"Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace." John Piper link
The longer post on the Biblical support for Arminianism
Both Arminians and Calvinists have their version of the doctrines of grace. There is often a claim made by some Calvinists that Arminians do not have Scripture to back up their theology. However, that is not true. The Society of Evangelical Aminians have documented those Scriptures in the following presentation. This is not for the faint of heart. If our readers take a deep breath and throw themselves into the subject at hand, they will find that there is much Scripture to give strength to the Arminian point of view.
The short quiz at the end of this post which is guaranteed to make you smile. Note to serious Calvinists: It's a joke!
Today, we received permission from the Wesleyan Arminian to post A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends.
The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace by Brian Abasciano
The distinctive tenets of Arminian theology may be presented using the acronym FACTS. The opposing theology of Calvinism is well known for its acronym TULIP (for a description of TULIP, see here). But Arminians prefer to deal with the facts rather than play with flowers. And here they are, presented by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation most helpfully:
(Please note: all Scripture citations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted. Article numbers from “The Five Articles of the Remonstrance” [for the full Remonstrant articles, see here] have been placed in brackets next to the corresponding points of FACTS for comparison to the first historic statement of Arminian theology. You can view an outline of FACTS here.)
Total Depravity (the T in FACTS) [Cf. Article 3 of the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance]
Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity in the state of total depravity, sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of divine condemnation (Rom 3:23; 6:23; Eph 2:1-3). 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. Human beings are fundamentally corrupt at heart. As Scripture tells us, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer 17:9; cf. Gen 6:5; Matt 19:17; Luke 11:13). Indeed, human beings are spiritually dead in sins (Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13) and are slaves to sin (Rom 6:17-20). The Apostle Paul even says, “I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (Rom 7:18). Elsewhere he testifies, “as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one’ ” (Rom 3:10-12; cf. Rom 1:18-32; Eph 4:17-22). In their natural state, human beings are hostile toward God and cannot submit to his Law nor please him (Rom 8:7-8). Thus, human beings are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves. We are unable do anything that merits favor from God and we cannot do anything to save ourselves from the judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin. We cannot even believe the gospel on our own (John 6:44). If anyone is to be saved, God must take the initiative.
Atonement for All (the A in FACTS) [Cf. Article 2 of the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance]
As observed above, due to total depravity, no one can be saved unless God takes the initiative. The good news is that, since “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), “his mercy is over all that he has made” (Ps. 145:9), he loves even his enemies (Matt 5:38-48), he “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9), and he does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would rather that they repent of their sins and live (Ezek. 18:23, 33), he has taken the initiative by sending his only Son to die for the sins of the world. As John 3:16-18 so beautifully tell us: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” God has provided for the forgiveness of sins and salvation of every person by the death of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinful humanity. Indeed, by the grace of God Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). As 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (NIV). After the statement of 1 Tim 2:4 quoted above that “God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” the following verses from 1 Timothy continue, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim 2:5-6). Indeed, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10), “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), “the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14; cf. John 4:42), God is “the Savior of all people” (1 Tim 4:10), Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), who “died for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6), and “died for all” (2 Cor 5:14-15) when “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor 5:19). Jesus even died for those who reject him and his word, deny him, and perish (Luke 22:17-21; John 12:46-48; Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Pet 2:1; Heb 10:29). The provision of atonement has been made for as many as sin, which is all people (Rom 3:22-25; 5:18).
But even though Jesus died for all and has provided atonement for all, the intent of the atonement provided was that its actual application (which grants the forgiveness of sins, righteous status with God, and salvation) be conditional on faith in Jesus Christ. This is stated rather clearly in John 3:16-18 quoted above. Out of love, God sacrificed his only Son for the world so that those from the world who trust in Jesus and his atoning sacrifice will benefit from that atoning sacrifice and be saved while those from the world who reject that atoning sacrifice in unbelief will not benefit from it but remain condemned and perish (cf. various other passages that make it clear that faith is the condition upon which and the means by which forgiveness, eternal life, and salvation are received, for example: Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom 1:16; chs. 3–4; 10:9-10; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 2:16; ch. 3; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Tim 1:16). Since the atonement was provided for all, making salvation available to all, Scripture sometimes portrays justification as potential for all people (Rom 3:22-25; 5:18) even though not all will ultimately be saved. Although God desires that all believe and be saved through Christ’s blood, many will perish, not for lack of the availability of salvation, but because they reject the saving provision made for them in Christ’s death and have “not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). Similarly, Scripture’s references to God or Christ as the Savior of the world/all (John 4:42; 1 Tim 4:10; 1 John 4:14) do not mean that all will actually be saved, but that the Father and the Son have provided salvation for all that is effective only for those who believe. As 1 Tim 4:10 itself says, “we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” And Titus 2:11 can give encouragement to believers to present a good witness for Christ to the unbelieving world with this reason: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.” Indeed, it is Christ’s unlimited atonement that serves as the necessary foundation of the genuine offer of salvation held out to all in the gospel and is in accord with the command to preach the gospel to all. For example, speaking to a general Jewish audience, the Apostle Peter based a call to repentance on the work of Christ and implied that work was for everyone in his audience when he assured them that God sent Christ to turn each of them from their sin:
18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. . . 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him [Christ] to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness. (Act 3:18-21, 26)
As Luke 24:45-47 reports, “Then he [Christ] opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them [his apostles], ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem’” (cf. Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:30).
Freed to Believe by God’s Grace (the F in FACTS) [Cf. Articles 3-4 of the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance]
As we have noted, because human beings are fallen and sinful, they are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including believe the gospel of Christ (see the description of Total Depravity above). Therefore, desiring the salvation of all and having provided atonement for all people (see “Atonement for All” above), God continues to take the initiative for the purpose of bringing all people to salvation by calling all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30; cf. Matt 28:18-20), and by enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith. Unaided by grace, man cannot even choose to please God or to believe the promise of salvation held out in the gospel. As Jesus said in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” But thanks be to God, Jesus also promised, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Thus, the Father and the Son draw all people to Jesus, enabling them to come to Jesus in faith. Even though sinful people are blind to the truth of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4), Jesus came into the world of sinful humanity as “the true light, which enlightens everyone” (John 1:9; cf. 12:36), the light about which John the Baptist came to bear witness, “that all might believe through him” (John 1:7). So we find Jesus speaking to people who were unwilling to believe in him so that they could be saved (John 5:34, 40) and urging unbelievers, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light” (John 12:35-36). Indeed, God shone in the hearts of his apostles “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6), and the Apostle Paul was given grace “to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things” (Eph 3:8-9). This refers to the gospel of God’s grace, which “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16), and actually makes it possible, by the power of the Holy Spirit, for those who hear to believe, for
“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); [note that Paul is applying Deut. 30:12, which indicates ability to obey God’s word, to the gospel message, indicating that those who hear the gospel are given the ability to believe it!] because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom 10:8-13).
Moreover, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17), though it does not cause faith necessarily, since “they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom 10:16) even though they heard it (Rom 10:18). God offers his amazing saving grace in his Son to sinners, but allows them to choose whether they will accept it or reject it. Hence, in the case of Israel, the God who loves all and works for the salvation of all says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom 10:21).
Continuing Jesus’ mission to save the world, the Holy Spirit has come to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Even though unbelievers “are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph 4:18), the Lord opens people’s hearts to respond positively to the gospel message (Acts 16:14) and his kindness leads those with hard and impenitent hearts toward repentance (Rom 2:4-5). In his sovereignty, he has even positioned people for the very purpose “that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27; NASB). In sum, God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith as he draws all people toward faith in Jesus, pierces the darkness of their hearts and minds with the shining of his light, enlightens their minds, communicates his awesome power with the gospel that incites faith, woos them with his kindness, convicts them by his Spirit, opens their hearts to heed his gospel, and positions them to seek him as he is near to each one.
All of this is what is known in traditional theological language as God’s prevenient grace. The term “prevenient” simply means “preceding.” Thus, “prevenient grace” refers to God’s grace that precedes salvation, including that part of salvation known as regeneration, which is the beginning of eternal spiritual life granted to all who trust in Christ (John 1:12-13). Prevenient grace is also sometimes called enabling grace or pre-regenerating grace. This is God’s unmerited favor toward totally depraved people, who are unworthy of God’s blessing and unable to seek God or trust in him in and of themselves. Accordingly, Acts 18:27 indicates that we believe through grace, placing grace preveniently (i.e. logically prior) to faith as the means by which we believe. It is the grace that, among other things, frees our wills to believe in Christ and his gospel. As Titus 2:11 says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.”
We speak of the will of man being freed by grace to emphasize that people do not have a naturally free will when it comes to believing in Jesus, but that God must graciously take action to free our wills if we are going to be able to believe in his Son whom he sent for the salvation of all. When our wills are freed, we can either accept God’s saving grace in faith or reject it to our own ruin. In other words, 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. We become free to believe in Jesus and free to reject him. The resistibility of God’s saving grace is clearly shown in Scripture, as some of the passages already mentioned testify. Indeed, the Bible is sadly filled with examples of people spurning the grace of God offered to them. In Isaiah 5:1-7, God actually indicates that he could not have done anything more to get Israel to produce good fruit. But if irresistible grace is something that God dispenses, then he could have easily provided that and infallibly brought Israel to bear good fruit. Many passages in the Old Testament talk about how God extended his grace to Israel over and over again but they repeatedly resisted and rejected him (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:7-23; Jer 25:3-11; 26:1-9; 35:1-19). 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 mentions that God’s persistent reaching out to his people, which was rejected, was motivated by compassion for them. But this could only be if the grace he extended them enabled them to repent and avoid his judgment yet was resistible since they did indeed resist it and suffered God’s judgment. Nehemiah 9 presents a striking example of Old Testament testimony to God continually reaching out to Israel with his grace that was met with resistance and rejection. We do not have space to review the entire passage (but the reader is encouraged to do so), but will quote some key elements and draw attention to some important points. Nehemiah 9:20a says, “You [God] gave your good Spirit to instruct them [Israel]” and is followed by an extensive catalogue of gracious divine actions toward Israel in vv. 9:20b-25. Then 9:26-31 says,
26 Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies. 27 Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer. And in the time of their suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But after they had rest they did evil again before you, and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they had dominion over them. Yet when they turned and cried to you, you heard from heaven, and many times you delivered them according to your mercies. 29 And you warned them in order to turn them back to your law. Yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but sinned against your rules, which if a person does them, he shall live by them, and they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck and would not obey.30 Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands. 31 Nevertheless, in your great mercies you did not make an end of them or forsake them, for you are a gracious and merciful God.
The text affirms that God gave his Spirit to instruct Israel (9:20a) and that God sent his prophets and warned Israel for the purpose of turning them back to him. God purposed his actions to turn Israel back to him/his Law, yet they rebelled. This shows God allowing his purpose to not come to pass because of allowing human beings a choice of whether to yield to his grace or not. Intriguingly, the word translated “bore” in Neh 9:30 uses a Hebrew word that usually means something like “draw, drag, pull” and gets translated in the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the early church with the same word used in John 6:44a (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”). A better translation of Neh 9:30 would be, “Many years you drew them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear.” The text speaks of a resistible divine drawing that seeks to bring people to the Lord in repentance. Stephen also furnished a good example of the resistibility of grace when he said to his fellow Jews, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it” (Acts 7:51-53). Luke 7:30 tells us that “the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves.” And Jesus, who spoke to people for the purpose of saving them (John 5:34), yet found that they refused to come to him to have life (John 5:40), and who came to turn every Jew from their sin (Acts 3:26; see the treatment of this text under “Atonement for All” above), yet clearly found that not every Jew believed in him, lamented over his people’s unwillingness to receive his grace, saying, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Luke 13:34; see further Ezek 24:13; Matt 23:37; Rom 2:4-5; Zech 7:11-14; Heb 10:29; 12:15; Jude 4; 2 Cor 6:1-2; Ps 78:40-42).
Arminians differ among themselves about some of the details of how God’s prevenient grace works, probably because Scripture itself does not give a detailed description. Some Arminians believe that God continually enables all people to believe at all times as a benefit of the atonement. Others believe that God only bestows the ability to believe in Christ to people at select times according to his good pleasure and wisdom. Still others believe that prevenient grace generally accompanies any of God’s specific movements toward people, rendering them able to respond positively to such movements as God would have them. But all Arminians agree that people are incapable of believing in Jesus apart from the intervention of God’s grace and that God does bestow his grace that draws toward salvation on all morally responsible people. With respect to the gospel, seventeenth century Arminian Bishop, Laurence Womack, well said, “on all those to whom the word of faith is preached, the Holy Spirit bestows, or is ready to bestow, so much grace as is sufficient, in fitting degrees, to bring on their conversion.”
The concept of “freed will” raises a broader question of whether human beings have free will generally, apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good (again, people are not free in this area unless God empowers them). The Arminian answer is yes. People have free will in all sorts of things. By this we mean that when people are free with respect to an action, then 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. When free, the specific choice someone makes has not been efficiently predetermined or necessitated by anyone or anything other than the person himself. In fact, if the person’s action has been rendered necessary by someone else, and the person cannot avoid doing the action, then he has no choice in the matter and he is not free in it. And if he does not have a choice, then neither can it properly be said that he chooses. But Scripture very clearly indicates that people have choices and make choices about many things (e.g., Deut 23:16; 30:19; Josh 24:15; 2 Sam 24:12; 1 Kings 18:23, 25; 1 Chron 21:10; Acts 15:22, 25; Phil 1:22). Moreover, it explicitly speaks of human free will (Exod 35:29; 36:3; Lev 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23; 23:38; Num 15:3; 29:39; Deut 12:6, 17; 16:10; 2 Chron 31:14; 35:8; Ezra 1:4, 6; 3:5; 7:16; 8:28; Ps 119:108; Ezek 46:12; Amos 4:5; 2 Cor 8:3; Philemon 1:14; cf. 1 Cor 7:37) and attests to human beings violating God’s will, showing that he does not predetermine their will or actions in sin. Furthermore, the fact that God holds people accountable for their choices and actions implies that those choices and actions were free. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Arminians do not believe in unlimited free will. There are many things in which we are not free. We cannot choose to fly by flapping our arms for example. Nor do we deny that our free actions are influenced by all sorts of causes. But when we are free, those causes are resistible and we have a genuine choice in what we do and are not caused necessarily to act in a certain way by God or anyone or anything other than ourselves.
