology comes to determinism, the more it seems to resemble pagan thinking on ‘fate’
Lydia wrote:
The kind of theology which focuses on what one can know is called cataphatic theology. The kind which allows room for what we don’t know is called apophatic.
They work together beautifully:
Cataphatic: God loves mankind.
Apophatic: When we talk of God’s love, we do not know exactly what this means, because our language and experience cannot fully comprehend the love of God.
Learning from both of these allows us to stay “on the reservation” without making stuff up, and still seek to know God more and better.
One of the things I love from the Eastern Orthodox is their definition of a theologian: one who prays. And indeed, this is how we come to know God, not just know _about_ Him.
Interesting thread.
siteseer wrote:
“Si comprendis, non est Deus”
PaJo wrote:
You can truly love someone, and yet hate some of the things they do.
IMHO, God loves us all, yet he hates the sins we commit.
PaJo wrote:
Yes … the ‘kneeling theologian’…. one who prays 🙂
and I have heard from my godmother (of Ukrainian descent) how the eastern Christians are more at peace with ‘mystery’, and more in awe of what is sacred as a result
we in the West want to ‘know’ with our God-given reason more than we are able to comprehend in our present state, and the impatience sometimes leads to assumptions and constructs that rely too much on ‘our own understanding’ for that which is ‘far above our understanding’, hence we create ‘god’ in our own image …. and then, sadly, the sacrifices begin, as in the cults of patriarchy where women and children are at the mercy of male idolatry
@ PaJo:
Which is one reason I think the terms “Father/Son” were used.
Nancy2 wrote:
this is in line with what the Church has taught from early days as a part of what was handed down from the Apostles:
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
Dr Roger Olson, who blogs at the Patheos site, just finished a 10-part series on “Why I am an Evengelical Arminian.” He has also written a book, “Against Calvinism.” These might be of interest. He is a good thinker, and has an interesting personal history that tips him toward dealing with life as it is, rather than speculation. I heard him on an panel once, and was very impressed.
Bridget wrote:
I agree, but the Female Subordinations go even further than speculation (thinking about how things might be) into outright Making Stuff Up and declaring it God’s revealed Truth.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Not a scholar of mythology, but from what I remember, yes. Something like Zeus. I remember reading about a pagan god (Zeus) who created everything out of his head. I thought at the time that maybe Paul was alluding to that with his head references. It is something that his Gentile audiences would have understood.
About speculations and assumptions. I have, of course, an opinion.
If first one speculates and then proceeds to take it further and forms an assumption from that speculation, and then proceeds to investigate and gather evidence to either uphold or eliminate the assumption, and one then forms conclusions from the evidence, that is called the scientific method.
Theology was called the queen of the sciences in the past.
If one only speculates and then stops at that point, no harm is done if no conclusions are drawn, and the speculation can just lie around for some future time when other thinkers can proceed to assumption (hypothesis), investigation and conclusion.
If one speculates and tries to pass that off as the entire thinking process-well, bless him is all I can say.
That would be the southern ‘bless him’ not a statement of affirmation.
I was looking up more information about how Calvinism says outright or gives the impression that God hates some people (in response to a comment by someone else above), and I am finding some interesting pages.
Not about that topic specifically but other ones. Like this one….
I totally related to this guy’s point #2 (it has been my experience as well):
Why I Hate Debating Calvinists
http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-i-hate-debating-calvinists.html
Yes, I have encountered that many times (in the past when I used to discuss or debate Calvinism with Calvinists, and when I lurk in Calvinist debates, I see many Calvinists still pulling this).
Even if you quote from a known Calvinist author, or quote from another layman Calvinist, the Calvinist to whom you are currently speaking will say you have misrepresented Calvinism.
It’s a good way to lose your sanity.
I’m still looking up articles about Calvinists teaching that God hates people…
@ roebuck:
I don’t know if I agree with every point on this guy’s blog, but here is his critique of Driscoll’s views (I do like the name of his blog: “Cognitive Disco Pants“):
Driscoll and the God of Hate
https://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/driscoll-and-the-god-of-hate/
Snippet:
@ Bill M:
Thing is, Jesus was not a control-freak. He was accused of being somewhat of a libertine but the religious establishment. So I guess the adovocates of Control-freak Christianity read right over all of the verses that instruct us *plainly* to be conformed to the image of Christ who himself reveals the nature of the Triune God. Plainly “plain” does not always mean plain-plain.
I think control-freakery is abuse of the personhood of the people being controlled. Can’t be a control freak and love someone. I really think that fear is one driver of it and a deficient concept of love is another driver of it. Either one of those is problematic, both both together are absolutely toxic.
…but both together…
dee wrote:
From that page I linked to earlier:
http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-i-hate-debating-calvinists.html
Snippet:
—–
I recently debated a Calvinist in a theology discussion group (on Facebook) recently. This Calvinist believed that God would be wholly justified in He were to condemn new born infants to Hell before they reached the age where they knew the difference between right from wrong (also known as the age of accountability).
I honestly wasn’t trying to stump him. I was legitimately trying to get him to show me how God could possibly be justified given what he said He did (the damnation of infants).
In one comment, he said that He did not believe that God ACTUALLY condemned infants to Hell, just that He would be justified in doing so.
Although he defended the notion to adamantly that I have to kind of wonder if secretly did believe God actually condemned infants to eternal torment. Anyway, I pressed him and pressed him in each of my responses, but I could not get him to demonstrate for me how God could possibly be just if He did indeed condemn infants to Hell.
Since infants don’t know right from wrong and since they’re not old enough to realize their sinners in need of a Savior, how could it possibly be just to condemn them just because Adam and Eve sinned thousands of years ago?
To this, I still don’t have a satisfying answer. I don’t think I ever will. The reason for that is probably because there isn’t a satisfying answer. It’s irrational to believe it’s just for God to burn babies. Period. He kept pulling the same “We’re not in the position to judge God” card.
Daisy wrote:
One thing I wanted to add to that quote (by the guy at the blog).
There was a part of the Old Testament where God wanted Israel to wipe out some pagan nation precisely because they were sacrificing live infants to their deity by burning them alive.
If God was not cool with some pagan nation burning kids alive on earth, why would God himself be dandy about burning kids himself in Hell for eternity?
me wrote:
I thought Calvinists say only the elect will go to Heaven, and they admit to not knowing who the elect are. ??
@ Gram3:
I can’t count the convos I have had with Neo Cals on the fact Jesus came preaching: Repent and believe. Why would Jesus tell people who don’t have the ability to repent and believe— to repent and believe as if they had a choice?
They try and present this sort of trickster god that tells people to do something he already knows he has not chosen some of them to be able to do it?!. IMHO, its like they are reading the Odyssey and not scripture.
Daisy wrote:
Yeah…the answer to that for me is I’m not judging god – I actually believe god loves us – I’m judging you for thinking otherwise!
Gram3 wrote:
Well said, GRAM THREE
to have a basic respect for the ‘other’ as a person made in the image of God is something that transcends all of the divisions satan has engineered to divide our kind one from the other
This is about how Neo-Calvinism/Reformed theology makes the problem of evil worse. This is about how John Piper reacted to Adam Lanza’s shooting at Newtown. This explains how Neo-Calvinist theology redefines the problem of evil and how it makes it worse. Plus why people are not held accountable for their actions.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/how-reformed-theologyneo-calvinism-makes-the-problem-of-evil-worse-john-piper-adam-lanza-and-a-massacre-in-connecticut/
I reached a point in my life 15-20 years ago, in my 40s, where I was tired of all the shenanigans that the Deebs highlight here (again, kudos for their work), and of all the doctrinal fights among even well-meaning Christians. I was especially demoralized by the view of God – a god who had to constantly be apologized for. I had a lot of questions, including “Why do human beings even exist?”
My questions led me to the works of some faithful Protestants: Dallas Willard, Robert Webber and N.T. Wright. Willard’s “Divine Consipiracy” made me believe God is truly good. Webber’s “Ancient Future Worship” encouraged me to delve into the world of the first 8 centuries of the Church, when it was still one. Wright’s Christian Origins series (his “big books”) gave me the Jewish worldview from which Christianity was born – which was really different than most Christians believe it was, and interpret Scripture as upholding. Over the next few years, reading them and others, particularly some of the early Christian writers, led me to reject the interpretation of Scripture that supports belief in a place called “heaven” and a place called “hell,” the Augustinian dualistic view of Original Sin, all of Calvinism and most of Arminianism. Most importantly, I found a God who is not the tyrant torturer, but who is revealed in Jesus Christ, his “exact image”.
I never wanted to be anything else but a Christian, but I was certainly in a pickle. There was no room for me in any Western church. Thanks to the Internet, I began finding out about another way that came at me out of left field – totally a surprise, on many levels. I had to work through a couple of issues, but in most things I was already there. I am still a Christian, a part of the second largest body of Christians in the world – mostly unknown in the US, unless one has ethnic ties to it. Dee knows what it is. She might think the Gospel – the good news about Jesus – is not there, but it is – in all its glory, and I’m sorrier than I can express that it wasn’t made more evident to her, for all the unfortunately true reasons that I know about. We’re a mess – but we can admit that 🙂 and this is where I was led and am at home, far and away because of its view of God as truly, completely, always GOOD, who always acts from Love and whose will it is for all of humanity to ultimately be appropriately united to Him – whose “photograph”, if you will, is the Crucified One.
Steve Scott wrote:
Isn’t this just a luck of the draw?
Can a kid help it if he’s born in the Middle East to a Muslim family, or in India to a Hindu family?
Or would these Calvinists say that God even determined where and how a kid would be born, so if a kid is born to Christian parents in the USA or the UK, that was God’s doing?
The Calvinist God still looks heartless in this scenario, because some are not born to Christian families.
Steve Scott wrote:
I wanted to add a P.S. to this.
For years, I have heard that a lot of Jewish people think that kids born to Christian parents are automatically Christian. I found that to be a really weird understanding of Christianity.
Now I’m thinking, maybe these Jewish people have heard about this Reformed/Calvinist ‘covenant family’ stuff, and that’s why they hold this view?
My take on the Bible is that it says you are not a believer until you personally make your own choice as to accept Jesus as Savior.
You don’t get to be “elect,” forgiven, saved, or a Christian, just because your mom and/or dad were Christian.
That is just totally foreign thinking to me. You don’t ‘inherit’ salvation or Christianity from your family or by being baptized as a kid; it’s something left up to each individual. There is some personal choice or responsibility involved.
@ Cousin of Eutychus:
In the article I wrote I use a Desiring God article about a missionary who miscarried. I got the impression in reading it that a person who miscarried should rejoice in the fact that God willed the miscarriage.
@ ishy:
I don’t consider myself either Arminian or Calvinist, which has really confused a lot of Calvinists I’ve spoken with before. A lot of Calvinists think there can only be those two options, not a third or more.
Christiane wrote:
I think it’s honestly just appealing to people who want to define life by control, and is a trait throughout history.
Most of the Calvinistas I know have personalities which are very controlling. They define God like them, and they exhibit that controlling behavior over others.
ishy wrote:
That’s funny because that’s how I’ve long understood God’s sovereignty – he can even rise above human free will or whatever choices people make. Nothing stumps him.
Daisy wrote:
I am the same here. SEBTS started to have a lot of Calvinistas while I was there, and the ones I knew were quite eager to force everyone to admit where they stood. When they’d ask me if I believed in predestination or free will, I’d say “Yes.” Then they’d say I’d have to pick one. I’d say “No, I don’t.” and walk away. I probably enjoyed their reactions a little too much.
Daisy wrote:
Indeed. I think they don’t allow for any mystery in their lives. God has to make perfect sense, or is not real. It’s something I can’t even comprehend.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
So, Piper wouldn’t support helping children in need in the here and now? Like, standing up for victims of child abuse, or Christian missions sending food to starving kids? etc?
If he were to say he supports helping kids now, why? How would he justify it, given his theological views say they are not innocent and some / many / most are elected to go to Hell when they die?
Gram3 wrote:
“There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18)
‘Be not afraid’ and ‘Fear not’ are often said by the messengers of God to calm the human person in the presence of the angel. The fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost took away the dread and fearfulness of the huddled Apostles in the Upper Room and they ‘went forth’ into salvation history freed from their terror and strengthened to serve Our Lord even unto martyrdom which most of them eventually endured
When people touched by grace speak of the ‘deep peace of Christ’, they aren’t being ‘poetic’ or ‘over spiritualized’, no. In the presence of what is holy, ‘awe’ is not fear, and peace is a given.
Christiane wrote:
You rarely hear Calvinistas talk about God’s love or God’s peace, even though the verses about both of those way outnumber the verses they use to support Calvinism. It’s always puzzled me that they can focus so much on just a few verses, while leaving out all the others. If they were really “biblical”, they’d be confronting passages on God’s love often.
dee wrote:
In most of my experience, they see a great advantage in being in a Christian family because the children will grow up hearing the gospel, etc. Mainly the difference is that the Calvinistic Baptists see children as unbelievers until they profess faith (faith can happen earlier, of course, such as John the Baptist in his mother’s womb), whereas the paedobaptists see their children as believers until they prove that they are not. There are nuances to all of this within various groups.
Daisy wrote:
Well, if you are born to a jewish mother, you are jewish. So maybe that’s what it’s about. I don’t recall having any particular discussions with jewish friends about this, though.
@ Gram3:
I think this is why so many Neo Cal churches are so toxic. Goodness, the Puritans were toxic! In defense of mainline Cals, they tended to go frozen chosen or social gospel and were usually quite delightful. Determinism is exhausting.