Finally, the concept of freed will also implies that God has ultimate and absolute free will. For it is God who supernaturally frees the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ, which is a matter of God’s own free will and sovereignty. God is omnipotent and sovereign, having the power and authority to do anything he wants and being unconstrained in his own actions and will by anything outside of himself and his own judgment (Gen 18:14; Exod 3:14; Job 41:11; Ps 50:10-12; Isaiah 40:13-14; Jer 32:17, 27; Matt 19:26; Luke 1:37; Acts 17:24-25; Rom 11:34-36; Eph 3:20; 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8; 4:11). Nothing can happen unless he either does it or allows it. He is the Almighty Creator and God of the universe to whom we owe all love, worship, glory, honor, thanks, praise, and obedience. Therefore, it is good for us to remember that behind human freed will stands the One who frees the will, and that this is a matter of his glorious, free, and sovereign grace, totally unmerited on our part, and provided to us by the love and mercy of God. Praise his holy name!
Conditional Election (the C in FACTS) [Cf. Article 1 of the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance]
There are two main views of what the Bible teaches concerning the concept of election unto salvation: that it is either conditional or unconditional. For election to be unconditional means that God’s choice of those he will save has nothing to do with them, that there was nothing about them that contributed to God’s decision to choose them, which seems to make God’s choice of any particular individual as opposed to another arbitrary. It also implies unconditional and arbitrary reprobation, God’s choice of certain individuals to not save but to damn for their sin for no reason having to do with them, which seems to contradict the spirit of numerous passages that emphasize human sin as the reason for divine condemnation as well as God’s desire for people to repent and be saved (e.g., Gen 18:25; Deut 7:9, 12; 11:26-28; 30:15; 2 Chron 15:1-2; Ps 145:19; Ezekiel 18:20-24; John 3:16-18; see also “Atonement for All” above and John Wesley’s treatment of reprobation including many more verses with brief commentary). For election to be conditional means that God’s choice of those he will save has something to do with them, that part of his reason for choosing them was something about them. Concerning election unto salvation, the Bible teaches that God chooses for salvation those who believe in Jesus Christ and therefore become united to him, making election conditional on faith in Christ.
Desiring the salvation of all, providing atonement for all people, and taking the initiative to bring all people to salvation by issuing forth the gospel and enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith (see “Atonement for All” and “Freed to Believe” above), God chooses to save those who believe in the gospel/Jesus Christ (John 3:15-16, 36; 4:14; 5:24, 40; 6:47, 50-58; 20:31; Rom 3:21-30; 4:3-5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20-24; 5:1-2; 9:30-33; 10:4, 9-13; 1 Cor 1:21; 15:1-2; Gal 2:15-16; 3:2-9, 11, 14, 22, 24, 26-28; Eph 1:13; 2:8; Phil 3:9; Heb 3:6, 14, 18-19; 4:2-3; 6:12; 1 John 2:23-25; 5:10-13, 20). This clear and basic biblical truth is tantamount to saying that election unto salvation is conditional on faith. Just as salvation is by faith (e.g., Eph 2:8 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith”), so election for salvation is by faith, a point brought out explicitly in 2 Thes 2:13 – “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (NASB; note: “God has chosen you . . . through . . . faith in the truth”; on the grammar of this verse, see here). Or as John 14:21 puts it (with the unstated assumption that love of Christ and obedience to his commandments arise from faith), “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Or again, in the words of 1 Cor 8:3, “if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” Moreover, we find various expressions of elect/saved status to be given by faith, i.e., bestowed by God in response to faith. Believers are justified by faith (Rom 3-4; Gal 3), adopted as children of God by faith (John 1:12; Gal 3:26), heirs of God by faith (Rom 4:13-16; Gal 3:24-29; Titus 3:7; cf. Rom 8:16-17), given spiritual life (= regenerated) by faith (John 1:12-13; 3:14-16; John 5:24, 39-40; 6:47, 50-58; 20:31; Eph 2:4-8 [note that being saved here is equated with being raised to spiritual life etc., and that this is then said to take place by faith]; Col 2:12; 1 Tim 1:16; Tit 3:7), sanctified by faith (Acts 26:18), given the Holy Spirit by faith (John 4:14; 7:38-39; Acts 2:33; Rom 5:1, 5; Eph 1:13-14; Gal. 3:1-6, 14), indwelled by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit by faith (with the previous parenthesis, see John 14:15-17, 23; 17:20-23; Eph 3:14-17), and united to Christ by faith (John 6:53-57; 14:23; 17:20-23; Eph. 1:13-14; 2; 3:17; Gal. 3:26–28; Rom 6; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21).
We should be careful not to miss the expression of elect status in these various states of grace. The state of justification means to be in right relationship with God. But that implies belonging to him as one of his elect people. Adoption/sonship is also a classic Old Testament expression of the covenantal election of the people of God (Exod 4:22-23). It involves the idea of belonging to God in the most profound way possible for human beings. Heirship flows directly out of this as an expression of election. Sons, who belong to God, are heirs of his covenantal blessings and promises (Rom 8:16-17). Spiritual life also implies elect status because it is one of the blessings provided in the covenant. But its connection to covenantal elect status is even greater, as John 17:3 reveals not only that those who belong to Jesus receive eternal life, but that eternal life is knowing God/Christ, which is best understood as intimate covenantal relationship involving elect status: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
The fact that the Holy Spirit is given to believers on the condition of faith in Christ is also profoundly supportive of conditional election. For in Scripture the presence of God/the Holy Spirit is the bestower and marker of election. As Moses prays in Exdous 33:15-16: “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?” Or as Paul states in Rom 8:9-10, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (emphasis added). The giving of the Spirit conveys election, and having the Spirit makes a person elect. Thus, having the Spirit also marks a person out as elect. But the Spirit is given to believers by faith, making election to be also by faith.
From a non-traditional Arminian view (see below on differing Arminian views of election), this accords with the facts that the Holy Spirit sanctifies believers and sanctification is sometimes identified as the means by which election is accomplished (2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2). To sanctify means “to make holy, set apart for God.” The initial sanctifying work of the Spirit is roughly equivalent to election—believers are chosen or set apart as belonging to God and for service and obedience to him. The Apostle Paul told the church of the Thessalonians, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thes 2:13; NASB). Election is here presented as taking place through or by sanctification that the Holy Spirit performs. But as we have seen, the Holy Spirit is received by faith, making the sanctification he brings also conditional on faith and shedding light on the mention of “faith in the truth” immediately following in 2 Thes 2:13. Similarly, 1 Pet 1:1-2 speaks of “elect exiles . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood . . .” Election takes place in or by or through the sanctification effected by the Spirit. That is, a person becomes elect when the Holy Spirit sets him apart as belonging to God, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood (i.e., the forgiveness of sins), an act consequent on the giving of the Spirit, which again is itself consequent on faith in Christ.
The final state of grace of those mentioned above for us to consider is union with Christ, which is the most fundamental of them all, serving as the ground of each. As Eph 1:3 states concerning the Church, God “has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing.” The phrase “in Christ” indicates union with Christ, a state entered into by faith, as mentioned above. In Eph 1:3, union with Christ is given as the condition for God’s blessing of the Church. That is, God has blessed the Church with every spiritual blessing as a consequence of its being united to Christ (cf. Rom 9:7b—“Through [literally, “in”] Isaac shall your offspring be named,” which clearly means that Abraham’s offspring would be named as a consequence of being in Isaac, i.e., those connected to Isaac would be counted as Abraham’s offspring). One of the spiritual blessings specified as among every spiritual blessing with which the Church has been blessed is election (Eph 1:4). Now if God has blessed the Church with every spiritual blessing as a consequence of its being united to Christ, and election is one of those blessings, then that means that election is conditional on union with Christ and the faith by which that union is established.
More directly, Eph 1:4 then explicitly indicates the condition of election specifically with the phrase “in him [Christ]”: “he [God] chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” Just as God blessing us in Christ with every spiritual blessing indicates that God has blessed us because we are in Christ (Eph 1:3), so God choosing us in Christ indicates that God chose us because of our union with Christ (Eph 1:4). Ephesians 1:4, therefore, articulates conditional election, an election that is conditional on union with Christ. But the fact that union with Christ is conditional on faith in him makes election also conditional on faith in Christ.
The next phrase in Eph 1:4—“before the foundation of the world”—brings us to a difference of opinion among Arminians on the nature of conditional election. The traditional view conceives of conditional election as individualistic, with God choosing separately before the foundation of the world each individual he foreknew would freely be in Christ by faith and persevere in that faith-union. The view seems to find striking support in two prominent passages that relate to election.
Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Now without question, God’s foreknowledge of human beings is total and would include prior knowledge of each person and whether they would believe or not. And in Rom 8:29, divine foreknowledge is presented as the condition for predestination. Given all that we have said so far, many would find God’s foreknowledge of the faith of believers to be the most natural element of his foreknowledge of them to be determinative for his decision to save them and predestine them to be conformed to the image of Christ.
The other prominent passage providing support for election being conditioned on divine foreknowledge of human faith is 1 Pet 1:1-2, which speaks of elect status as being “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood . . .” Here elect status is explicitly said to be based on God’s foreknowledge. And again, the type of evidence we have been reviewing leads many to believe that it is especially foreknowledge of the faith of believers that is in view as that to which the divine election conforms. Since this text does not specify the foreknowledge in view to be of people, another option compatible with both main Arminian views of election would take divine foreknowledge in 1 Pet 1:2 to be of God’s own plan of salvation, meaning election is based on God’s plan to save those who believe.
The non-traditional Arminian view of election is known as corporate election. It observes that the election of God’s people in the Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group, the corporate head and representative. In other words, the group was elected in the corporate head, that is, as a consequence of its association with this corporate representative (Gen 15:18; 17:7-10, 19; 21:12; 24:7; 25:23; 26:3-5; 28:13-15; Deut 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Mal 1:2-3). Moreover, individuals (such as Rahab and Ruth) who were not naturally related to the corporate head could join the chosen people and thereby share in the covenant head’s and elect people’s identity, history, election, and covenant blessings. There was a series of covenant heads in the Old Testament—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the choice of each new covenant head brought a new definition of God’s people based on the identity of the covenant head (in addition to the references earlier in this paragraph, see Rom 9:6-13). Finally, Jesus Christ came as the head of the New Covenant (Rom 3-4; 8; Gal 3-4; Heb 9:15; 12:24)—he is the Chosen One (Mark 1:11; 9:7; 12:6; Luke 9:35; 20:13; 23:35; Eph 1:6; Col 1:13; and numerous references to Jesus as the Christ/Messiah)—and anyone united to him comes to share in his identity, history, election, and covenant blessings (we become co-heirs with Christ – Rom 8:16-17; cf. Gal 3:24-29). Thus, election is “in Christ” (Eph 1:4), a consequence of union with him by faith. Just as God’s people in the Old Covenant were chosen in Jacob/Israel, so God’s people in the New Covenant are chosen in Christ.
Some have mistakenly taken Paul’s appeal in Romans 9 to the discretionary election of the former covenant heads to be an indication that the election of God’s people for salvation is unconditional. But the election of the covenant head is unique, entailing the election of all who are identified with him rather than that each individual member of the elect people was chosen as an individual to become part of the elect people in the same manner as the corporate head was chosen. In harmony with his great stress in Romans on salvation/justification being by faith in Christ, Paul appeals to God’s discretionary election of Isaac and Jacob in order to defend God’s right to make election to be by faith in Christ rather than works or ancestry, as his conclusion to the section bears out, referring to the elect state of righteousness: “30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works” (Rom 9:30-32b). (For a good article on Romans 9, see here.)
Paul’s olive tree metaphor in Rom 11:17-24 gives an excellent picture of the corporate election perspective. The olive tree represents the chosen people of God. But individuals get grafted into the elect people and participate in election and its blessings by faith or get cut off from God’s chosen people and their blessings because of unbelief.The focus of election is the corporate people of God with individuals participating in election by means of their participation (through faith) in the elect group, which spans salvation history. Ephesians 2:11-22 similarly attests that Gentiles who believe in Christ are in him made to be part of the commonwealth of Israel, fellow citizens with the saints, members of God’s household, and possessors of the covenants of promise (2:11-22; note especially vv. 12, 19).
While agreeing that God knows the future, including who will believe, the corporate election perspective would tend to understand the references to foreknowledge in Rom 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:1-2 as referring to a relational prior knowing that amounts to previously acknowledging or recognizing or embracing or choosing people as belonging to God (i.e., in covenant relationship/partnership). The Bible sometimes mentions this type of knowledge, such as when Jesus speaks of those who never truly submit to his lordship: “And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt 7:23; cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Hos 13:4-5; Amos 3:2; 1 Cor 8:3). On this view, to be chosen according to foreknowledge would mean to be chosen because of the prior election of Christ and the corporate people of God in him. “Those [plural] whom he foreknew” in Rom 8:29 would refer to the Church as a corporate body and their election in Christ as well as their identity as the legitimate continuation of the historic chosen covenant people of God, which individual believers share in by faith-union with Christ and membership in his people. Such a reference is akin to statements in Scripture spoken to Israel about God choosing them in the past (i.e., foreknowing them), an election that the contemporary generation being addressed shared in (e.g., Deut 4:37; 7:6-7; 10:15; 14:2; Isaiah 41:8-9; 44:1-2; Amos 3:2). In every generation, Israel could be said to have been chosen. The Church now shares in that election through Christ, the covenant head and mediator (Rom 11:17-24; Eph 2:11-22).
Similarly, to be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world would refer to sharing in Christ’s election that took place before the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:20). Because Christ embodies and represents his people, it can be said that his people were chosen when he was just as it could be said that the nation of Israel was in the womb of Rebekah before its existence because Jacob was (Gen. 25:23) and that God loved/chose Israel by loving/choosing Jacob before the nation of Israel ever existed (Mal. 1:2-3) and that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham before Levi existed (Heb. 7:9-10) and that the church died, rose, and was seated with Christ before the Church ever existed (Eph 2:5-6; cf. Col. 2:11-14; Rom 6:1-14) and that we (the Church) are seated in the heavenlies in Christ when we are not literally yet in Heaven but Christ is. Christ’s election entails the election of those who are united to him, and so our election can be said to have taken place when his did, even before we were actually united to him. This is somewhat similar to how I, as an American, can say that we (America) won the Revolutionary War before I or any American alive today was ever born.
The corporate view explains why only those who are actually God’s people are called elect or similar appellations in Scripture and not those who do not belong to God but one day will. In the New Testament, only believers are identified as elect. As Rom 8:9 states, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Similarly, Rom 11:7-24 supports the corporate understanding of the elect as referring only to those who are actually in Christ by faith rather than also including certain unbelievers who have been chosen to believe from eternity. For in Rom 11.7, “the rest” are not elect. But Paul believed that those from ‘the rest’ could yet believe, revealing that the elect is a dynamic term that allows for departure from and entry into the elect as portrayed in the passage’s olive tree metaphor. 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. Hence, 2 Pet 1:10 urges believers to “be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure” (NIV) and the New Testament is filled with warnings to persevere in the faith to avoid forfeiting election/salvation (see “Security in Christ” below; for an introduction to corporate election with links to further resources, see here).
By way of summary, there are two different views of election conditioned on faith. First, individual election is 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. Second, corporate election is the main alternative view, holding that 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. Moreover, 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. Conditional election is supported in Scripture by (see the above discussion for explanation): (1) direct statement; (2) salvation being by faith; (3) various expressions of elect status being by faith; (4) the presentation of election as based on God’s foreknowledge, whether that be of human faith or equivalent to the prior choice of Christ and/or the people of God as a corporate body that individuals participate in by faith; (5) election being “in Christ,” which is a state that is itself conditional on faith; (6) the language of election being applied only to believers and not unbelievers who would later believe; (7) God’s desire for the salvation of all; (8) the provision of atonement for all; (9) the issuing of the gospel call to all; (10) the drawing of all toward faith in Christ; (11) human free will (for numbers 7-11, see “Atonement for All” and “Freed to Believe” above); and (12) numerous warnings against forsaking the faith and thereby forfeiting elect status and its blessing of salvation.
The doctrine of conditional election centers election on Christ by making it conditional on union with him rather than reducing Christ’s role to being the means by which election is accomplished. Moreover, conditional election underscores God’s gracious initiative in salvation towards totally depraved people and encourages humility and worship at the amazing grace of God in choosing those who deserve Hell for adoption into his family, salvation, and every spiritual blessing, a free gift received by faith (the non-meritorious condition for election) at the greatest cost to God, who sacrificed his own Son to be able to choose us, and at the greatest cost to Jesus Christ, who died for us so that we could be chosen by God. All praise and glory to God alone!
Security in Christ (the S in FACTS) [Cf. Article 5 of the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance]
At base, “Security in Christ” means that a person’s salvation is secure as long as he is in Christ, that is, as long as he believes/trusts in Christ and therefore remains in faith-union with Christ. The security of salvation should be grounded in Christ, the promises of his word, and our faith-relationship with him rather than in some unknowable divine decree by which God is said to have chosen certain people for salvation unconditionally. An unconditional divine decree that cannot be known until the end of life or time does not provide for assurance of salvation and makes the security of salvation of no value for the confidence of believers.
Arminians differ among themselves on the more specific nature of the security of salvation. There is some question of whether Arminius himself believed in the possibility of apostasy (a word meaning forsaking the faith) for true believers or whether he was undecided about the issue. But most scholars agree that Arminius did believe that true believers can fall away from faith in Christ and therefore salvation. On the other hand, the early Arminians, who were known as the Remonstrants and sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland, were originally undecided about whether true believers could commit apostasy. But they ultimately came to the conclusion that they can.
Traditionally, Arminians have believed that true believers can forsake faith in Christ and so perish as unbelievers, forfeiting their salvation, and the Arminian theological label has normally included this doctrinal position. However, the facts that there is some question of Arminius’ own position, and the early Arminians, along with the first confessional statement of Arminian theology, which they penned, known as “The Five Articles of Remonstrance,” explicitly indicated uncertainty about whether apostasy is possible for true believers, suggests that the doctrine is not an essential element of Arminian theology conceptually. Therefore, it seems best to classify as Arminians those who agree with Arminianism on every other point of dispute regarding the doctrine of salvation. More precisely, they may be considered “4 point Arminians” or “moderate Arminians,” yet Arminians nonetheless. Moderate Arminians could use the “S” in FACTS to articulate their belief that security in Christ means in part that God will make sure that believers do not forsake their faith and therefore perish as unbelievers. But this description of the Arminian doctrine of security/perseverance will focus on the traditional Arminian position of belief in the possibility of apostasy since this is a historic and distinctive even if not essential Arminian position.
All Arminians (not to mention traditional Calvinists) agree that persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation. Indeed, the position that it is unnecessary (held by what are sometimes called “Moderate Calvinists”) was virtually non-existent until the twentieth century. Perhaps just as shocking is that the position that agrees that persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation but holds that it is impossible for true believers to turn away from their faith is not advocated in any extant Christian writings until some 1500 years into church history! While such historical considerations cannot be decisive in theological matters, they do offer a strong caution to those holding these more novel positions and weigh in favor of the traditional Arminian position.
The fact that salvation is conditional on faith (see “Atonement for All” and “Conditional Election” above) and that condemnation is partly conditional on unbelief (John 3:16-18, 36) implies that continuing in faith is necessary for final salvation. To put it simply, believers will be saved, but unbelievers will perish. If someone goes from being an unbeliever to being a believer, then he will be saved, and if someone goes from being a believer to an unbeliever, then he will be lost. We see this sort of idea quite clearly in Ezekiel 33:13-19,
13 Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. . . 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right . . . and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live. . . 18When the righteous turns from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it. 19 And when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he shall live by this. (Compare the similar principle with regard to nations in Jer 18:7-11.)
Or as Deut 29:18-20 states,
Make sure there is no man or woman, clan or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the LORD our God to go and worship the gods of those nations; make sure there is no root among you that produces such bitter poison. 19 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way” . . . 20 The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. (NIV)
The prophetic word recorded in 2 Chron 15:2 states the principle in yet another way: “Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.”
In the New Testament, a similar sort of principle applies to faith in Christ and salvation. Second Timothy 2:12 states quite plainly, “if we endure, we will also reign with him [Christ]. If we disown him, he will also disown us” (NIV). And in contrast to persecution and spiritual deception, Jesus declares, “the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 24:13). Indeed, one of the main concerns of the Lord’s Olivet Discourse is to warn his followers to be watchful and vigilant to persevere in loyalty to Jesus despite various pressures or temptations to go astray lest they be shut out from his kingdom and salvation (Matt 24:4, 13, 23-24, 26, 42-51; 25:1-13, 26-30). There are many such warnings in the New Testament, testifying to the possibility of apostasy since it is pointless to warn against impossibilities. (The position that apostasy is impossible and the warnings guarantee that true believers will obey the warnings is untenable because the believer is supposed to know that he is being warned against doing something he cannot do and consequences he can never experience, which nullifies the motivation to obey the warnings.) There are biblical passages that might sound like they unconditionally guarantee believers salvation so that it is to be assumed that God will make sure believers do not turn from faith. But the thought that believers can forsake their faith and forfeit salvation is a pervasive concern in the New Testament, seen in numerous passages whether directly or indirectly. Hence, passages that might seem unconditional because they do not explicitly state a condition are better understood to assume the condition of perseverance in faith and the ability to forsake faith rather than to assume that God will not allow the believer to stop believing. Passages that refer directly to apostasy, those that indicate conditionality or uncertainty concerning present believers’ attainment of final salvation, and those that warn believers against turning from Christ and so perishing all manifest the possibility of true believers making shipwreck of their faith.
In Mark 8:38, Jesus warned his disciples, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Elsewhere he warned them, “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet” (Matt 5:13). In Matt 6:15, Jesus warns, “if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The significance of that warning is illustrated vividly in the parable of the unforgiving servant, in which a king forgives his servant but then withdraws that forgiveness because the servant does not forgive his fellow servant. The conclusion of the parable is striking: “32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” (Matt 18:32-35). The message is clear: even if a person’s sins have been forgiven and, therefore, that person is saved, God will cancel that person’s forgiveness if he does not forgive fellow believers, revoking his salvation.
However, since salvation and justification are by faith and not works, and faith yields obedience (Rom 1:5; 14:23; 16:26; Gal 5:6; 1 Thes 1:3; 2 The 1:11; Heb 11; James 2:14-26), these types of passages should not be taken to indicate that sinning in itself results in the forfeiture of salvation (though some Arminians believe this), whether by any sin whatsoever or certain egregious sins. Rather, ongoing refusal to repent of sin by one who has been a believer and continues to profess to be a believer reflects that the person is no longer truly trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior, and it is the forsaking of genuine faith that actually leads to practical rejection of Christ’s lordship and the loss of salvation, even if the person still professes faith in Christ. As Paul mentions in Titus 1:16, there are some who “profess to know God, but they deny him by their works.” Indeed, Jesus stated that the Father cuts off every person in him who does not bear fruit and urged his disciples to remain in him, which would bring them to bear fruit (John 15:1-6). Here we have a picture of someone being in Christ, a state of salvation, and then taken out of Christ, i.e., taken out of that state of salvation (union with Christ) to an unsaved state. As Jesus declares in John 15:6, “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned,” an image of final judgment. Since union with Christ and obedience are by faith (see “Conditional Election” above and the references at the beginning of this paragraph), failure to produce fruit reveals that faith has been abandoned and the Father removes the practical apostate from union with Christ. This is partly why Jesus urges his disciples to remain in him, which most basically means to continue trusting in him, which would be a senseless exhortation if it were impossible for them to leave him.
In his explanation of the parable of the sower in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus indicates that believing brings salvation (Luke 8:12), but speaks of some “who receive the word with joy when they hear it . . . They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away” (Luke 8:13; NIV). He also speaks of some who produce fruit that does not last (literally, it does not mature) because it is “choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life” (Luke 8:7, 14 [quote from the NIV]). All of the unfaithful responses to God’s word in the parable are contrasted to a faithful response that perseveres in adherence to the word (Luke 8:15). Clearly, holding fast to the word is implicitly commended by the parable and turning away from the word is implicitly condemned. However, if those who fall away merely fall away from some sort of false faith, then that could not be presented as a particularly bad thing. Rather, the parable warns against falling away from true faith and urges perseverance in the same. As Jesus said to a man who promised to follow him after saying goodbye to his family, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62).
In Rom 8:13 the Apostle Paul warned believers, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” More pointedly, in Romans 11, addressing Gentile believers and contrasting them with unbelieving Jews, Paul warns them that God will cut them off from his people if they do not continue in faith:
They [the unbelieving Jews] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (Rom 11:20-23).
Only belief in the possibility of apostasy can do justice to this text. The doctrine known as “eternal security” or “once saved, always saved,” whether in the form of inevitable perseverance or of unnecessary perseverance, aims to convince the believer not to fear that he could be cut off from God’s people and their salvation for some reason. But this is the very opposite of Paul’s intention here, where he expressly calls upon believers to fear being cut off from God’s people for unbelief.
Paul himself feared that believers might forsake Christ and perish. He was concerned that the actions of some believers might lead other believers astray and destroy them (Rom 14:15, 20-21; 1 Cor 8:9-13; cf. 3:16-17). More strikingly, he warned the Corinthians against perishing through unfaithfulness, using the example of Israel (1 Cor 10:1-13) and eventually declaring, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall (1Cor 10:12). He had already warned, “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10). He further told the Corinthians, “Now I would remind you, brothers,of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor 15:1-2). Later, when they had fallen under the influence of false teachers (referred to, for example, in 2 Cor 11:1-6, 12-15), he told them,
2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough (2 Cor 11:2-4).
He also urged them “not to receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), exhorted them, “5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?– unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test” (2 Cor 13:5-6). He further prayed for their restoration (2 Cor 13:9).
One of the main purposes of Paul’s epistle to the believers in Galatia was to persuade them not to turn from Christ to a false gospel. It appears that they were in the process of doing this very thing, and so Paul’s epistle argues with urgency and passion to rescue them from that disastrous path. Early in the epistle, he exclaims, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel” (Gal 1:6), such a serious matter that Paul further exclaims, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8-9). Paul was deeply concerned for the souls of the Galatian Christians, crying out, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (Gal 3:1a-b). Their folly lay in turning from faith to works for possession of the Spirit and membership in God’s people (Gal 3:2-6), which would make their suffering for their faith vain (Gal 3:4) since it would forfeit their salvation if held on to. Therefore, he reminded them that “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Gal 3:10) and asked them, “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?” (Gal 4:9). He referred to these believers as “my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19) and stated plainly that he was perplexed about them (Gal 4:20). Some of them desired to be under the law (Gal 4:21).
In Gal 5:1-4, Paul makes it absolutely clear that true believers (to whom his words were addressed) can turn from faith and grace, and end up not benefiting from Christ (i.e., not saved):
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:1-4).
In 5:1, there would be no reason for Paul to exhort the Galatian Christians not to submit again to a yoke of slavery if it were not possible for them to do so. Nor would it make sense in 5:2 for him to warn them that accepting circumcision would make Christ to be of no advantage to them, which would mean no salvation. Strikingly, in 5:4 Paul states that some of the Galatian Christians were severed from Christ, which he describes as having fallen away from grace. It would be hard to imagine a clearer succinct expression of the forfeiture of saving relationship with Christ, though Paul was seeking to win those in view back to saving faith as well as warn others not to follow that same doomed path. The situation of the Galatian church heading toward embracing a false gospel and some of them even having done so left Paul saying, “You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you” (Gal 5:7-8).
After listing the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21a), Paul warns the Galatian believers once again: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21b). And then yet again: “7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Gal 6:7-9). He issued a similar type of warning in Eph 5:5-7: “5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7Therefore do not become partners with them.” Note that in these last two places there is a warning not to be deceived about this matter, as if Paul was already countering teaching that believers cannot actually turn from their faith and live in sin or that believers can live in sin and still be saved. The very fact that Paul warns believers against these things implies that they can fall into them and experience the threatened consequences.