One thing I found that Neo Calvinism does not tolerate is any sort of wisdom, reason or logic. There is no consideration for “logical outcomes” to certain beliefs. I contend that God invented reason and we often see it revealed in wisdom. :o)
For example, when they speak of evil babies, most Neo Cals in the SBC insist they are elect/chosen if they die in infancy so they don’t need covenant baptism like the Presbyterians. So were they predestined to die, too? It was all worked out before the world was formed. it is fatalism.
All this boils down to one thing. They take humans OUT of the salvic equation. And when we do that we end up with a one way relationship that is no relationship at all.
Steve Scott wrote:
Theologians aside, I’m betting that most Reformed Baptists actually believe the same thing, because I think any rational Christian parent wants to trust that God won’t send their child to hell. I think people like Piper just go off the deep end, maybe because they really believe it, but maybe just for impact.
Daisy wrote:
The ‘confirmation’ of a young person in my Church involves a formal affirmation of faith. I believe this is the same in the Lutheran Church, as my husband was also confirmed.
I think Southern Baptist ‘baptism’ combines holy baptism and a kind of traditional confirmation of faith together as one single celebration. (this is what it appears to be to an outsider)
Lydia wrote:
In this, the Neo-Cals agree with the Islamic theology of al-Ghazali, where Faith and Reason are in opposition and Faith Faith Faith must prevail. Look where that theology got Islam.
Lydia wrote:
“In’shal’lah… Eh, Kismet?”
ishy wrote:
Because Love and/or Peace works against the Will to POWER.
ishy wrote:
Like Calvin, they have to have God All Figured Out.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Where does that leave the Jesus who wept over Lazaraus’ death?
Under the Institutes bus?
Steve Scott wrote:
The Neo Cals don’t believe in “professions of faith” so I am stumped here.
They way it was approached in my Non Reformed SBC childhood is that you were responsible for what you believed and your behavior toward others and each child was different when that was obvious. I had never seen any one turned away from baptism whether 6 or 90. I know it sounds corny but I cannot even imagine JTB turning away a little child who wanted the baptism of repentance. Children often get it. We build on that, hopefully.
Daisy wrote:
That’s just a Christianese way of saying “He’s Bigger Than Us so What He Says GOES!”
At which point (in a Left Behind/Great Tribulation scenario) you take the Mark of the Beast and alliegance to Antichrist because He’s the Biggest Boot who can hurt you then at the end switch allegiance to Christ because He’s got the Even Bigger Boot. Pure avoid-punishment survival mode.
ishy wrote:
I think this may come because I have read that people assume the words of the Apostles speak ‘for Christ’, as though Christ were speaking;
rather than taking the words of the Apostles and reading them in the light of Christ.
The difference between the two approaches can be catastrophic when a saying of Paul’s is interpreted by a theologian in a way that violates the Royal Law of Christ; as was the case when Dr. Klouda and her family were made to suffer at the hands of those who overlooked one simple thing: you cannot do evil that good may come, a teaching that was sealed by the Royal Law of Christ.
Take something an Apostle said, and give it a man-made spin that is contradictory to the teachings of Christ,
and you’ve got a real mess, with all the ‘justification’ of abusers trying to say that they are being ‘biblical’, all the while disrespecting the Great Commandments of Our Lord.
This way of biblical interpretation doesn’t work for these ‘Calvinistas’, and it certainly doesn’t work for their poor victims. Without the Light of Christ, there is only the darkness.
Arce wrote:
When anyone, and I mean *anyone* looks at both systems- Calvinism and Arminianism – *objectively* – they cannot but come to the conclusion that the latter reveals the character of God Who is Love far more accurately. What kind of god decides before a person is ever born that he will damn them to eternal hell fire for the purpose of his pleasure and glory? What kind of god holds a person accountable for their sin when they could not do otherwise because it was already decided before they took breath that they would be damned? If one thinks through this system of Calvinism thoughtfully, one can only conclude that it is disturbing to the depths of the soul, and reveals a god who is unjust, because he hates that which he himself has created to be evil. If I were to embrace this system of belief, I’m afraid I would become suicidal. Lord have mercy!
Daisy wrote:
i.e. “Heads I Win, Tails YOU LOSE!”
PaJo wrote:
Yet another way of Counting Coup with “ME SHEEP! YOU GOAT! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
Muff Potter wrote:
With Ride of the Valkyries blasting on the Hueys’ loudspeakers…
Muff Potter wrote:
Isaiah 55:9 — Tsar Bomba with uranium casings on the secondaries and tertiaries instead of lead.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes…this! When I first encountered this mindset I was shocked.
Bill M wrote:
Like Medieval Angelology and Demonology, where a previous generation’s speculations were taken as FACT and used as a foundation for further speculation, generation after generation after generation. Until you got an ENORMOUS detailed and elaborate edifice handwaved into existence from a minimal original foundation.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly, Lydia. Calvinists will say that humans will always do what is natural to them according to their corrupt human nature. But my question is: Do humans still have the imagio dei since the Fall? I would posit that they most certainly do.
@ Darlene:
That link is a perfect example of reason, logic and wisdom missing from Calvinism. Compatablism is something I have gone hundreds of rounds on. It is total cognitive dissonance.
To build upon that idea, Calvinists will posit that even after a person is born of God’s Spirit, any good works that they do will be tainted with evil, i.e. – selfishness, vain glory, greed, etc. Their view of the child of God is quite depressing and has the potential to lead a person to discouragement and even giving up on faith altogether.
Darlene wrote:
I first encountered it on Challies blog about 11 years ago. I was stunned. His commenters were even declaring that God is glorified when he throws babies into hell. I thought I had stumbled onto an Islamic blog talking about infidels.
Lydia wrote:
Calvinists are good at redefining terms, such as love, the gospel, free will, justice, etc.
Gram3 wrote:
Is it so beyond the theology of the neo-Cals to pray:
“Jesus Christ, I trust in You”?
those poor parents . . . being taught about a ‘god’ that is NOT the God revealed to us by the coming of Christ among us;
and not realizing the comfort Our Lord has given to us in the on-going reassurance of God’s loving Presence among us in the Comforter Who points us TO CHRIST,
not to the teachings about a ‘god’ who burns babies in hell.
@ Christiane:
I think the neo-Cal claims of being ‘biblical’ are very perverted.
Darlene wrote:
My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, i.e. the redefinition of words into their “diabolic meanings”.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
P.S. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the altar!
Lydia wrote:
doublethink, comrade, doublethink.
Lydia wrote:
They get around it because God’s sovereignty (as they understand it) supersedes His love, compassion, grace and mercy. In their system, God decides that some deserve everlasting torment, (actually *many*), all because of the *guilt* they have incurred from Adam’s sin. How can a child in the womb, not yet born, have committed any sin? Voila….their definition of original sin. From the very moment of conception, that child in the womb is evil, guilty of sin as if he actually committed it, and will suffer the same fate as someone who has actually committed sins. The child yet unborn is evil and subject to God’s wrath until regeneration takes place. Of course, there are Calvinists who will say that God’s secret will is hidden from us, and He *may* show mercy on the unborn child. We just don’t know. (He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on whom he will have compassion. Romans 9:15). I would say that their system is contradictory because, if God already decides before the foundation of the world whom He will save and whom He will not save, then it matters not if the person is in the womb or out of the womb. Their fate has already been determined by God.
Lydia wrote:
TELL ME ABOUT IT! I first encountered Calvinism after I had been a Christian for 18 years. I could not fathom that God could be so void of goodness and kindness. If He instructs us to have the fruits of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control” – then why would He not be the One in which these virtues originate. Why would He tell us to cultivate these virtues if He is lacking in them? That would make God hypocritical.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I actually heard a pastor preach that Jesus wept not out of empathy but because he was so disgusted with their unbelief.
Some of these people seem not to see God, but their own reflection.
I decided that if I must err, I would rather err towards the side of God’s love than anything else. I can’t really picture standing before God someday and him castigating me for thinking he is more loving than he is.
Gram3 wrote:
BINGO!! This is why some people who have encountered Calvinism and are unable to reconcile love with this kind of god, will say that the Calvinist god is a MONSTER.
ishy wrote:
As I have said on this blog before, Calvinists have a very strange and erroneous concept of what sovereignty means. In general terms, sovereignty means one has the power, the authority, and the ability to carry out one’s will, but one is not like Midas, and does not lack the ability to control the use of the sovereignty God possesses. God is also a God of love and grace, and, in his love, gives us the opportunity and ability to respond to God’s offer of salvation. That is God is Sovereign over his Sovereignty!
Darlene wrote:
I was taught and this makes sense to me, that Christ’s death removed Adam’s sin, no one carries that sin on their shoulders:
1 Timothy 4:10
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
siteseer wrote:
Ever heard of the phrase “More Religious Than God”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Might makes right.
I.e., is God good or do we just call him good because he is the ultimate power and will crush us if we don’t?
Gram3 wrote:
When you think about it, in the system of Calvinism, the Father can be heartless (without compassion and mercy) toward anyone of His children, and be justified in being so. So, for example, let’s say a father (representative of the Calvinist god), takes his 4 children to the lake to go swimming. The father is in his boat out on the lake when he hears his children screaming, “I’m drowning!” He rushes over to the area where he sees his children floundering in the waves. He races to the first one he comes upon and rescues him. The same for the next child. Then he looks upon the last two of his children drowning and says to himself, “I have decided not to rescue you. From the moment you were born…aye….even while you were in the womb, I determined that you would suffer my eternal wrath. You shall drown in your misery.” And the father watches his two children sink beneath the waves and responds with pleasure for his righteous act.
siteseer wrote:
Wow!
Anonymous wrote:
I’m staying out of this discussion for the most part, but that’s because I’m outside the charmed circle of the household of faith. That’s because I don’t believe in a god sending people to hell forever and ever for wrong belief. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I can’t worship that kind of god. I’d rather go to hell first.
But I hope God is better than that.
It occurs to me, reading through these posts, that it is not necessarily as clear as the difference between these two systems of thought. I have a friend who is a staunch Arminian who sees God in much the same way as these Calvinists and we seem to end up debating these same issues about God’s character frequently. I wonder if it comes more out of a perspective of God that is most defined by his power and his ‘right’ to inflict torture on those who fail to honor him? When this aspect of God is pulled out of balance, love ends up redefined. One ends up constantly having to come up with complicated explanations for God and apologize for him, basically.
I just cannot see God this way, instinctively I recoil from it. God created us with natural instincts for love and connection that he uses as an example for us to understand him; father and son, mother and child… if these examples of our natural affections can’t be trusted, then what is the use of him describing himself to us in that context?
We all -even non-believers- can recognize what is good in a human being. The heroes of our stories are rich in the qualities we instinctively know are good and right: honesty, kindness, mercy, strength against injustice but gentleness otherwise… how is it we then imagine God more like the villain in our stories? The powerful monarch on a throne who mercilessly crushes his enemies, enjoys making his subjects suffer, and sees the slightest disloyalty as an excuse to inflict suffering?
Gram3 wrote:
I’ll wager he didn’t insist upon taking all the credit for all the good stuff you did so that he could aggrandize his own glory either.
mirele wrote:
I don’t either. Does that put me outside the household of faith? I’ll stand outside with Edward Fudge.
If we believe that salvation is a gift, then one action is required to have the gift of salvation, we must accept the gift (that is a general principle of law, BTW, for a gift to be complete, the person to whom the gift is given must accept it — say “YES” to the gift, or the proposed gift is null and void. It is the rejection of the gift of God’s love that results in condemnation. I know of many people who believe that there is a third eternal alternative for those who never heard of the gift of God’s grace and therefore had no opportunity to accept it or reject it, and did not willfully do evil, neither the reward of heaven nor the condemnation of hell.
ishy wrote:
Well…this is where Piper, and Grudem, and Ware, and Hodge, and Warfield, and Owen, and Edwards, and Challies, and Keller, and Chandler, and Platt, and Mohler, and Pink, and M. Lloyd-Jones, and Spurgeon, and Boyce, and Bunyan, and Newton, and Gill, and MacArthur, and Boettner, and Sproul, and Baucham, and Boyce, and White, and Turritin, and Watson, and Bavinck, and Horton….and…..and…..come in. Feel free to add to the list. 😉
Arce wrote:
Purgatory?
Actually, there is a verse that says something about people being able to know god from what he has made even though they’ve never heard his name. That’s what I always think of.
siteseer wrote:
As far as I can tell, THIS IS THE CALVINIST GOD. As for me, it was the goodness, compassion, mercy, love, kindness, patience, gentleness of God, all those virtues which we honor and respect as human beings, that drew me to Orthodoxy. I could no longer abide the idea that God sends people to hell in regions where the gospel has never been preached, where they have never heard of Christ. Now, my understanding from Romans, is that these people are judged according to a different system.
Lea wrote:
Yes, they can encounter and know God from His creation. Athansius in ‘On the Incarnation’ addresses this very subject. But, they cannot reject Christ’s death on the cross, because they have never heard of it.
@ dainca:
Wrapping Up “Why I Am an Evangelical, Arminian Christian” (Final: Part 10)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/08/wrapping-up-why-i-am-an-evangelical-arminian-christian-final-part-10/
Darlene wrote:
What? I guess I feel like they can embrace god without knowing the details. (so no need for a third system).
siteseer wrote:
Nor do I (referencing mirele’s quote). I think it makes us dissenters, but not outside the household of faith, although there are many in Christendom who would contest it, saying that to remain in the household of faith you must believe this, that, and the other in order to be ‘saved’.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
But that’s exactly one type of thinking God shot down in the book of Job. Do Calvinists never read the book of Job?
Lydia wrote:
The Calvinists, when they do speak of Christ, which is much less than the Old Testament scriptures depicting God, love to quote the verses where He is rebuking the Pharisees. Their “filter” is one that is inclined toward rebuke and authority. They “filter” God through a lens that makes him very much like a despot.
Lea wrote:
Most certainly they can embrace God if they have never known of Christ. Romans 1 makes that clear. Justin Martyr’s ‘Spermaticos Logos’ addresses this idea through Natural Law.
siteseer wrote:
And whom the Elect want to suck up to and become Court Favorites.
Darlene wrote:
Nor could I. It violates everything I know to be true in the dictates of my conscience and what my moral compass points to.
siteseer wrote:
It’s also when people with their rigid formats of God condemn others to hell for not believing as they do. While I reject Calvinist theology/soteriology, I don’t subscribe to some notion that Calvinists are going to hell because they don’t believe the same things I do. The same goes for any number religious systems.
This misrepresents Calvinism by not including the fact that we believe the call goes out to all. THEN because people are too depraved to turn on their own, God sends His Spirit to open blind eyes.
Irene wrote:
Which part doesn’t fit of this explanation:
While God calls all without distinction to faith in Christ (the general call), he only calls those he has chosen unconditionally in a way that cannot be resisted (the effectual call).
• Those God has not chosen will reject the gospel call of their own will and cannot do otherwise.
Lea wrote:
It’s their own free will, but they cannot do otherwise. Right. Because God didn’t choose them. But they have free will. But they cannot do otherwise.
This is crazy-talk.
PaJo wrote:
Yes, Pajo. Eastern Orthodoxy makes use of cataphatic and apophatic theology. The latter is actually very freeing. For example, there is no compulsion to declare upon hearing of the death of another person that apparently was not a Christian, “He is in hell” or some such thing. That would be considered presumption. Rather, we continually pray for others and ourselves, “Lord have mercy!” = actually trusting in His mercy.
siteseer wrote:
Bingo. That good is the image of God, IMO, even if one does not know it. NT Wright said it quite well… I will have to paraphrase. We are now a shadow of our “real” selves that we will be one day on the redeemed earth. But here and now we are more human when we do good toward others and less and less human when we do evil harm to others.
The standard line in Christendom is “we are only human” when we do wrong as if we cannot help it and it is to be expected from people. That gives the victim of the evil not much hope. I won’t argue that fighting the flesh is hard. It is. And invconvenient and not rewarding– most times. But I think we have it backwards when it comes to doing evil to others. (I am not talking about garden variety non perfection stuff)
And I think the absolute worst evil is when it is either done in the Name of Christ or using Him and His people as a beard.
I would rather deal with a hardened atheist ex con than a deceptive pastor because I know what I am dealing with. :o)
@ Irene:
What about irresistible grace? Regeneration? Calvinism teaches that God has to regenerate them so a person can even have faith. The human cannot have faith without God’s regeneration first.
Irene wrote:
This sounds like the logical fallacy of a distinction without a difference.
Lydia wrote:
Well…He only expects the Elect to hear and repent. So the Good News is abbreviated. 😉
Nancy2 wrote:
Totally agree. But it is a really different kind of hating; it is more of mournful sorrow because the action causes harm and separation.
It seems to me that one could not go too far wrong in understanding how God loves us if s/helost every last page of the Bible but kept the story of the Prodigal Son/The Story of the Father with Two Sons, and meditated on that.
ishy wrote:
Catholics have their own history of disputes over determinism. At one time, the ‘Thomists’ who were at the ‘determinist’ edge of the continuum and the ‘Molinists’ who were at the ‘free will’ other end of the continuum were arguing so much that it threatened the unity of the Church, so the Pope told BOTH groups they could conjecture on what they wanted as long as it did not deny the teachings of the Church, but they were to STOP the verbally over-aggressive debating and blatant ill-will towards one another. Dialogue was permitted but it had to be respectful. The two groups complied.
The concept of determinism pre-dates Christianity and goes back into pagan times.
As for the Jewish people, the rabbis have always taught that God is BOTH ‘sovereign’ AND permits free will. Our Lord doesn’t seem to have changed this teaching or altered it.
Actually the first time I heard about TULIP was on a Baptist blog, and when I found out what it stood for, I was shocked to the core, not understanding how people could accept such teachings.
As for ‘assurance’ of salvation, there is a great trust in the mercy of God and in the Person of Jesus Christ who showed compassion for those without a shepherd. In that regard, we don’t have the same ‘fearfulness’ as some about salvation,
but we do believe that a person can make shipwreck of their faith and IF they do not repent and seek the Lord, they are at risk, but only God can judge their circumstances and their hearts, so we leave them to His mercy. I think there is a great amount of peace in our belief in the power of Christ to save. And we use the term ‘mercy’ continuously in our liturgies and prayers. The trust in Christ is strong among the people of my Church, yes.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
I wonder if Piper’s Bible even contains Ecc. Ch. 3?
And surely, Jesus could have never wept, unless he shed tears of joy!
ishy wrote:
Makes sense, sadly. If they see God is the Grand Puppet Master, then when they strive to be Godlike, they must become Puppet Masters, too!
Muff Potter wrote:
No, he was a modest man who was a servant. He did not seek the limelight, but he delighted in his family and his friends and served his churches without demanding to be first.
Aaahh. A. W. Tozer–a hero to those of us who attended Christian and Missionary Alliance churches. In a biography of Tozer, a man named Cliff Westegren asked Tozer a question prior to going to seminary:
“I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, “Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?”
And I’ll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, “My son, when you get to college you’re going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I’ll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you’ll be way down the line and they’ll still be where they started, because [b]greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions.[/b] Instead, learn to know God.” (emphasis mine)
Sorry I asked about Jesus Loves Me. I’m not really a troublemaker.
I’ve been wondering too about the adults singing Blessed Assurance.
I think a lot of reformed people would say, “No, that’s HYPER-calvinism.”
But…but…but…
Thank you for this presentation on soteriology with SEA, Dee. I’ll read it more deeply as soon as I can.
roebuck wrote:
This is the problem I had with my ex-NeoCalvinist, 9Marxist church. The pastors/elders constantly bragged about being among God’s Elect. They were an insufferable, arrogant lot.
If God knew in advance where everybody was going – Heaven (The Elect) or Hell (The Un-Elect) then Jesus could have just stayed in Heaven. His birth, life, death, and resurrection were redundant.
My ex-pastor even bragged about being given a horse and doing battle for Jesus at the end times. I would sit in my seat and think, “A guy like you who has screamed, berated, abused, lied about, excommunicated and shunned the sweet saints, Jesus wouldn’t trust you with the manure in the horses’ stable let alone a horse!” Whom do these guys think they’re kidding?
@ Christiane:
Well, C S Lewis suggested that paganism was not *entirely* wrong (I stand open to correction here if anyone believes otherwise). Certainly it’s a different bag from the Baal/Asturah paganism that surrounded Israel.
But I think the Norse style of paganism with its idea of “fate” is still a long way from the idea of Somebody actually behind that “fate”. But as I’ve quoted before, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, although Calvinists themselves as far as I can see, disliked theological determinism (most notably instanced in the idea they heard in the 30s that one should not bother with intercessory prayer because God had already decided/knew the answer). Whether it’s “fate” or “don’t bother praying”, it’s still a sort of determinism.
I find elements of truth in both camps, but usually in their less extreme exponents. Most orthodox Calvinists, for example, would reject hyper-Calvinism, while most Arminians would probably be unhappy with the idea that one false step and you’re halfway to losing your salvation.
Thank you Becky Hill for that Tozer quote – that is a pithy one! (And helpful).
Velour wrote:
Reminds me of Psalm 50:21-
“These things you have done and I kept silence;
You thought that I was just like you;
I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.”
Kolya–I agree with your “elements of truth in both camps” totally! Thank you for a summary that promotes unity and truth.
@ siteseer:
They all seem to think God is just like them.
Or, like Mark Driscoll’s quote earlier, they have the gall to think they speak for God. Unbelievable.
Daisy wrote:
I once heard a pastor preach in a sermon, “you fat people, God is disgusted with you.” I just cannot imagine the gall of someone who thinks he can put words in God’s mouth, thoughts in God’s mind. God is going to reprove these people and state the case in order before their eyes one day. They are in for a big surprise that he is not just a carbon copy of themselves.
siteseer wrote:
I suppose Calvinists are not familiar with verses such as,
Ezekiel 18:23
“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
Daisy wrote:
I would say he HAS judged the character of God in stating that ‘it’s just for God to burn babies (not that He would of course)’
the mere idea is a symptom of a very dark view of ‘God’ indeed
what HAPPENS to make people buy into this hellish theology???
what HAPPENS to convince a mother to beat her baby to ‘break its spirit’?
Are people drawn to that which already resonates within themselves??? some evil that needs ‘justifying’ by claiming it’s ‘biblical’, though it is against everything Our Lord stood for ?
we’re talking about some really serious darkness when we talk about folks thinking that God would burn an infant in hell …. this is very sick stuff
@ Irene:
I have been searching for some bridge between free will and determinism when it comes to human responsibility and accountability. Compatablism just does not make sense to me. It is basically God allowing you to think you have free will.
Baptists – the real ones – are neither Arminian or Calvinist. They are Biblicists.
@ Becky Hill:
I think what has happened since Tozer days is that they took it from seminary and brought it into many non Cal churches through deception. That is why we peasants discuss it. It is also a very good way to think through what one really believes about God and why.
Deb wrote:
One of my favorite hymns to hear SBC Vacation Bible School children sing over the years is “Whosoever Meaneth Me.”
Well, that precious song can’t be found in LifeWay’s new Baptist hymnal. Songs referring to Christ’s death as an atonement for everyone and not just the elect – like “Whosoever Will” and “Whosoever Meaneth Me” didn’t make the cut. Neither did “Oh What a Wonder It Is”, with its “all who would believe in Him, He’d save them every one” or “Holy Bible, Book of Love”, which proclaims that Christ “died for everyone.” Calvinist influence?
Ted wrote:
Hee Hee.
But, but, but no one questions Fanny Crosby!
@ Max:
If you want to freak them out, teach the kids….”I have decided to follow Jesus”. :o)
We used to sing it all the time in different languages in GA’s.
I thought it might be interesting to bring in something from the Eastern Orthodox on the subjects of determinism and free will, from the Orthodox Study Bible, this:
“Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son….”
Orthodox Study Bible:
“God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all. For God is free and man is free. God freely offers salvation to all, and man freely responds to it. All are called, but all do not respond. Those who refuse to love God are not forced to change; God compels no one. “God does not will evil to be done, nor does He force virtue” (St John of Damascus).
Based on His foreknowledge, God assures or predestines that those who choose to love and obey Him will be fulfilled, being conformed to the image of His Son. The model for the creation of man is the Son incarnate, and the eternal goal of man is conformity to the incarnate Son. Thus, everything the Only Begotten Son is by nature we become by the grace of the Incarnation. ”
We can see the emphasis is a bit different in Eastern Christianity, but definitely worth considering; as the eastern Church also received the Apostolic traditions that spread out of Jerusalem into the world.
Kemi wrote:
As my parent’s pastor, Adrian Rogers, used to say “Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!” (the title of a sermon and booklet by Rogers dealing with reformed theology aberrations)
@ Darlene:
Darlene wrote:
That is exactly what drove me away for YEARS – taught you have to “Love God with all of your heart, mind and soul” but how God was depicted – I could fear (arbitrary, indiscriminate and vindictive) but not by any means love or even respect……
I find it ironic that what people generally view as poor leadership traits (micromanaging,arbitrary, looking to punish, demanding loyalty, not providing adequate information)…..and there are words for that type of “leader” are considered good traits for God. To me that is a major disconnect.
One story that really got me thinking was Jesus on the lake in the storm – bringing the storm to prove his power over it and to show the disciples they should trust them. I equated that to scaring my kids with the fear of death – so I could show them I would keep them safe……..that is evil – plain and simple.
It took 25 years or so, but now I look at things differently – and glad I do
@ Lydia:
Middle knowledge. I have been reading Craig on this. Well, reading does not imply some thorough understanding, but it is a middle way between determinism and free will. I have read where somebody called it a philosophically more sophisticated form of Arminianism. I think it is Molinism, but I do not know if Molinism has been modified to come to this idea or what.
For me it is slow learning because I have not really delved into the philosophy of the relationship between God and time which is necessary to consider in this concept. I have to keep getting sidetracked by the vocabulary-like ‘subjunctive counterfactuals’ and such. But I plunge ahead. Anyhow, from my standpoint if anybody can explain it to me Dr. Craig can.
Daisy wrote:
DAISY, they may have these Scriptures, but they certainly don’t emphasize them enough to include them in their theology, which they say is ‘biblical’, go figure.
Mike wrote:
Yes, it looks like Calvinists engage in Special Pleading a bit. They’d maybe say it’s okay for God to have those qualities but not for people.
Velour wrote:
That is a good question. There is a lot of craziness going around, and delusions of grandeur, or election, or what have you. The whole predermination notion just short-circuits everything. Why bother about anything, if it’s just kismet?
To me, the whole reason for God’s creating humans, from His point of view, is free will. He didn’t want automatons – could easily have made automatons. Who wants to be worshipped by beings that do it automatically?
He gave the Law to the Hebrews, but they couldn’t keep it. They were given multiple chances, prophets and all. Did He know they would not, could not, live up to it? Was He trying to prove a point to us all along?