The Epistle to the Colossians is also addressed to believers who were facing false teaching and were in danger of forsaking the true gospel. Therefore, Paul prayed for their perseverance (Col 1:11) and underscored that their present reconciliation to God would issue forth in final acceptance “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting away from the hope of the gospel that you heard” (Col 1:23; cf. 1 Tim 2:15). Moreover, he urged them to continue walking with Christ as their Lord (Col 2:6) and warned them: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spiritsof the world, and not according to Christ” (Col 2:8).
As for the Church of the Thessalonians, Paul was greatly concerned that they might forsake their faith because of persecution, which makes little sense if he thought that God would not let them forsake their faith. As Paul recounted to them,
1 Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. (1 Thes 3:1-5).
At a later time, he exhorted them, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Thes 2:15), which would be unnecessary if they could not fail to stand firm (cf. Eph 6:10-18).
Paul warned Timothy against false teachers who had swerved from “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5-6) and by doing so “wandered away into vain discussions” (1 Tim 1:6), apparently men who had been true believers but went astray. Indeed, Paul mentions to Timothy that by rejecting a good conscience, “some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:19-20). But one cannot make shipwreck of one’s faith if one never had faith to shipwreck. Hymenaeus and Alexander are probably examples of what Paul relates in 1 Tim 4:1-2, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared.” Even one of Paul’s co-workers, Demas, turned away from the Lord for love of the World (2 Tim 4:10; cf. Col 4:14; Philem 23). One of the things that leads believers to turn from their faith is the love of money: “9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1Tim 6:9-10). Another cause of apostasy Paul mentioned to Timothy is false knowledge (1 Tim 6:20-21). He even needed to warn Timothy to guard himself against it: 20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’— 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. (1Tim 6:20-21 NASB; italics removed). Indeed, Timothy was to, “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Tim 6:12) and he was also to instruct rich believers to be generous with their money “so that they may take hold of that which is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19). Even Timothy needed to be exhorted to “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed” (2 Tim 3:14) and to, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1Tim 4:16). For that matter, Paul not only counseled the Corinthians to exercise total focus and great self-discipline in pursuing eternal life, but he also spoke of his need for the same in order that he himself would not be disqualified from eternal life:
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control,lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified (1 Cor 9:24-27).
The main purpose of the Book of Hebrews is to encourage its audience of believers not to forsake their faith in Christ but to persevere in him. Warnings against apostasy pervade the book (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1-29). Here are some representative verses:
- “1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Heb 2:1-3a)
- “And we are his [God’s] house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.” (Heb 3:6b)
- “12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Heb 3:12-15)
- “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.” (Heb 4:11; falling here refers in context to falling under God’s fatal judgment because of unbelief; see 3:16-4:3).
- “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Heb 4:14)
- “4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” (Heb 6:4-6)
- 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Heb 6:11-12)
- “17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” (Heb 6:17-18)
- “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” (Heb 10:23)
- “29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For, ‘Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; 38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.’ 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Heb 10:29-39; note that v. 38 speaks of a believer, who is righteous by faith, shrinking back from faith and drawing God’s displeasure, and that this consequence is equated with destruction in contrast to persevering in faith yielding salvation of the soul.)
- “1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.” (Heb 12:1-3)
- “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. (Heb 12:12-13)
- “15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no ‘root of bitterness’ springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. (Heb 12:15-17)
- “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.” (Heb 12:25)
The Epistle of James also testifies to the possibility and danger of apostasy in 5:19-20, “19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (Jam 5:19-20). This statement is aimed at believers (“brothers”), and considers it possible that some of them could wander from the truth, which would result in spiritual death for the wanderer unless he comes to repentance.
First Peter 1:5 gives insight into the nature of Christian security of salvation—it is conditional on faith. For it speaks of us “who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Hence, the biblical doctrine of salvation security is best described as conditional rather than unconditional or inevitable. As the believer trusts in God, the Lord guards his salvation. But as we have seen, if the believer stops trusting in the Lord, then the Lord will revoke his salvation. Thus, Peter exhorted his believing audience, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world” (1 Pet 5:8-9).
In 2 Pet 1:5-11, the Apostle exhorted his audience of believers to grow in godly virtues because doing so would keep them from falling and so failing to enter the eternal kingdom of Christ. It is in this context that Peter gives the remarkable exhortation, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet 1:10; NIV). The wording of this exhortation is not to make ourselves sure about our calling and election, but to make our calling and election themselves sure/firm, which is then tied to not falling and indicated as being accomplished by practicing the Christian virtues that were already said to be what would keep Peter’s readers secure: “for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (2 Pet 1:10b).
Peter goes on to spend a good deal of his second epistle warning his believing audience of false teachers and their spiritually destructive teaching (2 Pet 2-3), who had forsaken “the right way” and had “gone astray” (2 Pet 2:15). “[T]hey entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error” (2 Pet 2:18b). That implies the enticement of genuine believers since they are escaping—even if barely—from those who live in error. Sadly, Peter warned “many will follow their sensuality” (2 Pet 2:2a). Peter’s warning is grave indeed:
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire. (2 Pet 2:20-22)
This warning refers to believers who go astray, since they had “escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 2:20; cf. 1:4, 8).
The Epistle of Jude is also dedicated to warning believers against false teaching and encouraging them to resist it and persevere in the truth. After describing the false teachers and the divine judgment set upon them, Jude exhorts his believing audience, “20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (Jude 1:20-21). There would be no reason to warn and exhort genuine believers to keep themselves in the love of God and wait for Christ’s mercy of eternal life in the face of false teaching if they could not forsake God’s love and give up on Christ’s mercy.
The Book of Revelation is yet another New Testament book that has exhorting its readers to persevere in the faith as one of its primary purposes. The seven churches addressed by the book were under pressure to give up or compromise their faith from various temptations. While the whole book carries this concern (see e.g., Rev 13:10; 14:12), it comes out most clearly in the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2-3. Each of the churches is exhorted to be faithful to Christ and promised eternal life (described in various ways) if they are faithful to the end. The clear implication is that they will not be saved if they are not faithful to Christ and it is possible for them to be unfaithful and perish.
For example, the church of Ephesus is promised: “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev 2:7b). The obvious implication is that the one who does not conquer (i.e., is not faithful to Jesus; cf. Rev 12:11; 15:2; 1 John 5:4-5) will not be allowed to eat of the tree of life (i.e., will not be given eternal life). The church of Smyrna is promised: “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life . . . The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev 2:10c, 2:11b). The obvious implication is that the one who is not faithful unto death will not be given the crown of life and the one who does not conquer will be hurt by the second death. Similarly, the church of Sardis is promised: “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” (Rev 3:5). The obvious implication is that the one who does not conquer will not be clothed in white garments and will be blotted out of the book of life and will not be confessed before the Father and the angels. The reference to blotting out of the book of life is especially instructive on the question of salvation security. For blotting a name out of the book of life implies that the name was in the book and that the person identified by the name was saved. But blotting out of the book indicates the removal of salvation and eternal life.
Most of the churches are also explicitly threatened with judgment if they are not faithful to Christ. For example, Christ told the church of Ephesus, “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev 2:5). Removing a church’s lampstand is a figure for removing its identity as God’s people, a transfer into an unsaved state. More vividly, Christ threatened the church of Laodicea, “because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16), a threat to those who are in Christ of ejecting them out of Christ into an unsaved state.
Near the very end of Revelation, Jesus issues a grave warning: “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev 22:19). This warning seems to be addressed mainly to believers, since the original audience of the book was indeed believers. It probably includes unbelievers in a secondary way, which supports conditional election, resistible grace, and unlimited atonement, because for people to have a share in Heaven that is taken away from them must at the very least mean Heaven was genuinely available to them through genuine opportunity to believe and be saved. But the warning was originally for believers mainly, and this supports conditional security, for it warns those who are destined for Heaven against the forfeiture of that destiny through taking “away from the words of the book of this prophecy.”
Despite all of this concern and warning in the New Testament with respect to apostasy and forfeiting salvation, believers have good grounds for strong assurance of salvation. Before explaining why, it would be helpful to attend to the fact that the New Testament speaks of salvation in three tenses—past, present, and future. Believers were saved in the past when they first placed their trust in Christ and came to share in the salvation he accomplished on the cross (it can also be said that we were saved when Jesus died and rose again in the same way that a winning score in a sports game can be said to have won the game even before the game is actually finished). So Scripture speaks of believers as having been saved in the past (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:8-9; Titus 3:4-7). But it also speaks of believers as being saved in the present (1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15) or enjoying a present state of salvation (Eph 2:5, 8; the Greek construction in these verses indicates a present state of salvation resulting from past salvation) since we enjoy numerous spiritual blessings of God in the present, such as those discussed under “Conditional Election” above and sanctification, a present continual process of growth in Christ and increasing conformity to his image (Rom 6:12-23; 12:1-2; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:21-24; Phil 3:12-14). However, we do not yet have these salvation blessings in their fullness. This is the well-known concept of “the already and the not yet,” that is, that we have the salvation blessings of God now only partially, but that we will receive them in their fullness when Christ returns and brings the culmination of the kingdom of God and our eternal state. Thus, the New Testament speaks of future salvation (Rom 5:9-10; 6:22; 8:11, 13, 16-19, 23-25; 13:11; Gal 5:5; Phil 3:10-11, 20-21; 1 Thes 1:10; 5:9; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5); believers will be fully and finally saved in the future when Jesus returns.
The fact that full and final salvation is to come in the future helps explain why perseverance in faith is necessary. The fact that there is also a substantial albeit partial experience of salvation in the past and present helps to explain why it is that believers can have strong assurance of salvation. First, we can have full assurance of past and present salvation (1 John 5:13). If a person believes, then he can know that he has been saved and is saved according to the many promises in Scripture that God saves those who believe (see the many references under “Conditional Election”). (This presents a serious problem for the position of inevitable perseverance, which holds that true believers cannot forsake Christ, and therefore, that professing believers who fall away never were true believers or saved in the first place. For if someone can appear to be a true believer to himself and the believers around him, but then fall away and show himself to have never been a true believer, how could we ever know that we are genuine believers and not simply exhibiting a false faith and are actually unsaved and will one day show it?) Moreover, our salvation in the present brings all sorts of divine blessings in the present that are set to be fulfilled when Christ returns and will in fact be fulfilled as long as the believer perseveres in faith. These greatly encourage and empower perseverance in faith. Indeed, God protects our faith relationship with him from any outside force irresistibly snatching us away from Christ or our faith (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:31-39; 1 Cor 10:13), and he preserves us in salvation as long as we trust in Christ (1 Pet 1:3-5 and the many passages we have referenced in this article about salvation being conditional on faith). Just as the Holy Spirit empowered us to believe in Christ (see “Freed to Believe” above), so he empowers us to continue believing in Christ (Gal 5:16-25; Eph 3:14-21; cf. 1 Cor 10:13). Furthermore, since Christ died for all (see “Atonement for All” above), we can know that Christ died for us and that God is for us and our salvation (unlike a theology that holds unconditional election, irresistible grace, and limited atonement, which logically allows one to know that one is elect and that Christ died for one only after one has persevered to the end).
Thus, believers can have solid, robust assurance of salvation though not absolute or unconditional assurance. While some might find this troubling, false security is far more troubling and dangerous, potentially leading believers to ignore attending to what is necessary for perseverance, and so to falling away and perishing. It is when a person thinks that fire cannot burn him that he is much more likely to play with fire and get burned. Moreover, there is rarely unconditional assurance of anything in life, and yet people frequently have great assurance despite the absence of an unconditional guarantee. In everyday life, people frequently have substantial assurance of future benefit which is nonetheless conditional on their continuing to meet the condition for that future benefit, such as continuing to consent to receive it. Likewise, believers can have full assurance of past and present salvation, and substantial assurance of future final salvation, which is contingent on them continuing to meet the condition for that final salvation, namely, faith. And wonderfully, God promises true believers the ability to persevere in faith and that nothing can tear them away from him. With present salvation we have the absolute assurance that God will enable us to persevere unto final salvation and that God is for us. He simply does not guarantee that he will irresistibly make us persevere. Just as God’s grace is resistible before we believe (see “Freed to Believe” above), so it continues to be resistible after we believe—and always amazing!
“Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 1:24-25).
A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends
A little quiz for your Calvinist Friends. Inspired by the ever resourceful JC Thibodaux and by a Calvinist dude named Jay Banks. Enjoy.
Genesis 25:23 The LORD said to [Rebekah], “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”
Q: What was in Rebekah’s womb?
A. Two nations and two peoples.
B. One elect person and one reprobate person.
C. Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic.
Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Q: How much pleasure does the Sovereign Lord take in the death of the wicked?
A. No pleasure
B. Much pleasure
C. No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Q: Why didn’t Jesus gather up those in Jerusalem, when he longed to?
A. Because they were not willing.
B. This is a mystery.
C. Hello pea brain. Jesus was speaking of general chicks, not effectual chicks.
Luke 10:30-37 [The story of the good Samaritan – the priest and Levite “pass by” the traveler, the Samaritan stops and helps.]
Q: Which of these three do you think showed mercy?
A. The Samaritan. Go and do likewise.
B. The priest and the Levite showed mercy by passing by.
C. Each person showed a different kind of mercy. If all had stopped to help, the act of the Samaritan would have been diluted.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Q: God loves what?
A. The world
B. The elect.
C. His glory.Q: Who will not perish?
A. Whoever believes in God’s only son.
B. Let me get back to you on that, I need to look up the answer on “Desiring God”.
C. Francis Schaeffer won’t perish, but his kid Franky was decreed to go off the deep end.
Acts 16:30,31 [The jailer] then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Q: What must I do to be saved?
A. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
B. Win the divine lottery.
C. The jailer was a Pelagian.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Q: Who does “all” refer to in this verse?
A. All
B. The elect
C. An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect.
1 Timothy 1:18,19 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.
Q: Paul says that some people have done what with their faith?
A. Some have shipwrecked their faith.
B. This is a hypothetical analogy with no real world application. It is merely used by God to ensure the perseverance of the elect.
C. Nice try. Obviously the ship was never floating in the first place.
1 Timothy 2:4 [God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Q: Who does God want to be saved?
A. All men
B. All men, but no women.
C. God really wants all men to be saved, but only in such a way that he damns most in order to maximize his glory.
1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Q: How are the elect chosen?
A. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
B. If you were elect you would already know the answer to this question.
C. Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Q: Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for what and what?
A. Our sins and also for the sins of the whole world.
B. The sins of the elect, and also for the sins of the elect.
C. The correct word is “propitiation”. You show your Arminian tendencies by quoting from the NIV. Read the ESV, heretic.
BONUS ROUND!
Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
Q: Which picture best depicts the above verse?
A.
B.
C.
Add up your score:
2 points for every A
1 point for every B
0 points for every C
Score:
25+ points – Congrats! You are predestined to be an Arminian
20-24 points – You read a lot of Norm Geisler.
15-19 points – Old school Calvinist
10-14 points – Neo-Reformed
0-9 points – James White is your homie.
I can hear “yeah buts” coming from the Calvinist brethren now; oh, how they love to debate jots and tittles. New Calvinists have some of the biggest “buts” in church these days! ;^)
>”Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view
Gee thanks.
Oooh, Second?
Regarding the length of this post, I’m reminded of a story Billy Graham told once. He was staying at the home of a crusade organizer and was asked to pray at dinner. After his prayer, the man’s young son proclaimed “Too long!”
However, this piece is loaded with great Scriptural support for those who beg to differ that the Calvinist gospel is ‘the’ gospel. Your time would be well spent to study these Scriptures and prayerfully consider them. While humorous, the quiz also paints a sad portrait pertaining to the eternal destiny of souls. Who, in their right spiritual mind, would prefer to adopt reformed theology when there is so much Scripture to refute it? Even if there was an equally strong argument for Calvinism, why go that direction when an opposing route offers so much hope and life for a dying world (ALL of it) through the Cross of Christ?
Lea wrote:
I can’t believe I popped up first on this piece! I never win anything, except once. When I was a small kid (eons ago), I was called from the crowd to pull two names from a box for a prize drawing. The first card had my mother’s name on it; the second was my grandfather! The awards were for grocery shopping sprees – food our family really needed back in those days. I got a big sucker out of the deal at the grocery store. But, I do recall some of the folks booing at me from the large crowd for pulling family names – Lord, I was only about 5 years old at the time and had no ability to rig a drawing … I prefer to think that the event was “predestined” ;^)
This is very informative–and what a great quiz, always a fun way to sort out what one truly believes.
As important as doctrine is, one thing I have always appreciated about Wartburg is the emphasis on the character and love of God. How we perceive His love for us and express love toward others can be deleteriously affected by the doctrines that we embrace. This is why the conversations here are so important.
When I personally interact with people, especially church leadership, I listen closely to their priorities–if their priorities are the knowledge about Jesus, rather than relationship with Jesus, I tend to shy away from them. I strongly embrace the ancient creeds, (Nicene, Athanasian, etc.)–beyond the doctrine regarding the nature of God expressed in those creeds I refuse to make anything else life or death. It is easy to default to being confident in what we know about God–and charge big bucks at conferences to impart that ‘special knowledge’ to the naive and star-struck (knowledge puffs up, after all). It is so much more difficult to live a life that reveals Jesus to others–a life only possible by knowing Him through relationship, not just knowing about Him. All the people that walked by the hurting man certainly knew more correct theology than the Samaritan–the Samaritan, however, understood the heart of God. Ultimately, that is what matters.
However you scored on the quiz, if knowing Jesus rather than just knowing about Him is your priority, you are in the best place.
Thanks for the plug! One note – there is a spot on your post where “Arminian” autocorrected to “Amerindian”. 🙂
Okay. I made straight A’s on the quiz!
(Giggle!). Dee, do you have a similar quiz for mutualists, Complementarian, and patriarchy???
Woo hoo! I’m predestined to be an Arminian. Piper and Mohler can now send me my official heretic badge.
Seriously, how did we go from the simple teachings of Christ to such a complicated mess?
Fifth…
One of my favourite comments of the 2016 Olympics followed Nick Skelton’s gold medal in horsing today. It was texted in to the BBC’s online commentary by a laddie called Chris Briggs:
Clearly, the Olympic Games are unbiblical. But I still love ’em…
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Skelton, BTW, is 58 years old. He was winning team horsing medals when I was 6.
IHTIH
Lol! The bonus question is hysterical.
I take slight issue with the bonus round picture. I think A is the answer the quiz is looking for, but B is probably closer to the actual context of the first three chapters of Revelation. At this point Jesus has fiery eyes, glowing robes, and a double edge sword coming out of his mouth. That verse is also part of the letter to Laodicea. Jesus wants to spit them out and discipline them – I don’t think he is mildly and gently tapping on the door.
Otherwise, funny quiz.
You know the Schaeffers only believed in 2 1/2 points? I forgot to ask exactly which ones, but they turned down a request from Sproul Snr to write on ‘I’ for him as they didn’t believe it. I know the half is ‘T’ as they believed only that the fall touched all parts of man, not that man was utterly crushed & unrecognisable. I think the other point they didn’t believe is the ‘U’…how the rest hangs together I don’t know, but does explain why L’Abri culture is so much more positive about humanity, choice, human life than the neo-cals. This information is brought to you via a personal letter from Mrs Schaeffer’s Pastor Udo, & through a very recent face to face conversation with one of her young companions as an older lady needing help.
In the section on Atonement for All are these words from Scripture: ”
“in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself”
I think this is a text that neo-Cals can’t conceptualize in its fullest sense. I think the viewpoint that most fully celebrates that ‘reconciliation’ text is found among the Orthodox, this:
““Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son….”
from the Orthodox Study Bible comes this insight:
“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. ”
Plus please keep praying, my recent second round with these questions left me with a bout of clinical anxiety & depression, & off work & on meds. This all has legs in real people’s lives. I find all this stuff HARD, as I have so many doubts as to God wanting & loving me. I find the very idea of a God being there terrifying incase he’s just a big version of Piper, or one of those frowny grey Puritans. I could really do with this changing.
Christiane wrote:
Strictly speaking, the words are not “reconciling the world to himself” but “reconciling all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven”. Yet another scripture that is disturbing and, quite clearly, wrong.
Max wrote:
I think there are basically two kinds of people who are attracted to a logic system like TULIP.
Some people have a great need for seeing themselves as ‘better’, which I think actually comes from a deep sense of inferiority (not at all the same thing as Christ-like ‘humility’)
Other people, trapped in their pride, also need to feel ‘better than’ the ‘other’ so strongly that they will seek out a temple that allows them to openly pray thanksgiving for their ‘superiority’, yes.
In my opinion, the former group are easily led by the latter group who assume leadership roles. Hence the many neo-Cal husbands, who are shaky in their own masculinity, will find great affirmation from the teachings of patriarchal leaders on how these men are ‘justified’ in having their wives ‘submit’ to them. All those ‘real men’ sermons are aimed at some very insecure men whose egos ‘need’ to to be propped up.
It’s not really about ‘religion’, is it?
Beakerj wrote:
I recoil from both descriptions of total depravity.
I guess that makes me neither.
Patriciamc wrote:
because the ‘simple teachings of Christ’ often ask us to let go of the boat and walk towards Him on the water
Beakerj wrote:
And THAT is why this subject is Important.
@ Lea:
Me too.
Christiane wrote:
Personally, I think it was also a matter of Case Law/Legal Precedent over time. Like Supreme Court decisions over time.
Situation comes up; how do we apply said “simple teaching of Christ” in this situation?
(Especially if there’s a religious war brewing over the application…)
That establishes a precedent.
Slightly-different situation comes up; how do we apply it to this new situation?
Establish another precedent.
Slightly-different situation comes up; how do we apply it to this new situation?
Establish another precedent.
Slightly-different situation comes up; how do we apply it to this new situation?
Establish another precedent.
Carry this on for several centuries and the precise application of “simple teachings” can get very weird very fast.
“Because people are people and the world is full of tricks and twistiness yet undreamed of.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
hence the need for ‘the simple teachings of Christ’ 🙂
“Where billow meets billow
Then soft be thy pillow
Ah weary wee flipperling
Is curled at thy ease
The storm shall not wake thee
Nor shark overtake thee
Asleep in the arms of the slow swinging sea”
(Seal Lullaby)
Christiane wrote:
Not at all, Christiane. You offer a great perspective on those attracted to New Calvinism!
Lea wrote:
Me too. If man is made in the image of God, as both viewpoints believe, was the sin of Adam so powerful that it wipes out the entire image of God in man and man is left “totally depraved?” If sin, in fact, does destroy the entire image of God in man, then what does that say about the power of God verses sin?
It does prove to me that man does have choice and can choose, just as Adam chose “something” other than God.
Patriciamc wrote:
Well, it’s like this. There were no Calvinists until the 16th century. For the first 1500 years of the Church, there was no need for reformed theology. Believers preached a Gospel (the real one) that was simple enough for even a child to understand. They were not reformed – they were transformed by the blood of the Lamb! And then along came the magisterial reformers who twisted the Scriptures to the point that they were difficult to understand. Thus, church leaders were needed to interpret the Word because the masses were just not smart enough to take such a complex message on. Such leaders discouraged believers from believing that their souls were competent before God as priests themselves to understand the Word as the Holy Spirit taught them rather than men. And, thus, a complex debate was launched between opposing factions around the doctrines of grace. It still rages in the halls of academia and even shows up on blogs. Theological arguments won’t be resolved this side of Heaven. In the meantime, simple folks who know the simple Gospel are out and about on the Great Commission to harvest fields that are white unto harvest. One can enter the Kingdom of God they preach by hearing the Gospel, believing it, repenting of their sins, and accepting Christ – the redeemer of their souls. No predestined seal of approval necessary!
Lea wrote:
I wonder if we will explore Eastern Orthodox next. I used to think the spectrum ran from Calvinist to Arminian only to find they are grounded in similar beliefs, total depravity being one that repels me also. Somehow man has the free will only to destroy and not create, I differ with the contention that there is no goodness left in mankind. That free will by us undercuts God’s sovereignty strikes me as a non-sequitur. Borrowing from the last thread, I’m inclined think these systematic theologies are speculations about things we don’t know that have morphed into doctrine to be legislated and enforced.
@ Bill M:
The ‘total depravity’ teaching was not an Apostolic teaching out of Jerusalem, so none of the first centers of Christianity established out of Jerusalem taught such a doctrine.
You won’t find ‘total depravity’ as a formal Catholic teaching either.
‘Wounded’, yes; totally ‘depraved’, no.
@ Max:
It actually started with Augustine, but this part of his teachings was totally jettisoned by the church at large, then a bit with the Donatists I think in the 12th cebtury & then Calvin…it was pronounced total heresy by the Orthodox church at every turn. Pretty weird if the ‘real gospel’ as Piper et al pronounce it was somehow unknown by the earliest church & most christians over the 2000 yrs of the church. Their christianity is a very very minor strand & only 500 years old.
Bill M wrote:
There are a lot of people already doing this…I wonder if it’s a work of the Spirit as a response to all this.
Beakerj wrote:
that is why it seems so ‘alien’ to people who encounter it for the first time who come from older traditions . . . it’s not in the Church’s DNA from the Apostles, no
@ Christiane:
Not just ‘older’ traditions. Nobody talked about our being totally depraved growing up in church.
A summary? Here is a good reason why I prefer church music over theology. As a church musician all I have to do is sing/play “Whosever Will, May Come” and the issue is settled.
FW Rez wrote:
Is it possible that the ‘new music’ with the custom of a ‘praise band’ and a music minister was all created to replace the beautiful hymns loved by the old people,
BECAUSE the neo-Cals did not want the influence of the old hymns with their more traditionally anchored lyrics? Was something very precious lost when they took away the old hymnals from the pews?
Bridget wrote:
Great question. The short answer is “no.” Calvinists strongly claim things like “sola scriptura” but they deny it in practice. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Adam’s guilt spread to all mankind. Romans 5:12 says it was death that spread to all mankind. We did not inherit sin from Adam, we inherited mortality. Why does that matter? Because it is fear of death that holds us into bondage to sin: Hebrews 2:14-15 – “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.”
We are slaves to sin not because of inherited guilt, but because we fear death. We are all responsible for our own sin. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus defeated sin, death, and Satan, so that we can be raised with him and be free from these enemies. This is what the early church believed.
This is a great read: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.1.htm. Unfortunately, the formatting is a bit of a nuisance, but it is still quite readable. Isn’t this 4th century book more powerful than anything written by new or old Calvinists?
“James White is your homie.”
That’s hilarious! I, an avowed Wesleyan/Holiness gal, enjoy listening to his program from time to time because he really is good when it comes to textual history and engaging non-Christians intelligently and respectfully (with a good dose of humor/sarcasm), but I almost always turn it off or skip ahead when he gets into the superior nature of Calvinism. His friendship with Michael Brown amuses me because they give each other such a hard time. It’s also a good example, I think, because they always stress that their debates are between brothers. Each thinks the other is dead wrong in certain aspects of his doctrine, but they have no problem working together. The frothing at the mouth Neo-Cals could learn a thing or two from that.
Please don’t stone me. I promise I’m not the President of the James White Fan Club.
Christiane wrote:
I do know that even when the same songs were in the Baptist Hymnal as had been in the Broadman Hymnal some of the lyrics had been changed to fit changing doctrinal positions. One of the last things i ever did as a baptist was spend an entire sunday worship service tracking down as many changes as I could find to see if there was a pattern. I am sorry that I did not keep notes. But you can bet your bippy there was a discernible pattern. And then eventually for some churches using hymns was discontinued. I am thinking it was part of the same procedure, called sit there you sheep and let us reprogram your thinking.
I don’t think that it is an issue if the music style is hymns, or classical or ethnic or even chant which our choir does as part of the liturgy, what ever depending on the circumstances, but stripping the music of the message is egregious. And twisting the message and setting that to music is even worse.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Not sure what you’re getting at, Nick. Are you saying the interpretation is disturbing, or the scripture? The word is kosmos, so you’re right, God is reconciling “all things” to himself. The bible does say that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Kosmos also shows up in John 3:16, “For God so loved the kosmos…”
The word “kosmos” makes it very hard to interpret this as God loving only “the elect.”
These are a nice set of posts on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Too bad I haven’t had time to post any comments on the last post.