Sure, God hates sin. He also hates human misery, which is where sin inevitably leads. Hence, from love, mercy, and grace… Jesus. And the free will of everyone who hears the Good News to sign on…
@ okrapod:
Hi OKRAPOD,
the ‘scientia media’ is Molinist, yes.
@ roebuck:
That was maybe more than I wanted to say. I think there is a LOT of Mystery surrounding it, and no amount of Systematic Theology is going to box God in…
@ Christiane:
Do I understand correctly that this has not been declared heretical? Somebody on a previous comment thought it was ‘heterodox’. I believe that is what they said. Did the Church take an official position on this?
roebuck wrote:
hence there is much wisdom in the definition of a theologian as ‘one who prays’ 🙂
@ Michael:
I agree. Many of them are unkind and I wish they wouldn’t be.
About two years ago I could not give a good explanation of reformed theology and could not describe the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, even though I had been an active Christian for more than 30 years. That changed a couple years ago when my sons started asking tough questions (they were attending a TGC-listed SBC church in their college town). I spent more than a year in an almost OCD-like obsession digging into the details. Diving into Calvinism was a pretty depressing journey for me. I discovered that Arminianism is not that much different in the basic assumptions, but the conclusions are very different. It was this research that showed me these are not the only choices. The Eastern tradition of Christianity did a much better job in retaining the teachings of the early church – they did not go down the path of the Augustinian/Aristotelian/Platonic view of God that is the foundation of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
I highly recommend going back to the early church. There are many great resources available for free. One of my favorites so far is “On the Incarnation” by Athanasius. I’ve read quite a lot of articles and a few books by Eastern Orthodox teachers. That has been very eye-opening.
I’ve been very encouraged lately by the ministries of Baxter Kruger and Paul Young (author of The Shack). Baxter Kruger has discovered the early church and seems to be doing a great job of unpacking what the early church believed. Here is a link to some of his lectures and articles: http://perichoresis.org/free-lecture-series/. I am currently working through the series called “The Shack Revisited: Orama Great Barrier Island 2014.” All I can say is Wow. If you need a break from Calvinism and the related Western arguments, Kruger offers another side. He grew up Presbyterian and Calvinist, so he does a great job in very graciously showing where Calvinism misses the mark.
Lydia wrote:
Doing evil in the Name of God — THAT is the original meaning of “Thou Shalt NOT Take The Name of The LORD Thy God In Vain.”
(I assume in this context “beard” means disguise or camouflage.)
okrapod wrote:
well, the term ‘heterodox’ is defined differently in Catholicism than in the Protestant tradition,
a philosophical opinion that explores what is not known for sure, but MIGHT be possible, can be called ‘heterodox’ if it doesn’t condemn Catholic teaching or claim to formally add to it
so in the arguments between the Thomists and the Molinists, there is a whole range of possibilities that MIGHT be true, but are speculation into what is truly mystery, and which also do not deny any existing Church teachings and therefor are not ‘heretical’ . . . .
‘scientia media’ would fall into a philosophical theological construct that doesn’t deny anything the Church is teaching, but yet is not a formal part of what the Church is teaching in the formal Cathechism . . . the Church would say it is ‘possibly’ true, but it is not taught formally in Catholicism, no.
I hope this makes a little bit of sense. If not, since I know you are a logical person, the problem is likely in my own inability to express myself clearly. Hope this helps some. 🙂
When something is beyond my understanding, I accept it as the will of God, carry on and pray for more understanding. Is this a Calvinist response — that part of God’s will is the manifestation of what I don’t understand (i.e. Acts of Evil)?
Ken F wrote:
Best advice I’ve read all day. I agree with you. In the realm of sacred mystery, the Eastern Christians have got an advantage way over Western Christianity: it’s not that they both are so ‘opposite’, so much as they emphasize from different viewpoints, all in the end providing insight to the whole Church.
Athanasius is a GREAT resource from the early Church to learn from, as are the Cappadocian (sp?) Fathers.
Great comment, very thought provoking, yes.
Christiane wrote:
🙂 But what I really need to know is… just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? 😉
We were talking about ‘speculation’ upthread, and my comments were surely in the realm of speculation, my own speculation. But I’ve read the Bible up and down over the last 50 years (I’m 61, and received my first Bible from my Church when I was 10), and I have always thought about ‘why?’. Why humans? Why Chosen People? And when you think about those things long and hard enough, the question of ‘why Jesus’ is not a question at all.
And there I go again, writing more than I really intended to. Can’t seem to stop myself tonight.
Michael wrote:
The filter makes a big difference. I was the same until I expanded my filter by reading Eastern Orthodox and early church theology. I was reading those verses with the wrong assumptions, which is why Calvinistic ideas had made some sense to me. But the more I read the more I am convinced Calvinism is a false gospel. False because of how it portrays the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Lea wrote:
Whereas, Calvinists start with the premise that God is sovereign.
Here’s the way this old man sees it. Scripture speaks much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture speaks much about man’s free will. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before Him.
I have been a diligent Bible student, Bible teacher, and active in Christian lay ministry for the better part of my long life. I could offer a convincing argument for either Arminianism or Calvinism. I have found that each side can leave you hanging with questions – that’s why the debate between the two has not been resolved in 500 years! But as I go deeper into the Word, I see many more flaws emerging in reformed theology than in the theological stream followed by the free will folks. At the end of the day, the tenets of Calvinism are disturbing when one looks at the whole of Scripture.
As noted earlier, I don’t claim either label – preferring to refer to myself as a Biblicist. I certainly lean “whosoever will”, but don’t see that belief in conflict with the sovereignty of God in His plan of salvation for ALL men. Jesus saves those who hear the Gospel preached and willingly come to Him. That was the Great Commission of the early church which understood “election” better than we appear to in the 21st century with all our mumbo-jumbo theology.
With my understanding of the message of the Cross of Christ, I can go anywhere on planet earth, look any man in the eye, and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do that and stay true to his theology. If I’m wrong, I will stand before God and declare “Well, I guess I just loved everyone too much and tried to lead as many to Christ as I could.” If a Calvinist is wrong …
Max wrote:
That’s what I was trying to say in my last couple of comments, alas, with less economy of verbiage 🙂
roebuck wrote:
I am a fan of God’s ‘mystery’ and I think we take a great deal about Creation for granted. Here’s favorite quote you might like:
“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.”
(Anne LaMott)
it helps to remember that the simplicity of faith is most celebrated in our joyful sense of wonder and awe;
not so much in our human attempts to sort out the sacred which is ‘above our understanding’, all the while knowing that pride lies waiting to enslave our egos in the absence of our humility before the Lord 🙂
Max wrote:
This will henceforth be known as “Max’s Wager” (pace Pascal). 🙂
Christiane wrote:
Amen and amen! I’m with Anne LaMott.
okrapod wrote:
Exactly. Time is the big unknown. Not familiar with Craig.
I did not have time to read all the comments but I want to say thank you for this post. Very helpful and instructive.
Although raised Presbyterian, I was never really all in with Calvinism. I called myself a “2-point Calvinist” until I heard an evangelist describe himself as a “Calminian” and I knew that’s where I was!
Total depravity — absolutely, we’re all sinners, inherently selfish.
Unconditional election — I don’t get it. I cannot believe that God made people for the purpose of sending them to hell.
Limited atonement — not biblical: “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
Irresistible grace — I don’t get this either. One of the ways in which I am made in God’s image is that I have a free will. God doesn’t force me to accept salvation. If I don’t have a choice to accept it, it’s not a free gift.
Perseverance of the saints — Jesus holds on to those who come to him. He is more powerful than the enemy, and he is the conqueror over death.
So, for what it’s worth, that’s my un-academic summary. I find the SEA positions, for the most part, compatible with my understanding of Scripture. Again, Dee, thanks for sharing this.
roebuck wrote:
Isn’t she a Presbyterian?
@ Ken F:
I thought of you last night listening to some NT Wright. He briefly mentioned some atonement theories and then said Jesus did not invite them to the upper room to explain atonement but to share a meal. :o)
Lydia wrote:
This is a lost thought to many.
Lydia wrote:
That is such a great point! It’s all about relationship. I want to read NT Wright when i get time.
Lea wrote:
I have no idea. She expressed a sentiment that I can agree with.
Bridget wrote:
Told ya. It’s all about the potlucks.
roebuck wrote:
I think she is. Her name sounded familiar. I think my pastor may have mentioned her.
Lydia wrote:
It’s called Monergism.
Irene wrote:
What good is a call going out to all, when the reality is God has already condemned some of those in the “ALL” category? That’s like me sending out invitations to a party, and then when all those who have been invited arrive at my party, I turn over half of them away for the reason of my good pleasure and will.
Lea wrote:
You said it better than I, Lea. So, the call to those who God *has not chosen* is deceptive. It is a call that is not a genuine offer, because the one not chosen is unable to respond in faith to it.
Max wrote:
I am very familiar with that teaching by Adrian Rogers, one of my favorite preachers.
Ken F wrote:
You have had some very good thoughts and references in the last month and it is going to take me a while to catch up. You probably are not stopping though, so much for catching up, so keep them coming.
This thread has been very helpful I wish to thank all of you for your input, these issues have always troubled me and I have a longer post I might put up but I am trying to widdle it down as I tend to wander. I really want to thank Dee and Deb for your dealing with hard subjects. God be with you all.
@ roebuck:
Meet Annie LaMott
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Freida+Lee+Mock%27s+1999+documentary+Bird+by+Bird#id=2&vid=6ecf096d5a95e09df44a4d2c552a42da&action=view
brian wrote:
And with your spirit, BRIAN
@ brian:
We are struggling together. Those who claim to have ALL the answers DON'T!
Darlene wrote:
Is “for reason of my good pleasure and will” anything like “Just Because I Can”?
Lydia wrote:
Wonderful. About ten years ago I dropped out of church organizational strategy meetings, I was interested in how to build better relationships but it was always about something else. I followed up by reading through the new testament with an eye for relationships.
There are threads of ideas that run through the bible, I found relationships was more of a strong band running through the story. It is one of the reasons I am mystified there is so much dissension over arcane doctrine, it is as if those leading the charge are missing compassion.
Daisy wrote:
I have meant some Protestant people who believe this, but none of them were Calvinists:
“1260 “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.”
<a href="#comment-276636" title=
They’re coming to take me away, ho ho he he ha ha, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time. And I’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats. And they’re coming to take me away, ha ha.
roebuck wrote:
Roebuck, it beggars belief, does it not? When you look at its plain meaning {like the perspicuity of Scripture 😉 }, it cannot be understood as anything but crazy-talk.
Max wrote:
Max, what about this one? Is it in the new LifeWay hymnbook? ‘The Love of God’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnvmKoLWUU&spfreload=10
Irene wrote:
That is a helpful clarification, IMO. You are going to get some reaction, though, because non-Calvinists see the general call as meaningless because only the effectual call does anything. And beyond that, you will probably get objections that the Atonement is only for the elect, so what is the purpose of the general call? Not all Calvinists agree on whether or not there even is a well-meant offer of the Gospel to the non-elect. And what is the practical difference between an unregenerate but elect individual and an unregenerate non-elect individual?
Those have been the hurdles for me in the Calvinistic system, even though I have at one time or another had an answer for myself when I would raise those questions with myself.
PaJo wrote:
Right. If anyone is old enough, they know someone who has a prodigal adult child. Or maybe they have one themselves. That story speaks powerfully to those grieving and sometimes angry but always loving and hopeful parents or grandparents.
roebuck wrote:
And now I can’t help thinking of Elvis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i13hgTGPzdQ
Christiane wrote:
I am happy that limbo is no longer a thing. Very disturbing as is purgatory, IMO. Not as disturbing as throwing infants into hell, but still disturbing. Purgatory is disturbing because it seems to me to limit the effectiveness of the Atonement. That said, any incidental contact I had with CCD was a very long time ago.
I think this might wander OT, but it is interesting to think about how much Augustine’s thinking influences the church. That’s all I have on the topic and do not want to derail the topic of TULIPS vs. FACTS.
@ Max:
Not to worry for me, Max. I have an old Broadman hymnal published under the 1963 BFM. Good old hymns that have stood the test of time. The new hymnals are something that you and the 1689ers can agree on. They much prefer the Trinity hymnal. 🙂 Don’t ask me how I know this. 🙁
Gram3 wrote:
Bingo!!
Ken F wrote:
And think about it, Ken. The early church theology was around for 1,500 years prior to Calvin being born.
Bridget wrote:
Hmmm….I’m wondering what a Calvinist would say about that. Me thinks he could write an entire volume on systematic theology about the upper room and the discourse that took place.
@ Gram3:
Oh my gosh, I love the doctrine of Purgatory! IMHO it doesn’t limit the Atonement; it extends it. The souls in Purgatory are already saved but they are being purified. The Bible says nothing unclean can enter Heaven, and most of us need that final cleansing.
Moreover, the doctrine of temporal punishment makes perfect sense IMHO. If I bung a brick through your picture window, you may forgive me in Christ, but you will still expect me to pay for a new window, right? Sin has consequences, and consequences must be dealt with. That’s Purgatory.
Above all, Purgatory is the School of Love. Think of all the gossipy saints you know — sincerely, devoutly Christian yet prone to uncharitable backbiting. That’s most of us! We can’t take our gossipy everyday uncharity into Heaven. In Purgatory, we see clearly how our harsh words and thoughts hurt others. We make amends to those we have offended and we learn to love.