Here are some of my thoughts.
It always baffles why God would call all men to repent if He doesn’t give all men (and women) the ability to do so. Wouldn’t that be a taunting God?
The word “sovereign grace” is basically another way of saying Calvinism.
It always baffled me when leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries would discipline some of their leaders for the leader’s child not coming to Christ etc. Why blame the parents if you believe in Calvinism or a “sovereign grace.” With that belief system it would be God who either isn’t going to or hasn’t yet given this child the “irresistable grace” to come to Christ.
Put another way leaders of SGM claim to believe in Calvinism but this action shows that they really don’t believe it.
I have a few more thoughts I hope to share later.
Steve240 wrote:
Exactly!
okrapod wrote:
I think the lyrics and music is so much better with the hymns than modern stuff and when I started playing guitar I realized why it all sounded the same. It’s the same three or four chords and chord progressions over and over again! And the lyrics tend to be banal too.
I have seen a couple parody videos on this. This one someone linked the other day about Christian radio and they mention the ‘trinity’ of three chords. Ha. https://youtu.be/bwwhkKPEieE
@ okrapod:
I do think taking the beloved music of the old people away was a red light that something was in play in the souls of the newcomers that was far from the mind and heart of Christ
Lea wrote:
I play bass. I had played in churches for several years in college when people started asking me why I was so good.
I was really good at playing three notes…
Beakerj wrote:
If you believe what they teach about the essentials of the Gospel, it must mean that there were no true Christians before about 500 years ago. Christianity got it all wrong for 1500 years until a young French lawyer figured it all out.
But if you talk to a young earth creationist, you’ll find out that there were no true Christians until about the middle of the last century when this topic became an essential.
I’m done with modern theology – I’m looking back to the early writers.
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
Ken F wrote:
Caveat:
some of the early writers strayed at times into speculation concerning early heresies,
and if you are not aware of this, you can get confused about the content of their writings;
another thing: some writings are ‘spurious’, or not authentic, so it is good to know which ones the Church recognized as NOT spurious
It’s complicated, but I think the early Church Fathers at least give some insight into where the young Church was in those early days and how it came to be that the Councils served to protect the young Church from heresies that were springing up from various directions … good luck with your studies
Ken F wrote:
Well said, Ken F. The arrogance of the young pups is astounding.
Ahh yes. Young Earth Creationism. Affectionately called “The Flintstone Doctrine”. My ex-NeoCalvnist, 9Marxist, John MacArthur-ite pastor, with his sub-par college education from MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary rounded out with two “advanced degrees” including a *Ph.D.* purchased from a Missouri diploma mill for $299 subscribed to this nonsense.
That the earth is 6,000 year old. He would say, “It’s a miracle.” I would sit in my pew and silently say back, “It’s A MIRACLE how dumb you are!” This is the 2+2=5 crowd
If they say “5” enough times to each other it is supposed to make it true.
My grandmother, who died at 102 years old, was a graduate of U.C. Berkeley, she had a degree in the sciences, and she worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers.
Not even she, a Presbyterian, subscribed to this fiction of a Young Earth.
If you find any writers that you would like to recommend, and I’m sure you will find them, please advise names/titles and a brief summary. Also post it at the top, please under
the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab for peoples’ future reference.
Thank you!
Steve240 wrote:
I did not know that. Good to know.
Calvinism is nasty business with subtle names.
Christiane wrote:
The book I’m currently reading, “Seeking the Face of God: Evangelical Worship Reconceived”, traces the praise and worship movement to the more experiential traditions (think Pentecostal) rather than attributing it to any underlying reformed theology agenda, but who doesn’t like a good conspiracy theory. The hymns are rich in content and theology which goes against our culture of convenience. It takes too much effort to think about what 4 verses have to say so they are are replaced with a simple text that is repeated over and over again. Simplicity is not always bad and repetition can be beneficial, but at what price?
Ken F wrote:
I can think of four right off that make for a good start.
@Christiane,
I am barging in on Ken’s computer real quick. Thank you for your kind words two (three?) days ago. I cried when I read them. I reread them the next night and cried again. I am not used to people saying nice things to me when it comes to those matters. Dear Hubby and my college aged kids are kind and gracious to me. For the rest, I gave up talking about it, unless the Holy Spirit harrasses me.
You have no idea how much good your words did me !!
Ken F’s wife wrote:
Christiane is a jewel to have here on The Wartburg Watch. I share your sentiments about her.
She has made me tear up too with her kindness.
Christiane wrote:
Very true. I also think the simple teachings of Christ alone don’t justify a lot of jobs or a lot of book deals.
Beakerj wrote:
Which I guess makes Hell be a CBMW or TGC conference.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And the law grows and grows, like all the rules heaped onto the OT laws. Also how the Gothardites have heaped rule upon rule on Christian beliefs.
All of these nice comments about the early church writers made me think of Russian Orthodox church choirs. I used to go to my grandparents’ RO church.
Here is a beautiful Russian Orthodox chant, “We Praise Thee”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntT2VemnVV8
ishy wrote:
In fairness, you can play an awful lot of rock and pop music with three chords. But when you have such great composition available in church already, it seems pretty lame by comparison.
@ okrapod:
I noticed before I stopped attending church that the music was becoming self centered. So much “I” and “me”. Not “You”. Most of the old hymns contained the gospel. Even the start of contemporary Christian Music had so much of the gospel message. My favorite is “He’s Alive” by Don Francisco. Andre Crouch is another favorite. the music I heard before we left the church was not only gospel lite, but “what can you do for me? Combined with ear splitting drums and repeated choruses ad nauseum. Almost like chanting.
Welcome back to blogville, Dee! I haven't had time to read the post, but I do have a prayer request for people. I just started a job that could be my dream job – and I also developed some crazy symptoms in my right eye that I've never had before. Basically over the first week of my job, the gel in my eye tore away from the back of my eye, and the doctor is watching for a retinal tear that hopefully won't happen, but would require surgery. Feeling just a bit overwhelmed, so would appreciate prayers. Thankful that I can still drive and do tons of other things, albeit with a cloud over my right eye.
Former CLCer wrote:
Oh my goodness! Prayers for you!
@ Former CLCer:
I’m having a minor freak out myself about the eye things! That sounds awful. I hope it get fixed quickly.
@ Former CLCer:
praying….
@ Former CLCer:
Will be praying!
Also want to let you know that this happened to me as well. I was told it was very common in mid-age people, especially with light colored eyes. When I went to dr because of black blotches I was asked if it had happened in the other eye. It hadn’t. The first eye healed fine. Two months later it happened in second eye – but more intense. I was sent to eye specialist who watched it and told me the same thing you were told, but that only a small percentage of people end up needing surgery. I am fine – no surgery.
Bill M wrote:
I think that both Calvies and Arminians would say that total depravity does not mean utter depravity but rather something like pervasive depravity which affects all aspects of our lives as human beings: spiritual, mental, emotional, physical, moral, etc.
On the point of everything being for God’s glory, IMO the blasphemer still glorifies God with every word he/she speaks and whatever good he/she does or beauty he/she creates. Because how great is God that he can create something that can create thoughts and speech and a body that makes that possible. How glorious is a God who waits patiently, desiring the blasphemer to turn to him. How loving is the father who continues to love his child who is railing against him. Only a great and glorious God unlike any others would do that.
@ Ted:
I think Nick was playing off of the quiz where things do not clearly mean what the clearly say. Disturbing to people like Piper, I imagine.
There are probably 15 replies like this, but I am a convinced Top Downist, so forgive me for repeating.
Steve240 wrote:
Well of course they don’t believe it. But Calvinism gave CJ gravitas and the veneer of being a Bible teacher. It is a form of manipulative abuse, IMNSHO. Not humble because I’ve not read the authoritative book on Humility.
Velour wrote:
My wife and I listened to this while we ate dinner. We played it several times and listened to some of the follow-on chants. What a blessing.
Our family lived in Southern Italy for a few years. It was a very stressful and chaotic place to live. We attended an English-speaking Lutheran church service on Sunday evenings. There were not many in attendance, and all of the music was voice only because there were no musicians. The structure of the service, with its liturgy, restfulness, quietness, and warm fellowship, was life-giving. It was like an anchor in the middle of a storm. It’s one of the few very things I miss about that period of our lives. Listening to these chants reminded me of the blessing of that small fellowship. These polyphonic chants are so much more uplifting than the loud every-Sunday-is-the-same-as-last-Sunday-popular-Christian-music-sung-too-loud I get to experience every week at my current church. Thank you for the link.
Lea wrote:
Sometimes you find yourself alternating between a G4 and a C2. Same notes, different bass note.
FW Rez wrote:
Sorry for the digression, but this is something my dad sent to me not too long ago (the musical theme got to me):
C, E-flat and G go into a bar. The bartender says, “Sorry, we don’t serve minors,” and E-flat leaves. C and G have an open fifth between them. After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished and G is out flat. F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough. D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, “Excuse me, I’ll just be a second.”
A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor and sends him out. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and shouts, “Get out now. You’re the seventh minor I’ve found in this bar tonight.”
Next night, E-flat, not easily deflated, comes into the bar in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender says: “You’re looking pretty sharp tonight. Come on in. This could be a major development.” Sure enough, E-flat takes off his suit and everything else and stands there au naturel.
Eventually, C, who had passed out under the bar the night before, begins to sober up and realizes in horror that he’s under a rest. So, C goes to trial, is convicted of contributing to the diminution of a minor and sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an up scale correctional facility. The conviction is overturned on appeal, however, and C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.
The bartender decides, however, that since he’s only had tenor so patrons, the soprano out in the bathroom and everything has become alto much treble, he needs a rest and closes the bar.
Gram3 wrote:
That is not what I have witnessed with the Neo Cal resurgence. Humans are dead in sin. Totally depraved and unable.. And totally unable to do good. Humans are totally unable to respond to Gid and must be regenerated in order to believe. They are incapable. Their spiritual deadness means even the good they do is like filthy rags.
Christiane wrote:
Yes, this is my dilemma. There is so much to choose from and I don’t know where to start. I know that I don’t want to waste time reading spurious stuff. I’ve read several books on EO theology, which have been very beneficial. I’ve read some Athanasius. I’m still trying to finish Eusebius’ church history. I’m thinking I want to tackle Irenaeus’ Against Heresy. Or I could dive into modern theologians like Barth or MacDonald who draw from the early church. Most of the quotes I’ve gotten recently have come from Baxter Kruger. That has a been a good start, but I want to get to the original sources. I would have more time for reading this stuff if I was not spending so much time following this site. 🙂
@ Ken F:
Have you ever heard a more modern song, entitled “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)?
It became my favorite the first time I heard it.
@ Ken F:
This is cute.
@ Ken F:
I came across this not long ago looking for something else but he has some interesting insights on Barth and civil religion. Torrence is an interesting scholar. I think it was his son or brother who did scholarly work on theology and science.
https://youtu.be/dT3sjlaqGcU
Former CLCer wrote:
Congratulations on the job.
I am so sorry to hear about your eye.
I am praying for you, starting right now!
@ Ken F:
You are so welcome, Ken F. I’m glad you and your wife listened to the beautiful Russian Orthodox chants. Yes, I find them very relaxing.
What a lovely story about the calm of the Lutheran Church in Italy when you folks lived there.
I remember my grandparents’ Russian Orthodox Church and the unseen choir off to the side.
No instruments playing. It was beautiful.
Ken F wrote:
The Boston Symphony recently performed Beethoven’s Ninth symphony which is a wonderful piece that has a part near the end in which the bass violins do nothing. So, the bassists snuck offstage, out the backdoor, and next door to the local pub for a drink.
After quickly gulping down a few stiff drinks, one of them checked his watch and said, ‘Oh no, we only have 30 seconds to get back!’
Another bassist said, ‘Don’t worry, I tied the last page of the conductor’s score down with string to give us a bit more time. We’ll be fine.’
So, they staggered and stumbled back into the concert hall and took their places just as the conductor was busily working on the knot in the string so he could finish the symphony.
Someone in the audience asked his companion, ‘What’s going on? Is there a problem?’
His companion said, ‘This is a critical point – it’s the bottom of the Ninth, the score’s tied, and the bassists are loaded!’
@ FW Rez:
Oh that is funny!
Former CLCer wrote:
Keeping you in my prayers. Hope your eye gets better real soon!
Congrats on your 'dream job'. At least I hope it turns out to be that!
Lydia wrote:
I categorically reject the “T” in both paradigms. I now believe it to be lie from the father of lies. From my viewpoint and considering the Scriptures used to support the concept of total depravity, it’s easy to see why the big guns who formulated The Chicago Statement disavowed hyperbole as a valid literary device in Holy Writ.
@ Lydia
@ Gram 3
About your discussion about what depravity means. This was not being preached or taught in the churches where I was in childhood or as a young adult (SBC) or when raising my children (FWB). They were saying ‘you cannot save yourself’ but by that they meant that salvation is not by works so no matter what you do it is not good enough. Nobody but nobody ever said in my hearing anything about original guilt but only referenced the quote that ‘wheras by one man…because all have sinned’. I never heard that people could not do good works or basically be ‘good’ to an extent on their own, but only that man’s best was not good enough because salvation by grace through faith (sola fide). I never heard it mentioned that people could not choose to ‘accept Jesus as lord and savior’ or that people were depraved-only disobedient. Nor did I ever hear this from my kid who was at Liberty U some 30 years ago. When believer’s baptism was discussed it was in the context of the rejection of baptismal regeneration. As much talk as there was about how we did not believe anything at all basically of what the catholics believed I am surprised that the idea of original sin did not get mentioned in the discussion of baptism.
All that may be a rather long time ago, but no way could I have totally missed something like that over all that time if they had been preaching it. This is weird.
Leslie wrote:
This is what I’ve noticed, too. I’m not saying all of the new music is like this, but a lot of it is kind of like, ‘hey, God, look how good I look worshiping you!’
I have not been to a church that sang hymns in many years and I miss them. This thread caught my attention because just last night my husband and I discovered that a lot of the old hymns are on youtube, we had fun looking up favorites and enjoying them again.
We ran into trouble at a couple churches just by asking if one or two of the old hymns could be worked in with the new music occasionally. That turned out to be a highly charged subject, we were stunned at some of the ungodly things that were said about hymns.