Scripture alludes to Purgatory, and common sense confirms it, as C.S. Lewis attested. I for one am incredibly grateful for it, because it means there is hope for all of us, even for those of us who frequently fail our Christian walk and witness. 🙂
Darlene wrote:
It would all be speculation taken too far, way too far. 😉
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Hi Gatecrasher,
I don’t think most Southern Baptists hold to the Scriptures about Judas Maccabeus, although they may have read them.
I am one who thinks the concept of ‘purgatory’ is an example of the great mercy of God, but I also see it through Catholic eyes. That’s not going to happen here among these people, no.
But perhaps the old idea of ‘limbo’ was also kindly-meant in its day. The idea of ‘limbo’ wasn’t ever supposed to be a place of suffering, no.
I can understand why Gram3 didn’t like the idea of ‘limbo’ though. It doesn’t make any sense at all when you look closely at the Gospels where Our Lord speaks about children and the Kingdom of God.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
My hope is in Christ alone. There is no amount of suffering that I can add to what he did that would count for anything or achieve any further purpose.
siteseer wrote:
I can only imagine one example of unspeakable pain on our part that was spoken about in prophesy in Zechariah 12,
but it is also connected to Our Lord’s suffering and has to do with our grief over the consequences of our sin, this:
“10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”
It is said that we never realize the full extent of how serious our sins were against God. John Henry Newman wrote about it, this:
“This thought should keep us humble.
We are sinners, but we do not know how great.
He alone knows who died for our sins.
(John Henry Newman)
I have a feeling we will all come to understand the full impact of our sin when we no longer ‘see through a glass darkly’, and through the intervention of grace, our sins will break our hearts in a way we now don’t experience fully. Would this be a purifying experience in the day when we know longer see through the glass darkly?
It’s something to think about: the sacrifice of a broken heart.
some thoughts
siteseer wrote:
To draw from some comments up-thread, purgatory strikes me as one of those speculations that should have remained mere speculations.
Lea wrote:
Yep. That phrase was not invented and popularized by Arminians. It was coined by popular Calvinist theologians and is accepted terminology in Reformed circles.
Which should tell you something. 😉
Bill M wrote:
I thought it was connected to the practice of selling indulgences at one time.
I do think that speculation can be a source of either hope or dread, but for me the building of doctrines on hints is not sufficient. Regardless of which side of which argument does it. But without sufficient evidence we cannot form firm conclusions.
Catholicism has the idea of purgatory, and emotionally I feel it is a good idea and I totally get it what Christiane says she feels about the idea. But alas, the idea is built on hints and suppositions without enough evidence, in my opinion.
Popular christianity has built elaborate ideas about heaven and we have used these ideas to sustain hope, but here again much of this is built on hints. Then along comes N T Wright and says that no, ‘heaven’ is not what we think it is and it is merely some intermediate state while we wait for the opportunity to start over with the new heavens and the new earth. But he is, like those talking about purgatory, talking about some intermediate state. I read his book, and I think this is a real stretch.
So some say (speaking only of the redeemed) that we get enough time and circumstances for God to move toward completion of the work that he has begun in us (one way of looking at some state known as purgatory) while others say we get a rest period before getting back to work (my take on Wright’s view of transitory heaven). These are both sobering thoughts. And, actually, not necessarily complete contradictions.
But where is their sufficient evidence to sustain either conclusion?
okrapod wrote:
Maybe someone can think of something else but the only evidence that comes to mind is what Jesus told the thief on the Cross next to Him. Which isn’t much except interesting when you think of the next three days.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I’m thinking this makes the sacrifice of the cross ineffectual in it’s purpose and scope.
….Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Our debt was cancelled. No?
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
This a pretty strong argument for abortion.
Eeyore wrote:
I noticed that it was a reformed thing. So at least they kind of recognize the problem. But they still don’t seem to have found the solution.
Victorious wrote:
Yes. And that is the whole story, yes or no? No.
If I am correct…The catholics do not think that the unsaved go to purgatory. They think that purgatory is part of the continuing process of sanctification which for most is not completed prior to physical death. Protestants think that justification is a completed work of Christ applied to the individual instantaneously and that the process of sanctification stops at physical death. The differences lie, as I see it, in several areas. One is whether justification (payment of the debt) is a separate process or whether justification and sanctification are parts of the same process. Another is whether or to what extent persons themselves co-operate with God in sanctification (becoming like God) or whether it is entirely a work of God alone. And yet another is how one views physical death in the light of the life to come-how much of the life to come is a continuation of this life and how much may be a more drastic starting over.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. I was not clear. I think there is insufficient evidence for Wright to take a stand that ‘heaven’ is a temporary state rather than an eternal destiny.
@ Daisy:
God hates us, and through the work of Christ, we become his obnoxious in-laws that He’s forced to deal with. Good news?
Piper is the promulgator of this idea. So I’ve sat in a gospel™ centered church listening to messages like this, and I’ve thought, for the people who actively affirm and consume this stuff, they’re either thinking:
“This is so true about me”, or
“This is so true about everyone else at this dead church.”
There’s no way of knowing for sure, but some people’s behavior is much more consistent with the latter.
@ Michael:
It would help if the evangelical super geniuses like Tim Keller could say they’re sorry for promoting him.
@ okrapod:
I forgot to mention something that somebody said earlier about imputed vs imparted righteousness. This is a crucial difference in understanding the differences between catholic and protestant thinking in this area.
Steve Scott wrote:
So, what happens to a child when one parent is saved and a church member, and the other parent is neither or has made a false profession?
Is that child elect, half-elect, or non-elect?
And what of children who are born to non-Christian families, but is taken to church by a friends, neighbors, or other church members? I was part of a children’s ministry for a few years. We picked up children that ranged in age from 3 to 14. Is a children’s ministry for the “unchurched” a total waste?
Oh, and I would assume 9Marx churches have no children’s outreach, since no one who lives with their parents can be a member of God’s family. I guess if a person doesn’t make it to age 18 and independence, let them burn!
Lea wrote:
But they think they do.
After all, Calvin has God All Figured Out.
Christiane wrote:
No Baptists I know believes in purgatory.
Jesus didn’t say anything about Lazarus and the rich man, nor the thief who was crucified beside him, being in limbo.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Guys, I know you’re SUPER excited to have found out what god is really about here at seminary. But try not to let this wonderous knowledge turn you into a completely rude and evil person. Even though you’re super excited about gods grace.
Evangelical Arminians is a great site. Glad you discovered it. I found it a few years ago as I was picking up the pieces of my faith post-Calvin. It helped me to figure out just what was “off” about the theology, and lots of light bulbs went off binge reading the site. 🙂
Another helpful resource is this talk by Jerry Walls called “What’s Wrong with Calvinism?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg
Lea wrote:
god – lowercase “g” intentional?
In his continuing endeavor to out-do all other Calvinists, John Piper claims to be a 7-Point Calvinist! Instead of your regular run of the mill hyper-Calvinist who holds rigorously to the five unrevisable doctrinal propositions of TULIP, the Pied Piper adds a couple more, making him a super-hyper-Calvinist. His additions to the flower include “double predestination” and “best-of-all-possible worlds.” This guy is such a strange little man.
Gram3 wrote:
Many Southern Baptist churches opted not to purchase LifeWay’s 2008 revision for various reasons, including the slant toward Calvinism in song selection. They were prudent to hold onto their 1975 or 1991 issues, which still contained the hymns I noted, as well as others the LifeWay revision team chopped from the 2008 revision. There are so many things going on in SBC life that the pew masses are unaware of.
Darlene wrote:
Nope, not there.
@ Nancy2:
And there is another problem. Not accepting there are analogies, metaphors, idioms, chiasms and other ways of ancient communication we often don’t take into consideration. In fact, if we look at all the evidence, we find He tended to talk much more about their here and now as in post resurrection but even most of that has been turned into second coming prophecy.
Deb wrote:
Adrian, if alive today, would be pretty upset with Southern Baptists for allowing the Conservative Resurgence to merge into a Calvinist Resurgence. He may not have been fond of SBC liberals, but he wasn’t keen on reformed theology either.
@ Nancy2:
perhaps those sort of “unequally yoked” parents would not be allowed to join?
I grew up in SBC churches that kids came to without their parents and even joined. They often came with neighbors. Like us. These rules would never have worked unless you want to turn people away? In one church half the youth group were my brothers friends from school. No parents.
Janet Varin wrote:
I don’t think so, because the real question is whether the mother has the moral right to abort her child who is also created in the image of God. That’s a high hurdle to overcome, IMO. Whether God extends his mercy and the covering of Christ’s sacrifice to the child is an independent question, I think. Susan Smith and Andrea Yates drew the wrong lesson from the idea that God receives the little ones.
Janet Varin wrote:
What???? Where in my comment did I mention abortion? Please don’t read into something what isn’t there.
@ Lea:
Once upon a time, Cage Stage charismatics were the problem in churches. I think the real problem is spiritual elitism, whatever form it takes. That and the apparent fact that those problem folks were converted to something other than faith in Jesus, the Christ, and their behavior shows it. To be clear, I do not mean that they are not believers in Christ but rather that they turn the whole dog into the tail.
Gram3 wrote:
It seems that nobody questions that babies are imputed with Adam’s sin. I don’t see how suggesting that they are imputed with God’s righteousness relates to abortion.
Thanks for your reply.
@ okrapod:
I am not scholarly enough to know. From the little I have heard from him on this subject, I do know he expressed concern that some beliefs on this issue seem to have been imported from Greek Paganism. I do think there is a reason to believe God will redeem His created earth instead of burning it up. :o) So there is one aspect.
All I know is I can’t wrap my head around limbo or purgatory when it comes to Gods character and Promises.. We have to wonder how much of this stuff has evolved from superstition that once dominated the state church and kept the peasants attention.
Janet Varin wrote:
What? Maybe you misunderstood the comment?
@ Nancy2:
Children with one believing parent are considered within the Covenant of Grace, so they are regarded as elect until they demonstrate they are not among the elect. Children with no believing parents have no connection to the Covenant of Grace, so…
9Marks is, I believe, holds to New Covenant theology. All children would be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus until they renounce the faith by word or deeds. This is not much different, practically speaking, than the traditional Baptist “age of accountability.”
I agree with what Okrapod says about thinking about the evidence. The Covenant of Grace is a theological construct just like the age of accountability is. Different people find one more compelling than the other.
If I have misstated something about the Covenantal view, I hope someone will correct me.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I don’t think babies are imputed with Adams sin. i think that concept grew in popularity from Augustine and evolved West from there.
Max wrote:
Mine is older than that. 🙂 Still in good shape, too. Quality bookmaking.
Gram3 wrote:
I am not seeing it. You can’t divorce imputed guit from the equation, can you? Babies are born guilty and sinning in one construct but not the other. This belief, which caught fire West from Augustine, is why infant baptism exists in the first place….and because infant mortality was a big thing.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you for that. Infertility is a sensitive topic these days. I just can’t fathom telling a woman who miscarried that her baby isn’t “saved.” Never mind that some sources say that half of all fertilized eggs die. That would be a lot of “unsaved” souls.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
You can thank Augustine for making that view the default, IIRC. In an age with very high infant mortality, Christian parents were concerned about their children who died. So one resolution to that is baptismal regeneration which leads to the question of what happens to unbaptized children which leads to the solution of limbo.
Did we inherit actual sin from Adam, or did we inherit a weakness or propensity to sin which will result in actual sin at some point? What effect, if any, does baptism (of any kind) have on our status before God? The P&R, with the exception of the Federal Visionists, do not teach Baptismal Regeneration, but they do teach that children are born in sin.
@ Gram3:
The charismatics just did not have the Christian Industrial Complex. Besides, Patterson rooted them out of the SBC long ago. :o)
The Neo Cals have the CIC, the resources and the gravitas. They can afford a much longer cage stage. Now, it is the normal and we are to be tolerant and keep pay the bills while young Jared matures into his pastoral position.
@ Lydia:
Well, first, you beat me to the Augustine punch! I don’t understand the rest of your comment, but I know it is because Brain Fog this morning.
@ Max:
John Piper is a John Piperist.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
It’s weird. We really do have to think through what we believe and why. It often leads to real harm. I don’t think we need a systematic theology or anything like that, either. And we don’t have all the answers. My belief on this score follows what I believe about Jesus Christ. He is love, just and merciful. Why would an innocent baby with no reasoning skills be guilty of Adams sin? They were born with the consequences of corruption, yes.
I have often wondered if the doctrine of imputed guilt caused some people over the centuries not to see children as innocent victims who need adult protection? History was harsh for children.
Lydia wrote:
Great point. You left out all the Jasons, Jonathans, Jacobs, Jeremys and some other assorted J’s. The YRRs do not have to worry about all those Jennifers being cage stage. 🙂
As far as I can tell it was the comment by arce on Thursday at 6:56 am that mentioned abortion in the discussion of infants. Arce did not recommend abortion. I do think that it is necessary to look at abortion from both the aspect of the aborter and the one aborted in discussing the eternal destiny of the young, however, from the vantage points of covenant theology, imputed righteousness, age of accountability, original sin, and where we have not gone yet as to whether one must understand the gospel and say ‘yes’ to that understood gospel to be saved or whether one must rather merely refrain from saying ‘no’ to that gospel if and when one understood enough to be able to say ‘no’.
So while I am on this subject, the issue of the eternal destiny of infants has been cussed and discussed in talking about the conquest of Canaan also. Now that is a really difficult conversation.
Lydia wrote:
I think there is sort of a sliding scale of important things. And some people assign a ton of importance to things I literally think are not important at all.