Just browsing through my old copy of Great Hymns of the Faith, I think the oldest hymn is probably Shepherd of Eager Youth (c. 800?) and there are hymns from over centuries up to the time of the hymnbook (1973). What happened that suddenly this generation it’s time to throw out all of this music of the past church and redo it from scratch? It’s so weird.
Anyways, a little off topic but it’s just one area where us “old people” have been made to feel a little like outsiders. We’re welcome to keep giving money, though…
Lea wrote:
I think it has been exaggerated to the point of abuse. The way I understand it, and as this article states it, “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.”
I think of this as meaning that the fall affected all of our systems; none is exempt. Body, spirit, mind, emotions, all are fallen from the original design.
Just as it is with our bodies- there is not one part of the body that isn’t subject to disease, genetic errors and aging- yet, listen, that doesn’t mean our bodies are dead and rotting! They still reflect the beautiful design of the creator, they support our lives, they are the sacred home of our spirits, they still struggle towards health and life.
Spiritually/mentally/emotionally, our communion with God was broken by the fall. Our ability to see truth became flawed. We tend to seek our own. The good news is that Christ bridges the gap and meets us where we are.
But I think that this state of ‘depravity’ as they call it (and I think the meaning of that word has also changed over time, making this phrase more difficult) can be focused on in a sort of reverse-pride, which is not good or productive. After all Christ has done for us, what is the point of continuing to wallow in our fallen nature? It is just self-focus under a different aspect.
I don’t think I’m saying any of this very well…
@ siteseer:
My son in laws sister goes to Santa Cruz Bible Church. She is very active in the music ministry. The church has been reintroducing some of the old hymns.The young people said to her “Wow, this is great stuff” so biblical. Straight from scripture.
siteseer wrote:
I do know that there are a lot of shape-note singing groups on youtube, so there is now a revival of that wonderful choral singing. I know it is popular in Ireland. It would be ironic if the culture of these old shape-note hymns were someday lost to Baptists here in America, and that this amazing cultural heritage was being kept/preserved for them by a bunch of Catholics over in Ireland. The Church works in mysterious ways. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zRMz3bonY8
Lydia wrote:
No doubt they teach inability and being dead. The only point I was trying to make is the possible misunderstanding of “total.” No part of us has been unaffected by the Fall, so in that sense it is “total” but that does not mean that we longer bear the image of God or cannot do good and beautiful things or love or be just, etc..
I do not remember hearing much of anything about “Total Depravity” until I was in reformed circles. Baptist teaching in my youth was that we are lost sinners and cannot save ourselves. Later on, Gothardism spread through Baptist churches, and I imagine that primed Baptists for the idea of Total Depravity if not the exact term.
okrapod wrote:
Honestly, I didn’t hear the hyper-total depravity mantra when I became a believer 35 years ago. It has been over the past 20 years that the mantra has taken on a life of its own . . . to the point where teaching was about how much God was put off by man and his wretchedness. This was preached weekly to the church who are “believers.” It really took root with John Piper and CJ Mahaney clans.
I think if people are tempted to believe in the ‘total depravity’ of humans, they might want to spend some time in the company of those who are challenged with Down Syndrome.
I think they might learn something from these gentle souls who are so gifted with loving-kindness that it sometimes takes your breath away. 🙂
Christiane wrote:
Amen!
Kevin Jackson wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that typo. It has now been corrected.
So glad you chimed in. I visited your website and read your post about why you became an Arminian.
https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/why-i-became-an-arminian/
I absolutely agree with what you wrote (below):
There are several reasons for the resurgence of Calvinism. Unfortunately, one of them is that there is a good bit of $$$ going into the pockets of those who call themselves “New Calvinists” or “Neo Calvinists”. (i.e. books, conferences, etc.) This is a fact that cannot be denied. It will be interesting to see how history judges them in a few decades (if the world survives that long!)
@ Christiane:
Chritstine, what do the EO teach about the ‘state’ of babies when they are born? If they are not ‘vipes in diapers’ (sheesh, gag, hack) what are they?
And once again, Christiane…vipers…& I’ve just realised from IMonk that you are Catholic not EO.You still may know the answer to that question…
Nancy2 wrote:
It’s not a bad renewal of that hymn, but I think I have a bad attitude about it because I go to a church that seems to have “total inability” to sing any old hymn in it’s original version. Every old hymn has to be messed with by changing the music or adding new refrains or doing something else to make it different from the original. At one point this drive to be “fresh” and “creative” with everything from songs to doctrine will itself become stale and old.
Great explanation of Arminian theology. Thanks for this.
I agree with previous commenters regarding total depravity. If we are condemned before we are created, then God is not just. And there are many who will go to heck simply because they never hear about Jesus.
God was not graceful in his laws. People are condemned to death for all sorts of moral crimes.
While I believe that some stories in the Bible are not literal, there was no Grace shown during the flood. Innocent children were exterminated alongside sinful parents. Nor was any Grace shown towards the Canaanites. They were exterminated or enslaved, God also had Israelite men cast out their foreign wives – a death sentence in ancient times.
This seems to lead towards an “elect” being chosen.
My point is, we can make the Bible say anything we want. It’s up to us to do right. Both Arminian & Calvinists appear more concerned with “right thought” – each judging the other side “heretic” while proclaiming them “brothers”. This is how the Christian wars of Europe came about. Our view is righteous as per God. We must condemn you to save you & save others. Right thought – no justice required.
@ Gram3:
Thankfully I had never heard of Gothard until social media. I have never understood the rabid focus on total depravity and being unable, dead. Why would Neo Cals bother to discipline their kids or even praise them? That seems to negate what they teach about humans. But then a lot they teach/practice does not match.
@ Gram3:
Thankfully I had never heard of Gothard until social media. I have never understood the rabid focus on total depravity and being unable, dead. Why would Neo Cals bother to discipline their kids or even praise them? That seems to negate what they teach about humans. But then a lot they teach/practice does not match.
Christiane wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Isn’t there an “original sin”? If you aren’t baptized, you don’t get into heaven. Hence the rush to infant baptism. God condemns all based on the actions of 2 possibly allegorical characters.
siteseer wrote:
One church we attended, the pianist/keyboardist in the worship team was demoted for daring to question the pastor’s decree that hymns would not be sung because they were past it/not anointed/old hat.
We left that church. They can keep their anointed new songs.
@ Max:
And sometimes we forget the intention was to Reform the Catholic Church. The Reformers kept the top down structure and made a lot of princes wealthy with Catholic Church land.
The Reformation was political, too. As Catholicism had politicized Christianity.
@ okrapod:
Total Depravity has caught on. If words mean anything it is a horrible descriptor I object to “depravity”, too. Add “total” and It sounds like animals who know no different.
Total depravity also communicates that humans have no choice or abilty in their image of God.
But then, I don’t subscribe to Augustine’s original sin doctrine either. I think we are born dying and into a world that has been corrupted. We could talk about this all day and come to no conclusion but I think we must also take nurture into the equation with nature.
Muff Potter wrote:
What better way to convince humans they have no volition and need the specially anointed to teach and lead them?
There is another aspect to this that is quite troubling. How passionate can a depraved person to be to cure cancer? Invent new products? Etc. I honestly believe that people who have a passion that God has planted in them to help make this world better need to get the heck out of church. I especially am concerned for teens. Now is the time for encouragement not condemnation.
Ken F wrote:
The churches in my area still sing the traditional songs, and anyone who wants to sing can join in. The gospel singing groups in this are still perform more traditional music.
Although I do like that particular song, I do get what you’re saying. I used to teach at a private Christian school …… chapel service on Wed. mornings …… “praise” band with drums, guitars, and keyboards. Very talented students, but I did not like the music at all!
Gram3 wrote:
I think we should ALL admit that this is a horrible way of expressing something that is very simple, if we would only let the Scripture speak for itself. (Why, yes, I am grumpy today).
https://wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sallman2.jpg?w=184
This pic is very interesting. Have you ever noticed why it is so revolutionary? It is because Sallman painted it & left it with no handle on the outside (where Jesus stands, knocking). He was asked about this, & he replied that, “Christ only enters where He is invited. It is left entirely to the person to decide whether or not to open the door of the heart”. I’ve always liked this picture for that reason….
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
Velour wrote:
I know I have dropped the ball on this , and I apologize. We didn’t have our usual mid-August sample sale in Winston-Salem after all, perhaps because we had had one earlier in the summer in Greensboro. Meanwhile, my life has been insanely busy, between full-time job, freelance work, trips to visit family in Louisville and Indy, house guests, and moving younger son into UNC-Wilmington. Sorry for blathering on about myself!! The bottom line is that I can buy school clothes with my employee discount and have them shipped directly to Shauna. Can someone contact me at johnpaulsteve@gmail.com with sizes and specific needs? My employer does knits, not wovens, so we don’t have boys’ jeans or chinos, but we do have tees, polos, sweats, and more underwear than you can shake a stick at. I can’t find the post with the email I was supposed to contact; hence I am posting my addy instead. Thank you!!!
Jack wrote:
We need to be careful with what we read into the Bible. 2 Peter 2:5 describes Noah as a “preacher of righteousness.” That should give us a hint that maybe there was more to his life than just building a big boat. It took him 100 years to build the ark. And it was much larger than what was needed for just the animals. We don’t know this for sure, but it’s very possible that everyone living during those times had opportunity to get on the ark but refused the message that Noah had been preaching until it was too late. I don’t want to speak for God in the way that he did things back then. But I also think we need to be careful to not project more onto him than is there. I believe the Calvinists paint a false picture of God that infects the way we think about God.
Does anyone know if Arminians believe in penal substitution?
I shouldn’t be, but I’m still surprised when I hear supposedly theologically educated men like Piper say things like that. Any basic historical overview of soteriology will immediately convince the student of three self-evident truths. First, there have been thousands of quite godly men and women who disagreed widely and strongly on soteriology. Second, in this spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism are kissing cousins. They are literally right next to each other on the spectrum. Third, the student realizes very quickly that theology is a human creation, and open to revision and re-examination.
@ Nancy2:
“Dee, do you have a similar quiz for mutualists, Complementarian, and patriarchy???”
++++++++++++++++
talk about funny!
still waiting for a christopher guest film about it all, but this would be a start.
nothing like satire to point out the obvious for those who haven’t been able to see it.
@ Patriciamc:
“Seriously, how did we go from the simple teachings of Christ to such a complicated mess?”
++++++++++++++
the healthiest people i’ve ever known, those who bring healing and soothing just by being in their presence, are those who are grounded in common sense and intuitiveness (regardless of religious persuasion). not theological calculators with legs.
@ Patriciamc:
“Seriously, how did we go from the simple teachings of Christ to such a complicated mess?”
++++++++++++
i’m sure it has something to do with the bible as inspired as a starting point, and moving on towards infallible then on to inerrant, in an every more narrow direction.
in the end, God = the bible. An algebraic equation. To know God means to solve it, using rules and formulas to find the one and only correct and true answer, on all matters.
how you destroy people in the process is of little concern.
Traditional hymns are not my favorite kind of music. I don’t always understand how to read music, they’re usually slow and plodding as if a sort of holy funeral dirge, I don’t think I’ve been to a church that ever really could sing them all that well in the first place. I find that the contemporary music is intuitive and easy to sing, even though I have no idea what the notes are, I can hit the more often or at least, sound like I know what I’m doing. Unfortunately, I’m stuck in a hymn-singing region – where new music is limited to Gaither tunes. What the church seems to miss is that there’s a whole generation of youth that are under-educated or un-educated when it comes to music and hymns demand a certain level of familiarity or literacy that they just missed out on (I know that I did). After a good twenty to thirty years of not singing hymns ever, you just can’t expect people to sing them as if they were old professionals.
I was thinking about Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” and why Calvinists were having a problem with it. I landed on one of Piper’s blogs explaining that that there’s no contradiction with God wanted the whole world to be saved but electing only some of the world to be saved. He quoted Johnathan Edwards: “The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another.”
Then he went on to say that God wants “all sorts of” people to be saved, but necessarily all people to be saved. For a doctrine about grace, God – who has the ability to bestow grace upon everyone that he might save them all, who is irresistible to those whom he gives grace, seems oddly capricious to give grace to some (though he wants everyone to be saved) and withhold that grace to the rest (even though he really wanted them to be saved.)
@ ishy:
“I play bass. I had played in churches for several years in college when people started asking me why I was so good.
I was really good at playing three notes…”
++++++++++++++++
but with a great sense of rhythm, i’m sure. (which can turn those christian 3 notes into something exciting)
you get the credit – not the songwriters.
elastigirl wrote:
This certainly is true as far as the TAKEOVER by the FUNDAMENTALISTS in the Southern Baptist Convention. Many good people were destroyed by ‘christians.” The spirit that did this too good and decent people is still prevalent in the SBC IMO!
@ Patriciamc:
Patriciamc wrote: “Seriously, how did we go from the simple teachings of Christ to such a complicated mess?”
“I also think the simple teachings of Christ alone don’t justify a lot of jobs or a lot of book deals.”
+++++++++++++++++
still sparked by your unvarnished point.
yes, i’m sure money & power, power & money are at the heart of it.
i think that even the best of professional christians would, at their most lucid, have to acknowledge this. (If they are truly in touch with honesty)
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Thanks Catholic Gate-Crasher.
I will post it on the Open Discussion forum and ask Shuana to email you.
Ron Oommen wrote:
Hymns not anointed!!! Insanity.
If you like old country, you can find a lot of hymns being sung by the greats. I had a Tennessee Ernie ford album of hymns, but I know Johnny Cash and others are available as well.
Part of the hymn thing always seemed to be music ministers who are either incapable of playing the complicated music or way too proud of their own abilities at song writing. But I don’t know if that is just my perception.
Leslie wrote:
Almost as if they instinctively know the difference between twinkies, big macs, and stuff from olden times that truly nourishes.
elastigirl wrote:
I like the math/poetry way of looking at this.