What does it matter in your everyday life as a Christian if you think evolution is real? Or this is a 6k year earth? I know others think differently, but this stuff is like angels dancing on a pin to me. It doesn’t help you life a christlike life to hold any specific opinion on these things, and going around being holier than thou about your opinions actually drives people away from God.
Some of the theology stuff is interesting to think about, but about every bit as useless in every day life. Some of it, however, can be toxic. That’s the stuff we need to hash out, I guess. So people don’t go around thinking God hates us or is super annoyed with us or whatever nonsense Driscoll was saying.
I think the basic character of God is important. Believing is important. Loving is important. The rest is just stuff to wonder about…
@ Gram3:
More like my lack of articulation. The whole imputed guilt doctrine has serious reverberating consequences that end up in a black hole of ‘yes babies are guilty but God is nice about it’ or ‘yes they are guilty and if not elect, God punishes them’ or ‘yes they are guilty but we baptized them’.
I just don’t think they are guilty. :o)
When we get into age of accountability explanation, I just try to think of it as “walking in the light” as in 1 John. But with a lean toward knowing right/wrong.
@ Lea:
I think Jesus agrees with you. :o)
It is instructive to go through the Gospels and see what He spent most of his time talking about that the authors felt most important to write down. Also, what he didn’t talk about much at all and things that he did and things that he did not do. It is really a different picture.
@ Gram3:
I keep wondering when their quasi no girls China policy will kick in and there won’t be enough Jennifer’s to marry. :o)
okrapod wrote:
OK. I can see where someone might have followed that train of thought in my comment.
So, for the record, I’m not making an argument for abortion. I hope that clears things up.
For me it boils down to this question:
How could the loving, gracious and merciful God that we serve create a being in His own image with the intent of dooming the being for Hell?
It just doesn’t make sense that our God would do such a thing. He loves all people and gave His Son for all people.
Lydia wrote:
I agree. And I’m woefully ignorant of the historical roots of most of this. So, thanks to all of you who spend your time here sharing the Cliff Notes version.
Lydia wrote:
Outside of Calvinism, isn’t this called “Perpetual Adolescent”?
Or “Peter Pan Syndrome”?
(“I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m a Calvinist Kid…”)
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
And worse, many believe God determined it to happen because He is controlling every molecule 24/7. It is fatalism.
And because of childbearing and patriarchy women have born the blunt of this thinking throughout history. But our God promised Messiah would come through women. Some of them suffering great indignity. They are listed in the genealogy of our Lord. What a precious Savior we have!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I think 50 is going to hit some of the lessor followers very hard.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
There has been discussion in religion as to when ‘ensoulment’ happens. That is to say when does one become a soul? Some today think that indeed the zygote is a person with a soul. In the past one idea was that ensoulment happened at the time of quickening, when fetal movement is first detectable by the pregnant woman. Some have said that it happens at the moment of birth. I note that we have no specific answer from either scripture or medicine.
Max wrote:
Piper explains double predestination (his 6th point) as “the flip side of unconditional election” (to use his words). He so flippantly refers to the eternal destiny of souls as if God is flipping a coin to determine who’s in and who’s out! I envision his Calvinist Determinist God pulling petals from a flower “He loves me; He loves me not … He loves me; He loves me not.” What love is this?!!
Lydia wrote:
And there is also the question of hell itself. Is it a place of eternal punishment? Is the eternal punishment graded? Is the wages of sin eternal death or eternal punishment? Does a general atonement imply a general salvation? If inclusivism or universalism is true, what about relative sin in this life?
Questions within questions. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right” is my clobber verse for those questions. But that implies a Judge/Lawgiver who acts according to his own law and his own character. Which raises other questions of what the exact nature of God’s character is. So I bring out another clobber verse “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” and “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his nature.” All references are the GSV.
What Did Jesus Do? That is what I think the Judge will do.
Lydia wrote:
You should probably tweet that out to Jared Moore-Wilson or Jared Wilson-Moore.
okrapod wrote:
It’s a determination that’s definitely above my paygrade. 🙂
@ Max:
I used to watch Rogers’ show years ago. I agreed with many of his views, except for at least one.
One of the few things Rogers did that troubled me is in one advice column (he used to take letters from viewers), he gave some John Piper-ish flavored reply to a woman who was in an abusive marriage, and she wrote to him asking him what to do.
Rogers was more on the side of telling a Christian wife it’s her lot in life to stay with an abuser. Yes, yes, he mouths the regrets, saying how awful it is when a man abuses his wife, but in the end scheme of things, he isn’t really OK with a woman dumping her abusive husband.
Rogers was not keen on allowing a wife to leave and divorce if she was being abused.
This letter I am speaking of used to be on the ‘Love Worth Finding’ site (which was Rogers’ site). That was ten or more years ago. I don’t know if that same letter is still on there.
I went to the site. I cannot find the exact letter I saw years ago, but there is this page, which addresses domestic abuse:
http://www.lwf.org/spiritualquestionsandanswers/posts/spouse-abuse-5267
I don’t even like that page’s response. It hedges and waffles too much.
Whoever wrote it (Rogers??) basically is frowning on divorce, and putting to much importance on keeping an abusive marriage together vs. the woman’s safety.
Instead of guilting women to stay with abusers, or raising doubts in their minds, I wish such preachers/sites would unequivocally tell women,
“Yes,it’s okay with God and the Bible if you divorce your abusive husband.”
But they never flat out say that.
They always hedge it with “God hates divorce,” “you should separate for a bit with the goal of reconciliation,” etc, type messages, which I think will only confuse an abused wife who is really wanting to leave (divorce) her husband, but these preachers make her feel guilty for even considering divorce as an option.
So, I liked most of Rogers’ teaching, but concerning the subject of domestic abuse, I think the man dropped the ball.
On his advice page to abused women is this line:
If I were an abused wife, I would not give a didely squat about the abusive’ husband’s “welfare.” Puh-leeze.
A lot of Christians have this weird idea that a wife is supposed to play Messiah- Holy Spirit- redeemer to a crumb bum husband. Wrong.
It’s not up to a wife to “save” the guy or point him in the right direction. His abusive behavior is his responsibility to change and fix – not the wife’s.
The wife can leave and dump him and let God be concerned about the guy’s welfare. It’s just another guilt or shaming tactic preachers use to convince abused wives to stay and endure decades more abuse by a bum.
Gram3 wrote:
Is that the lady in Houston (more the Clear Lake area) who drowned several of her kids in her home?
I had to drive past her house five days a week to get to my job (when I used to live in that area).
Lydia wrote:
I am unaware of a connection and would think purgatory would devalue indulgences. Why pay the bill now with indulgences when you can pay it later in purgatory.
Janet Varin wrote:
Do you mean, like for someone who was strongly considering abortion but was only being held back by the fear that the unborn child would be doomed to hell?
@ Janet Varin:
Why stop at abortion? Many think the age of accountability is like age twelve. You could also say parents can kill their kid up to age 12, and it’s all good, because everyone would know without a doubt that the kid is in Heaven.
I don’t think Jesus Christ was down with that, though, because he said something about millstones around the necks, being tossed into the sea etc etc
Lydia wrote:
China’s Brutal One-Child Policy Ruins Men’s Marriage Prospects, Resulting in Human Trafficking
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/23/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy-ruins-mens-marriage-prospects-resulting-in-human-trafficking/
Gram3 wrote:
I didn’t take Janet’s comment as supporting abortion. I’ve heard similar statements that were merely an ironic extension of the belief that getting people to heaven is the only important thing.
Daisy wrote:
Yes. The whole thing is just creepy.
Bill M wrote:
Nor did I. I think she was pointing out one implication of the belief that babies are saved.
Gram3 wrote:
…should have said one *possible* implication.
Gram3 wrote:
I thought so, the name looked familiar.
I had to drive past her house 5 days a week on the way to and from my job, the house where the crimes took place. It was depressing to have to see that daily.
I also had to drive past several funeral homes to and from that job, also depressing. That was the same job where I was being badly harassed by one supervisor, too.
Daisy wrote:
But I guess God doesn’t have any feelings, one way or the other, about abuse.
Ken F wrote:
Same here. In a general sense, I see little difference between both views (Calvinism vs. Arminianism). In my opinion their differences are more cosmetic than anything else and I categorically reject both paradigms.
Max wrote:
Maybe it is just me but what Mr. Rogers helped do to the SBC just turns me off completely even to his very name.
Lydia wrote:
In Semitic Tribal society like their beloved OT, that wouldn’t be a problem.
Just raid the Heathens next door, kill all the men, and take their women for your harems along with all the other pillaged property.
Daisy wrote:
Verses lifted out of context to derive and advance a particular ideology are all too common in evangelicalism. Calvary Chapel pastors and especially the ones old enough to have been under Papa Chuck’s tutelage, are masters at it. So it’s not just confined to Southern Baptists and their neo-cal variants.
Bill M wrote:
Vulcan humor.
Showing the limits of Logic uncontaminated by anything else.
@ Bill M:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
I don’t use specific Catholic sources but this is a quick peek of the connection of indulgences and purgatory.
“In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, an indulgence is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”[1] which may reduce either or both of the penance required after a sin has been forgiven, or after death, the temporal punishment, (not “time,” as Purgatory like Heaven and Hell is said to exist “outside of time,”) in the state or process of purification called Purgatory.”
Martin Luthers 95 Theses were all about indulgences.
Daisy wrote:
Because if one of the wives decides she’s had enough and isn’t going to take any more, Preacher’s Widdle Wifey might get ideas…
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Doesn’t stop Mister Know-It-Alls from trying.
(Just ask Job…)
Max wrote:
“More Elect Than Thou” meets “Can You Top This?”
Add a little Entropy over time, and watch someone claim to be an EIGHT-point Calvinist. Then a NINE-point. Then a TEN-point…
mot wrote:
He was definitely one of the major players. He didn’t have a very high view of women, either. Oh, he glossed it over with all of the pretty words, but he made it clear that women are lesser beings – men are the creatures that really matter!
Rogers insisted that the WMU be “hard wired” into the SBC, meaning that the WOMEN’S Missionary Union should be controlled by men!
Sometimes I think that the CR’s primary goal was to keep women down and protect men’s egos with “prophets, priests, and kings” status.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
How many points are in a circle?
Daisy wrote:
He lost me on the “The goal of fleeing should not be escape, but healing and eventual reconciliation.”
No, the goal is escape and protection, full stop.
They cloak patriarchy with the husband looking after the wife, but then turn it upside down and make the husband’s spiritual condition the responsibility of the wife.
In the words of Arte Johnson, “very interesting but also stupid”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EqVdMQtQAU
Nancy2 wrote:
Endure it, basically. It’s for your glory.
But if a man’s not happy with his wife’s weight, he’s free to be off to another woman or porn. Because reasons.
Lydia wrote:
Good to know but while that is what they taught, I’m still inclined to think many of their “students” took an entirely different lesson, play now, pay later.
Nancy2 wrote:
It does seem to have been the result.
didn’t it happen close to the danvers statement thing too? (not sure if I’ve got the timeline right)
I also wrote something snarky about your comment about God not having feelings about abuse, but it got stuck.
Nancy2 wrote:
Good one Nancy2! Straight out of Aristotle’s wheel paradox.
Lea wrote:
Its in purgatory
Nancy2 wrote:
It ain’t just Rogers either. Much of fundagelicalism is preoccupied with Hueying (helicoptering) stuff out of the way-back-in-the-Bible-times and trying to make it apply in the here and now.
Don’t get me wrong, as far as holy books go, I’m convinced that the Bible has no equal, and that it has timeless truth for all peoples and all cultures. But it must also be read with reason, an eye for pragmatism, and common sense.
okrapod wrote:
I think that a literal interpretation of ‘The Ban’ is a mistake that may affect the way people view the character of God, so I agree with you that among people who accept a literal interpretation, that WOULD be a very difficult conversation, yes.
Nancy2 wrote:
Good observation: the sour- on- divorce, or pro- permanence of marriage crowd, appears to think God is very ambivalent or apathetic about wives being abused.
But boy, are they are certain that God despises divorce – on abuse, who can say? *roll eyes*
@ Daisy:
They have an agenda. It’s not logical and it’s not biblical.
Bill M wrote:
I was reading in-between the lines in his advice.
A lot of these preachers who make institution of marriage more important than the people who are in it, are usually okay with the abused wife taking a two- week vacation away from the husband.
They are fine with temporary separation, but they always encourage and guilt trip the abused wife to return to the abuser.
These types of preachers never out-right give a “green light,” or permission, to Christian wives to DIVORCE.
In my opinion, they should tell abused wives that Divorce IS most certainly an option for them.
I have no idea why marriage is made such a little idol. If two people break up, it’s not going to be the end of the world.
People divorce all the time, even over much lesser considerations. But a lot of Christians behave as though it’s a top sin.
I also agree with your notice of their double standard or hypocrisy – complementarian/ patriarchal preachers and systems say the man has full say-so, but mysteriously, in cases of abusive marriages, they suddenly make the women magically responsible for the abuser, his fate, and his behavior.
The idea of ‘purification’ before coming into the Presence of God is not something that is unfamiliar when you examine Isaiah Chapter 6
“5Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” 6Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.”
For people who do not have purgatory in their faith tradition, and likely have not read the story of Judas Maccabeus and his fallen warriors,
I can share that I see the concept as reflecting a strong belief in the great mercy of God Who is on the side of His Creation still mired in all of its distress. The concept of ‘renewal’ is reflected much more than the concept of ‘punishment’ for sins, when you see the idea of ‘purgatory’ in that light. That Christ is making all things new is not something that is alien to believers who don’t hold to a specific teaching about ‘purgatory’, so the concept of renewal and mercy is not lost to anyone in the Body of Christ. 🙂
Lea wrote:
I’ll check back later!
@ Bill M:
I don’t have sources readily available but back when I was doing research on Martin Luther it stuck out to me that indulgences were being sold in those days to family members of departed loved ones so they could help shorten their purgatory time. Prayers for the dead sort of thing.
Daisy wrote:
In the targeting and abusing of the dignity of women, this strange male idolatry cult has inadvertently fostered situations among husbands and wives that encourage divorce rather than prevent it.
By the time the poor wife has ‘had it’, there is nothing more that this cult CAN do to harm her. They’ve already succeeded in celebrating the effects of The Fall in mandating a domination/submission model over the beautiful ‘either to other’ relationship of sacred Christian marriage which binds two into one through love.
What more do Patriarchists want? They want the wife to stay, and totally collapse psychologically, mentally, or physically? Why so much contempt? And it’s HER fault?
I have one more phrase to say to that, but it is unprintable.
@ Bill M:
🙂
@ Muff Potter:
Actually this was the main points at issue between Calvinists and Armenianists. Armenianists believed that *All* babies that died went to HELL. Calvinists did not believe this for the children of believers.
Of the two positions, I know which one I prefer.
me wrote:
This is not the position of most in the modern church. Your original comment has been addressed many many times upthread.
me wrote:
I have never heard this stated by any Armenianist.
Daisy wrote:
The tragedy of Andrea Yates is another example where patriarchy failed a vulnerable woman completely. A quick look at her husband’s self-centered actions on this page and there was a whole lot more to it http://www.daily-journal.com/opinion/the-nerve-of-russell-yates/article_34241283-eb85-5af5-9f21-0e34d23988fe.html
@ siteseer:
I have no doubt that Russell Yates was complicit in the tragedy, by virtue of what he failed to do in ignoring the warnings of people who understood how fragile his wife had become.
I hope some day he comes to be convicted in his soul for his neglect of Andrea in those days. May God have mercy on us all in the face of so much sadness, as many people called for her to be crucified after the tragedy. He belongs to that culture that victimized women and then blamed them when they couldn’t take it any more. God have mercy on all involved in this strange hellish culture.
After reading the post and the conversation, several things come to mind.
In reading Piper, Keller, et al, I am always struck by how ethnocentric their view of scripture tends to be. There is this superimposed American culture and zeitgeist in their reading and interpretation of scripture that they refuse to acknowledge. The world that first heard the story of the fall would most probably understand it as a tale of hubris – humans trying to be like God. In US culture being like God is not a bad thing. Look at our love of superheroes and Gordon Gekko. We try to deny death, look ageless, revel in our power over others.
Furthermore, the first audiences of the Old Testament weren’t 21st Americans.
I also call the out on their obsession with the Old Testament. Christians are people of the New Testament.
Personally, I think the crux of the issue is found in Jesus telling the parable of the laborers in the vineyard who were paid a full days wages no matter how long they actually worked. When the people who had worked all day complained, the response was I own the vineyard, I pay what I want, knowing full well a days wages was the minimum to provide food for a family for a day. In other words the all day group were willing to let the others go hungry.
From scripture, God proves himself to be a God of abundance over and over. I think there are people who really dislike that. They want to decide who and what behavior is righteous. They want to decide who is on the list.
Like heaven is an exclusive nightclub in SOHO and only the A-Listers get in.
The problem for Calvinists lies in the Gospels. The God and Kingdom of Heaven Jesus proclaimed is different from the one that fills their dreams. If Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Gospel Jesus preached must be a lesser Gospel and not as good as the one of the Old Testament, when men were men and women were property, and God was cranky and liked to smite people for tiny infractions.
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
Yes
@ Daisy:
Good points all Daisy, and in some ways, Christianity truly is a strange religion.
Daisy wrote:
Probably because if they didn’t forbid divorce, all their wives would bail out on them.
“Those most worried about Escapism are Jailers” crossed with “Put another log on the fire…”
Daisy wrote:
“Heads I Win, Tails You Lose!”
okrapod wrote:
I am so excited to comment on this particular point because my search on “imputed vs imparted righteousness” more than a year ago opened my eyes to a completely different way of seeing it. I did an internet search because a few years ago I got into a discussion with our Sunday school teacher about this topic. I was having a hard time seeing the difference (what difference does it make if someone gives me (imparts) $1000 to spend or credits to me (imputes) $1000 to spend?). It seemed like a distinction without a difference. Here’s the link I found when I first searched for this: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness
This is the near the end of that article:
“What we are saved from is the key issue here. Rather than view salvation primarily as a forensic liberation from guilt through imputed or imparted righteousness, we should see it as incorporation, by baptism, into Christ’s death and resurrection, such that we “die and rise” with Him. Thus we are saved from Death. We are freed from this ultimate consequence of sin and guilt—but only as a divinely bestowed gift of God’s ineffable love, expressed in the suffering death of His Son, a gift to which we respond with faith that issues in love. That response, through the action of the indwelling Spirit, enables us finally to share in Christ’s own resurrection and glorification, attaining what the Greek Fathers call theôsis or “deification” (which means existential participation in God’s life, and not ontological confusion between God and His human creatures).”
This opened a window for me into Eastern Orthodox and early church theology. It let me see that Western Christians argue among themselves about fine points of theology that were never even considered in the East. I still attend a SBC church in the deep South, but my faith is coming alive by looking back to the old beliefs. I wish everyone would do some looking to the East and to the past. It’s been a very fruitful search for me.
Gram3 wrote:
More like they’re “Majoring on the Minor”?
Gram3 wrote:
In my research over the last 1.5 years I learned that the Eastern Orthodox have a different vision of hell than Christians in the West. They view it more as an experience than a place. The Parable of the Prodigal is a great example. The Father loved both sons. The Father gave everything he had to both sons. The Father sought out both sons. One son (the prodigal) repented of his foolishness and entered the party. The other son (the religiously righteous) had contempt for his Father’s generosity and refused to enter the party. One son entered the joy of the Father, the other son experienced the outer darkness in a self-made pity party of one.
Here’s Colossians 1:19-20 – “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
This passage says ALL thing on earth and heaven were reconciled to God through Jesus. Calvinists freak out at the idea of universalism, but there are several passages that make it pretty clear that Christ died for ALL. There is a very solid case to universal atonement in the Bible (notice that all Calvinists are universalists when it comes to Adam’s sin affecting all people, but not universalists when it comes to the atonement, which makes Adam’s sin more powerful than Jesus’ atonement). But that does not mean universal salvation because some people, like the older brother, will refuse to enter the joy of the Father. To them, the presence of God will be eternal torment.
Here’s the Eastern Orthodox perspective on Hell: https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
“For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ “comes in glory, and all angels with Him,” so that “God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15–28). Those who have God as their “all” within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose “all” is themselves and this world, the “all” of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8.21, et al.).”
My understand right now is that the early church hoped for the salvation of all people, but did not believe that all people will make the free choice to receive it.
__
“The Fruitfulness Of His Words?”
hmmm…
Wartburg,
Both theological systems you describe here are enviably flawed at the root. Both make the mistake of attempting to understand Our Father’s sovereignty.
Please understand, Lucifer condemned himself. It is so with man.
Through His Son efforts, The Lord, can now be generous. And has been.
He has made it clear, that all those who believe in His Son, Jesus, receive eternal life, and are adopted into His household. He has also graciously provided a place in His house for those who believe in His Son.
That they attempt to understand His ways without following His words, is a stretch into foolishness. They fill their books with such nonsense, which is regretful for all those who come after.
Remember, His words never return to Him ‘void’.
Take heed least you also fall into error.
ATB
Sopy
—
Darlene wrote:
Yes! Calvinist teachers so often teach as if it all started with the Reformation. And they also misquote early church fathers to bolster their support for a theology that is rotten at its roots.
Ken F wrote:
A gift for you, one of the treasures from the liturgy of Eastern Christianity, the oldest known Christian hymn extant the Bible, the Phos Hilaron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFU3LojPuM4
The choir comes from the Ukraine, where my godmother’s people originated. The hymn is still sung among Christian people for vespers, at ‘sundown’. 🙂
@ siteseer:
I was living in Houston when Yates drowned her kids.
Around that time, there were a lot of articles about the Duggar- Quiverfull- like situation she was in.
It’s been awhile since I read all that stuff, but from what I remember, Andrea Yates reached out for help to her in-laws, I think her husband – she let them know that there were too many kids, and she was falling apart.
They didn’t care. They viewed a wife as a broodmare, her prime responsibility was to breed, look after the kids, and wait on the husband hand and foot.
What the wife needed/ wanted didn’t matter with their religious group – I grew up with that same outlook: what women want and need don’t matter, only what men want/need matters, and I grew up under the “soft complemetnarian” view, not the more severe patriarchal stuff that she did.
Hi TWW Friends,
Just a short off-topic announcement that Billy (son) and Shauna (mom) in Texas need financial help. They are the ones that Dee here set up the GoFundMe account. This was a terrible child abuse case as many of you may remember in which a church failed to help this child and his mom. They also cost her house cleaning jobs.
Billy starts school on Monday. They need clothes, school supplies, food, etc. Billy will also need to have Driver’s Education lessons every month, which Texas requires a payment for. I think it was a couple of hundred dollars a month.
Shuana cleans houses and takes care of horses. This is a very tight situation and every little bit of help is needed. Thank you. (Over on the Open Discussion thread for more comments.)
“I posted the other day the gofundme for Billy & Shauna it seems to get lost in the mix and I hate reposting because I am hoping that the needs will be met through my working. Billy begins school next Monday and we are in need of school supplies, clothes, and bills as my income doesn’t generate enough for everything. If you get a chance please feel free to visit the gofundme that Dee set up I am trusting God to do the rest. Pray for me as I am discouraged right now. http//www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Christiane wrote:
Thanks you for the blessing. Do you know if hymns like this can be found in English?
Ken F’s wife wrote:
Here is one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRlz5vrchU
The lyrics are in the second comment down, I think. This is a Byzantine tune. There is a Russian tune with which I am more familiar but I can’t find a YouTube of it.
Janet Varin wrote:
Well, I said nothing about abortion. But feel free to argue for it if you wish.
I was ragging on calvinism to a friend and he told me a calvinist joke.
The calvinist fell down a flight of stairs, bruised but not hurt too bad.. As he got up he said “I’m so glad that over with.”
Eeyore wrote:
Lydia wrote:
And then we have Voddie Baucham calling babies “vipers in diapers.”
Velour wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Or limbo.
Bridget wrote:
Ditto! Me either.
@Ken: I fully understand the new-found joy you have in discovering Eastern Orthodox writings. My discovery several years ago led me to become a catachumen & then a member of the Orthodox Church.
Bill M wrote:
Thanks, Bill. You’re right. I was pointing out the irony that Christians (myself included)tend to be pro-life, yet when pressed we have to admit we’d rather expose the unborn child to torture that never ends rather than a short painful death that ceases, with the guarantee of heaven. Personally, I believe the very real love God has for the embryo and 6-year-old cannot morph into hatred when she turns 14. If we can’t articulate our beliefs coherently to an unbelieving world, we should put our signs down, pray for wisdom, listen, and study.
I’m sorry if I offended and for hijacking the topic! You guys have been my very supportive siblings and I value this community!
My mother told me about Calvin’s teaching when I was still (very) young. My grandmother was scared half to death when she heard me shriek: “What a lunatic! He must have been as bad as Hitler!”
Mama told her that we were talking about Calvin & my gran exclaimed: “Oh! My father told me that man was possessed by demons….” & then added, :”If Father had lived long enough to see the Nazis, he would have said the same thing about him, too.” And went back to the kitchen to finish her weekly baking.
Janet Varin wrote:
Since 70% of women seeking an abortion identify as Christians, I’m not sure that having our theological ducks in a row is going to make a difference. I have to think that at least some of those women do believe an infant is going to eternal torment, but the studies don’t really look at that.
Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. This topic was honestly the furthest thing from my mind. I was mere pointing out what I had been taught.
Christiane wrote:
I once got into an argument, online, about this subject. When I said that this is what I believe (like you), Protestants said the same thing: “But—I thought you were a Methodist!” I told them that, yes, I am Methodist, & that they needed to go & look up “prevenient grace”. (The Catholics were delighted to have found that they weren’t the only ones who believed the same).
roebuck wrote:
(1) Angels have better things to do than dance on pins.
(2) Since angels are incorporeal beings, they take up no space. Since they take up no space, all the angels in the universe could (if they were 😉 taking a day off, as it were) dance on the head of a pin at once.
However, see: point (1), above.
🙂
Dead Deebs/ManBTC:
Feel free to edit or entirely delete my post in response to Dee’s post on Calvin’s teaching on babies going to hell; I was all ready posting it when I realized how many rules I was breaking…..
But the conversation was very real. My grandmother’s father was a (lapsed) member of the Mennonite Brethren (AKA: “Dunkards”– They practiced baptism by triple immersion).
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
This is also the reasoning behind Wesley’s teaching about sanctification. I think they are the same, expressed in different language.
And that what Catholics call “purgatory” is the equivalent of taking a bath & changing into your best clothes before standing face to face with the Kings of kings.
@ Darlene:
I forgot about vipers in diapers. Paul Washer said that if a baby could, he would rip your shiny watch off your arm to play with leaving you all bloody. Me thinks they are seriously ignorant what a baby is thinking or not thinking since babies can’t reason. Sheesh!
@ Jeff:
Lol!
@ zooey111:
I can relate. I just boggles my mind how a tyrant became a hero to so many young men.
Hi Folks,
Just a note that Shauna and her son Billy in Texas are very low on money. Billy starts school next week and they need to buy him new clothes and school supplies. Additionally, they need food and help with other bills.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Darlene wrote:
Me, too, 9 years ago, Christmas Eve. So thankful.
Gram3 wrote:
The problem of eternal torture was the primary cause of my faith crisis, beginning two and a half decades ago. Two years ago, when I naively began attending an OPC church plant (whose planting pastor was a former Calvary Chapel church planter turned hard-core Reformed) in hope of getting out of my crisis, being forced to face the logical end of Calvinism set my faith “recovery” back badly. It was that experience that actually led me here! I am so grateful for this place (TWW)—and, in particular, this conversation.
siteseer wrote:
That’s not what Purgatory is about. Not at all. Please read what I said, not what you’re reading into it.
When Zacchaeus said that he would recompense those he had defrauded, was he not putting his hope in Christ alone?
If we hurt others, we should at least try to make restitution. It’s as simple as that. Would you disagree? 😉
zooey111 wrote:
Thank you!!! Yes, that’s it. I love the Wesleys!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, the most accurate source for What Catholics Actually Believe is the Catechism (instantly accessible online). Not Wikipedia.
Isn’t it just common courtesy to accept what Religious Group A says are its beliefs, rather than relying on external and possibly inaccurate sources?
zooey111 wrote:
reminds me of Zechariah’s description in ch. 3, this:
“3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. 4 He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.” 5 Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by “
Lydia wrote:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire —
Muff Potter wrote:
something to think about when we go to vote this November, yes
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
That is what the Neo Cals keep telling me, too. :o)
Personally, I prefer secular historical sources. Often there is a historical progression when it comes to some doctrines and how they evolve.
So let use be clear. *Historically* the question about the children of Christian parents who died young, and where they go was the biggest point of contention between Calvinists and Arminians. Leaving out that disagreement seemed very odd to me (and still does.)
I am sure there are people who call themselves people in one camp or the other than don’t hold to the historical positions.
Debi Calvet wrote:
We have a problem two millennia later figuring out why certain doctrines became dogma. I do not know the answers, but at least now you have a means for researching the evidence and coming to your own conclusions with the Holy Spirit indwelling you to teach you.
So glad you have been encouraged. I have been, too. For me it was totally disorienting to find that what we thought was a conservative and rigorously Biblical (meaning everyone goes to the text and wrestles with it) church only to find out that the Bible is pretty much beside the point because there is a magisterium, practically speaking, which tells the people what the right interpretation is. No discussion. The Bible was not even cracked open at the “conversations” we had. I understand that other forms of Christianity have a magisterium. Baptists do not, or at least we did not until the last few decades.
Gram3 wrote:
One of the reasons for this was all the splinter groups wreaking havoc. It was decided early on that only the “church” is able to interpret scriptures. Even the apostle Paul went to the elders in Jerusalem to get his gospel approved. Having such a magisterium has its bright sides. But even something good like that can be abused. It’s good that the Bible was put into so many people’s hands. But then we get all the numerous splits and divisions.
@ Ken F:
I don’t understood the problem with splits and divisions which results in denominations and such. It is a result of freedom and self government when compared to the bloody Christianity of Europe’s long church state history.
I realize this means that different tribes try to recruit from other tribes with their version which results in competition for followers.
I fail to see anything good in such a magisterium although it is interesting and instructive to gather different views of interpretations. But a magisterium?
Where do you see Paul gaining approval to get his gospel approved? That is a new one to me. Paul had gone to Tarsus for a long time after his conversion, seeking to convince others and initial preaching. Barnabas went there to seek his help.
Are you referring to the Jerusalem Council?
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Yes, but. The catechism talks in its own version of christianese and it takes a heap of listening to even begin to pick up on what is actually being said, or even worse left unsaid. I speak of one who has tackled that task. For a protestant to just read the CCC is rather like asking a seventh grader to read and explain the publications put out by the IRS. These are different styles of thinking and different styles of speaking. To think that even an educated and biblically literate protestant understands what is actually being meant by what is said in written catholicism is a real stretch. (For example, just think the word ‘grace’ and know that catholics and most protestants are barely talking about the same thing.) I feel sure that you have experienced that since you have mentioned many times that you just don’t understand this or that about protestantism. And you are catholic, educated and biblically literate. That is a two-way road.
And there is another problem which I hesitate to address, but now is the time. Catholics do not always agree with each other. Protestants do not know which and what church teaching binds the conscience of the catholic and which and what are just ideas prevalent in catholicism but not defined dogma or doctrine. Many catholics are poorly versed in catholicism which IIRC was an issue addressed by vatican2. And it seems to me that some catholics are perhaps embarrassed by some catholic teachings and don’t tell the whole story in plain english when talking to protestants. Personally I accept what the CCC says that the church believes is what ‘the church’ believes, but I do not even come close to believing that everything some self-identified catholic person says that the church believes. And I learned that a lot of catholics do not know what they are talking about –guess where–in RCIA because they warned us of that. They said, like you said, check everything out in the CCC before you accept that it is catholic belief.
IMO, protestants have no option but to start with some catholic apologetic web sites and yes even Wiki. I said start there, not stop there. Eventually one has to understand what the church (like the IRS) means when it say thus and such, but it takes some explanation to get to that point.
Lydia wrote:
I was referring to the council mentioned by Paul in Galations 2: “and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.”
I’m not a huge fan of magisterium, but there have been some advantages in the history of Christianity. We have to be careful of the extremes because that’s where errors tends to congregate. I personally believe RCs took the magisterium concept too far. But many Protestants did not take it far enough. Many of the most abusive churches and ministries described on this site are completely independent and thus have no controls in place to resist their abuses. I’m thinking that a little more “magisterium” could have prevented abusive leaders from coming into power. The lack of magisterium in the SBC is why it is such easy prey for the new-Calvinists.
Lydia wrote:
The European wars had complex reasons. Religion did not cause those wars, but the coziness of church and state gave good excuses for political leaders to use religion as a tool.
For about the first 800 years of Christianity there was general agreement on the major points through the ecumenical councils. If it were not for such councils we would not have the New Testament. At the same time, the councils sought ways to keep the unity of the faith without demanding complete uniformity. One good example is the different dates the Easter and Western churches celebrate the holiday commonly called “Easter.” I am personally thankful that previous generations of Christians put protective measures in place to preserve the common faith.
Ken F wrote:
In principle, I do not see a difference between an institutional or formal magisterium and something like TgC or 9Marks that acts as one. And I do not see a bright side to it *when people are largely literate* and have access to the Scriptures. It seems to be a fact of human life that an institution becomes its own point and the established beneficiaries of the institution begin protecting the institution more than the purpose for which the institution exists. And history shows that the institution then is largely interested in controlling channels of information and influence and power and money. Which then leads to a call for a reformation.
@ okrapod:
My reason for referring to wiki was for a quick glance at how purgatory was viewed centuries ago. I first came upon this researching Luther. His 95 Theses seemed to communicate something about purgatory that was historically different than how it is viewed today. Luther seemed to believe in it but not as a money making endeavor. It is interesting to see how doctrines evolve. The same can be asked concerning what Protestants did with original sin. :o)
Ken F wrote:
So very true.
@ Ken F:
Thanks for the reference. I think Paul was referring to the Jerusalem council there but I might be mistaken.
Ken F wrote:
That means individuals must be responsible. It sounds harsh but that is what it boils down to. There will always be charlatans who seek control and power. I fear our choices are controlling magisterium or independence. The SBC has magisterium now. It was a deceptive power struggle. There was very little spiritual about it. It is sad that people in the pews cannot just blindly trust but that is where we are now. People don’t question. They think it is unchristian.
I don’t think there was much difference in Religion and Governance in that era of Christendom in most places. We can see struggles to change that but in most cases the religious leaders had state functions.
I was reading not long ago one reason the British Monarchy has been so rich (not as much as before) but it is because the Monarchy received all the Catholic owned land. Such is how it played out all over Europe. The church owned most of the land. And land was everything. People went to war over the control of land and water.
Velour wrote:
How can you be so sure decent non controlling people will be part of the “controls”?
Lydia wrote:
The church did pretty well before Constantine. The marriage of church and state ruined both. It’s amazing how well Christianity survived for this long.
@ Ken F:
You might enjoy Verduin’s “Anatomy of a Hybrid” which addresses the problem from a both a spiritual and historical perspective starting with John the Baptist. More for your reading list. :o)
Ken F wrote:
Because the power-hungry in both the institutional church and the state discovered the incredible synergy that is possible between them.
okrapod wrote:
Which to me is all the more reason to believe that the conscience exists as a separate and unbound entity. Not subject to councils, creeds, or dogma*.
* dogma here is also meant to mean specific interpretations of Scripture in which all may or may not agree upon.
Relevant to this discussion, and the aforementioned Society of Evangelical Arminians, my comment is about Dr. Roger Olson. The SEA website had a video about him in which he was interviewed, and he was asked (at the 43:00 mark), “What is the basic difference [between] Calvinism and Arminianism? What would it be?” He replied, “Well that gets right down to it, doesn’t it? I think the basic difference is pictures of God. For me, that’s the main difference of all… A certain picture of God, which I cannot accept, which is that God willingly passes over people He could save, because salvation is unconditional. So He could save everyone—there’s no obstacle there—He’s not lacking in power, He doesn’t save some people because He sees something good in them. So in theory, at least, and I can’t think of in practice why not, God could save everyone. Why doesn’t He? Well, some Calvinists say, “That’s a mystery.” It’s a mystery I have problems living with. And so I think it comes down to character of God issues. For me, the reason I can’t be a Calvinist is because it portrays God as unloving and arbitrary. Now I know that Calvinists don’t believe that, but if I were a Calvinist, that’s what I would have to believe. That’s the only way I could make sense of it is to believe that God is not loving toward all people, and arbitrary in His choice of whom to save. So the basic difference to me comes down to the character of God.”
The video is still available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0RWF_XByMM
siteseer wrote:
Exactly. I was about to post pretty much the same.
@ JNL:
Thank you for that snippet which got me thinking about something. That’s dangerous but here goes. ISTM that, for Calvinists of the Piper variety, unless God does everything in salvation, then his glory is diminished by that and then salvation becomes man-centered. I cannot tell how many times I have heard that particular mantra in Presby and reformed Baptist circles.
However, I do not see that as being necessarily true or even possibly true if God is God and totally Other. How does God creating creatures with moral agency and spiritual agency diminish God’s glory? If God was pleased to order The Way Things Work that way, then who is anyone to question that? Especially Calvinists! ISTM that making human agency capable of diminishing God’s glory makes human agency something more than it is with respect to God. I have *never* understood that particular point, even during the most Calvinisty years of my life. I do understand that I am missing some big pieces here…
Velour wrote:
This is true, but if the error comes from on high it can spread quickly to places that never would have done it on their own.
See “Church Discipline”.
@ Gram3:
It matters not what Piper et al think it takes to maintain God’s glory, seeing that the Glory of God is something which man has not seen (well, maybe John in his apocalyptic vision got a glimpse and then there was Isaiah) and which God has not tasked man with the necessity to understand. However, the practical issues arising from the quarrels about how can it be true that God is sovereign and also man is free (however understood) are causing problems for people right now.
Here is a bit of reading that keeps one busy for a while. I am increasingly impressed with this idea in spite of the arguments against it. Check out who wrote the article-at the bottom. How did this thinking survive at that institution, or has it, I wonder.
@ okrapod:
Oops.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/
Gram3 wrote:
This is where I am. I just don’t think that way.
okrapod wrote:
Which, of course, is no bar to Piper and those who think as he does. Thanks for the link. I will check that out.
@ okrapod:
Molinists from the SWBTS wing of the SBC are making the rounds on some blogs. I think they see it as a path to unity, perhaps?
It seems to be gaining popularity in those circles.
Lydia wrote:
Unity?! Embracing Molinism within SBC is more like a last-ditch defense against Calvinism! The remnants of anti-Calvinism sentiments within the halls of SBC academia are stretching theology as far as they can to curtail the New Calvinist movement.
The Molinist movement within SBC started a few years ago after publication of Kenneth Heathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Heathley is on staff at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (another bastion of Calvinism). In my opinion, he wrote the book in attempt to provide some neutral ground for Southern Baptists to retreat to, while the New Calvinist movement continues. Paige Patterson has probably found some comfort in Molinism as he sees his beloved SBC crumble around him. I see the Molinist theology more as an effort to keep young pastor wannabes on board at SBC seminaries (particularly SWBTS) who don’t consider themselves either Calvinist or Arminian. At the end of the day, Molinism is more philosophy than theology.
Molinism gets a little strange in its philosophical views of God’s sovereignty and human free will by throwing God’s “middle knowledge” into the debate ring. In the meantime, Christians who believe the simple – yet truthful – Gospel of “whosoever will” keep moving forward as Biblicists without any other label necessary to describe their faith. Southern Baptists are in a real mess right now. They just need to chuck all the popular books and read the Word afresh!
Max wrote:
As I think about this more, I’m reminded of the Scripture where an unclean spirit was cast out and later returned with seven more spirits to dwell in the house it had left. After SBC routed liberalism from its ranks several years ago, Calvinism and a host of other “isms” have moved in.
Darlene wrote:
Yes. That last bit. And when I say I cannot trust such a god, I get accused of not being a christian.
that makes me an Arminian for sure!