Btw, I’m still thinking about the concept of hymns not being anointed. I will say this: many a hymn makes me cry like a baby just hearing it, very very little of what passes for modern Christian music does the same. Much of it takes me completely out of worship as I think things like ‘what? No wait, what are they saying here’ and ‘wow that’s repetitive’.
siteseer wrote:
I have an old Lutheran hymnal published by Concordia in 1941. All the selections have both key and time signatures, standard procedure in olden times because it made the selections playable and singable by all. Not so with the ‘new crapola’ many of the ELCA (Lutheran) churches have decided to go with, much of it un-singable for just regular folks.
Jamie Carter wrote:
I think having a strong music department and choir help with this. My church has both, and that helps with hymns you’ve never heard. (They also play the music through once before you start singing) And I obviously do like some more than others!
I can read music, so that does help. Moreover, I appreciate the MUSIC part of things, so these super repetitive easy to learn Melodys can be distractingly full, particular if paired with equally banal lyrics. A simple melody needs good lyrics. Instead both are usually overly simple, but not in a good way.
Lea wrote:
Distractingly Dull. Sheesh autocorrect is a monster.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Yes, reformed theology is loaded with odd notions like that. Keeping up with gyrations of that sort, it’s no wonder that all Calvinists go completely crazy after a while ;^)
Muff Potter wrote:
Fun fact! A lot of people who play guitar can’t actually read music beyond ‘here is a chord’.
So that’s probably why.
Ken F wrote:
yes yes yes yes!!
Just let the songs stand on their own, I say. They don’t need updating. They don’t need to be sung with more “feeling” – the words stand on their own.
Lydia wrote:
For a complete heretic, he has sure had a huge affect on the church. He went directly to the people and they brought the weird teachings into their churches with them.
I first heard of Gothard back in 1975 or 76. I had a neighbor that was enthralled with him, she had this big notebook she was always studying as if it was the Bible. I did not get what the appeal was.
Lea wrote:
Yes, autoIncorrect is full of surprises.
It named my brother-in-law “Monsoon”.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Calvinism defies logic. It’s full of blatant contradictions. But the worst part, for all of the Calvinists who cry “sola scriptura,” most of their theological musings are not supported by scripture. They have to make up stuff as they go. It’s just like the liars who have to craft ever increasing lies to hold it all together. Calvinism is a house of cards built on sand. I don’t know why it still seems to stand.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Which is why I find the word “orthodoxy” somewhat strange.
Hymns have been where the laity learn their theology.
If you want to retool the theology you have ruin or not sing the hymns.
It is part of the idea change–any change, for any reason–must be insisted upon. They want to leave the laity confused, unsure, unstable.
Then the little Hitler can take over easier.
And for what it is worth, molinism and universalism are viable alternatives to either Calvinism or arminianism.
@ Lea:
“Btw, I’m still thinking about the concept of hymns not being anointed. I will say this: many a hymn makes me cry like a baby just hearing it, very very little of what passes for modern Christian music does the same. Much of it takes me completely out of worship as I think things like ‘what? No wait, what are they saying here’ and ‘wow that’s repetitive’.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
music is funny. hymns my parents know from their childhood and young adulthood are so special to them — they love them, and believe they are the best examples of christian music. with contemporary songs, they go through the motions, but…. nothing.
me & hymns, i am moved by 1 or 2 or them (“How Great Thou Art” — i’d be surprised if we all didn’t agree on that one). the rest, nothing. a flatliner experience. up until my
‘ecclesial detox’, i was moved by many, many songs written in the last 20-30 years (depending on the musicians playing and singing them, of course — nothing like songs you love being totally ruined by rhythm morons).
me & ’70s & some ’80s rock/R&B/disco/funk, i am moved by tons of songs. they’re just the best.
my kids? ha! nothing…. a total flatliner experience. they cannot fathom what in the world it is that i get so excited about. and me? I am absolutely mystified that they don’t feel it. truly.
music is so darn subjective.
but it seems the most intelligent music is the most enduring (bach, beethoven, mozart, debussy, all their many companions, Gershwin, etc. — seems to cross generational gaps. my kids don’t believe a word of it, but you see, i know these things. in time, they, too will appreciate this excellent music.
@ Jack:
Hi JACK,
here is what the Church formally teaches: ““the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved [1Tim 2:4], and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”
Jamie Carter wrote:
We attended a small Presbyterian church for awhile that sang this way. Only the most doleful hymns were sung and they were sung in the most slow and mournful way, like you say, just like dirges. It was awful.
On the other extreme, a church we visited one time, IFB I think, the hymns were sung double-time, everyone manically happy and loud! I couldn’t even sing fast enough to keep up! It was bizarre!
@ elastigirl:
nothing like songs you love being totally ruined by rhythm morons
++++++++++++++
for that matter, ruined by people who don’t sing from their hearts, from their souls.
perfunctory music performance kills inspiration. as well as “look at me folks, aren’t I awesome”. snuffs the living daylights out of it.
singing and playing for joy — makes for the best music experience for the musicians and the audience. in any genre, from religious to heavy metal, country to rap.
i feel this is quite rare these days.
elastigirl wrote:
I was told by my best friend whose mother was a pychiatrist that the area in the brain that responds to music is adjacent to the area in brain that stores our memories …. this is why you can have people in the later stages of dementia still able to recall lyrics and actually sing and respond to music that they knew long ago. Now this music is used as a way of therapy for them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWn4JB2YLU
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I love the Orthodox definition of a ‘theologian’:
“one who prays”
Jamie Carter wrote:
This was one of my mom’s (a musician) pet peeves. Speaking of reading music….I have had musicians all round me all my life. The older ones have been trying to explain to me another reason why the contemporary big screen words are not really good for church. I know I won’t explain this well but I am going to try anyway. It starts out with the difference between being a spectator and interacting with the music and words.
They mention the beauty of someone who has absolutely nothing to do with music in their everyday lives learning a bit about it through their interaction at church. Even rudimentary sight reading. Now instead of interacting with the music through the hymnal the music is thrown at people.
There is nothing wrong with liking contemporary music with words on the big screen, either. It’s like anything else in our culture such as Googling instead of going to the library and doing research. The question is are we enriched from it long term? And how does it affect our thinking/processing skills?
Beakerj wrote:
Dear BeakerJ, I will pray for you. I have been where you are, probably to a lesser intensity, but it was a serious and relatively long-lasting crisis in my life. It helped me a lot to read and reread again and again the story of the Prodigal Son/The Father with Two Sons…recognizing that I can be either one of the sons, in alternating fashion, and seeing that the Father is gentle and going the distance to meet me where I am without condemnation. Even writing this little screed has been a good reminder for me, so I thank you.
Beakerj wrote:
EO doesn’t believe in “original sin” as it is taught in much of modern Christianity, but in “ancestral sin”. Here is how that plays out: babies are born good, in the image of God, but because of the Fall, they are subject to the consequence of sin–death. (This is why the Resurrection of Christ is so important–because He conquered the consequences of sin. The EO sing this hymn about the resurrection: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.”)
EO talks about the propensity to sin (because of the Fall and because we have free will) but a baby is born good–some writers speak of babies being holy because they have come so fresh from God.
This is a nutshell of what the EO believe; there’s always more that can be said, but for once, I am going to nip it with one last comment, which is a quote from Father Stephen Freeman, who has a regular blog: “Christ didn’t come to make bad men good but to make dead men live.”
PaJo wrote:
“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star, 60
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come 65
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!”
(William Wordsworth), British poet
from his Ode-(Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood)
Ken F wrote:
It is most definitely a ‘logic system’, and each part supports another part out of necessity to hold it all together, yes.
@ Lydia:
Exactly. I do read music, no longer play an instrument (by choice), no longer sing in the choir (asthma) and I absolutely go nuts trying to follow some tune when there is no music to see but only just words on a screen (and of course the sacred purple lights on the sacred purple background). Trying to straggle along maybe a half beat behind everybody else while desperately trying to grasp a sound, any sound in that key, so as not to have to just stand there and scowl. Arrrggggh.
Well, the scripture does comment that from him who hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Well, that is what happened to me. They came and got my last ‘hath’. So, because I respect myself as a human being, I do not even try. It is one thing to be smitten by the church but it is another thing to participate in one’s own smiting. I used to stand there and endure, and keep reminding myself that this may be good for somebody else and God may in fact be using this in somebody’s life for good, and who do I think I am anyhow to judge other people. But I did depart that scene and take myself elsewhere back in the day, which I think was a righteous act. I highly recommend it.
Not that I have any passionate feelings about it all, of course. (sarc)
@ PaJo:
Thank you so much, I’ve always had issues with this but 6 years ago when my Mum was dying if cancer grief made my brain go nuclear on this issue – unexpectedly. It was like my soul was dragged over cold sharp rocks, so when it cam eup this time, it came up badly, as there are a lot of things unresolved with God since then. It felt like he disappeared, or could be a monster. I’m praying for a spiritual mentor to help me work through that.
Ken F wrote:
What a funny story! I know just enough music theory to really get a good laugh – thanks!
FW Rez wrote:
Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!
P.S.PaJo, Father Stephen is where I first heard of EO, about 3 months ago…
Beakerj wrote:
Loss and suffering is enough: it is worse when we are given a warped teaching about God. But I do believe with all my heart that God will answer your cry for help and for a helper. And I will join you in your plea.
Beakerj wrote:
I’ve met him in real life and he is delightful! He’s got a great sense of humor, and is so kind.
I started reading his writing when he was a commenter on another blog, and then he started his own blog…about the time I was on my way to “done.” Sometimes what he writes goes over my head but I just let those parts go; they must not be meant for me. His blog has been a big help to me. :0)
Beakerj wrote:
I’ve needed a mentor also but have not been able to find one. The thing that has helped me the most is listening to good teachings driving to/from work and when I walk my dog after I get home from work. One theologian that has been incredibly encouraging for me is Baxter Kruger. He teaches “Trinitarian” theology, which places huge emphasis on the relationship in the Trinity and how Jesus brought us into that relationship. He is from South Mississippi and has a very noticeable Southern accent – I don’t know if that is a problem for someone from the UK. Here is the link to lectures: http://perichoresis.org/free-lecture-series/. Another source is interviews on the “Your Included” program from Grace Communion International. This program brings in a good number of theologians from different perspectives who are all pretty much followers of Barth or the Torrance brothers. GCI started out as a very authoritative and abusive cult (The Worldwide Church of God) but went through a major turnaround. Their past history freaked me out a bit, but the interviews are still very good. I’ve enjoyed being challenged by the various perspectives – but all paint an infinitely more loving picture of God the Father than Calvinism. It’s been a great source of healing for me.
Beakerj wrote:
Hi BEAKER J,
a long time ago, a very fine Christian lady told me that for those having a crisis of faith and anxiety, it helped to go somewhere quiet and spend time reading the Holy Gospel of St. John.
I’ve done it myself, and it calmed my spirit and brought strength to my faith and restored me to peace.
It’s not a bad thing to try. I will pray for you, yes.
Hi Wartburg Watchers,
I just wanted to bring to your attention that Shauna and her son Billy in Texas have pressing financial needs. Dee previously opened the GoFundMe account for them.
Billy starts school this next week. He needs school supplies and clothes. He and his mom also need food and other necessities. And help paying bills.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Thank you!
@ Christiane:
Thanks for posting that Wordsworth poem. Beautiful!
Jack wrote:
You raised very interesting points in your post, including your care and concern for innocent children. Good job.
@ okrapod:
When I first visited the Epsicopalians my first thought was, They have hymals and no screens!. Hee Hee.
Jamie Carter wrote:
True, and nobody does expect you to. But that doesn’t mean you ditch them. Ideally, you grow up in a church that sings them (like I did), and you just learn them by osmosis. I guess 90% of the congregation didn’t know how to read music – the hymals were for the words 🙂
In my church, the choir would help to get the ball rolling, and then they’d back off some as the congregation warmed up to the melody, so we could all hear each other. It was worship. It was communal. It was incredible. And no matter what your vocal range, there was a harmony that would work for you. Or if not, just belt it out out of tune – some did 🙂
Being entertained by a rock band is not ‘worship’, as far as I’m concerned. It’s being entertained by a rock band, with maybe some vaguely Christian-ese lyrics, and sometimes not so much.
roebuck wrote:
Is THIS the neo-Cal version of ‘worship’????
well, no wonder.
@ roebuck:
A really cool thing is to be reading in Lamentations or something and come across a passage and think, Wait, we sing that in a hymn! :o)
I cannot explain the connection at all but it is there.
Christiane wrote:
Some do. Some don’t. I thought I was in a “safe” church because of the reverent hymns.
Wrong. NeoCalvinism. Authoritarianism. Read the fine print and get to know the doctrine.
roebuck wrote:
I became a Christian as an adult and I guess I was up to speed on most of the hymns within a year.
I think we’ve lost the communal part. It used to be something we all participated in as a group. Now we mostly sit and watch. A lot of the newer songs are not really made for congregational singing- they are made for one person to get into. Another thing I notice is that the current form of worship is more self focused, people close their eyes and raise their hands and kind of get lost into a world of their own. I’m not saying it’s wrong just that it’s different. I do feel we’ve lost something, though.
I remember when the new music first came out there was also a movement to set scripture to music and we were singing those songs a lot where I went to church at the time. I liked those songs because I was memorizing scripture along with singing. But those ones didn’t seem to catch on and faded into obscurity.
I really wonder if much of the music scenario is driven by copyrights and royalties and the like?
Christiane wrote:
I’d say it’s pervasive in the evangelical church. Not sure how it is in other branches.
Then there are the super-legalistic, rigid churches who only sing hymns because “the old ways are the only right way” and that can be a warning sign too.
@ siteseer:
The other part of communal that has been lost is intergenerational. I was so sad to watch all the elderly Christians in my church lose their ability to sing with the congregation because they couldn’t see the screens in the front, or the hymnals. What really frosted me was when the hymnals came out with “updated” words to old hymns, so even though many of these people had all the words memorized…no they didn’t. They were new and trendy words now, and half they time, they didn’t reflect truth.
Eg., there was one hymn that said this: Who builds on God’s unchanging love, builds on the rock that naught can move.
The new words said this: You trust in God’s unchanging love; you build on the rock that cannot move.
That update is patently heretical and shows complete ignorance of the English language. God can’t move. It’s just bad.
The intergenerational balkanization was tragic.
Jack wrote:
Baptists hold that belief in Christ gets you into heaven, not baptism. Baptism is an outward sacrament before God and man to demonstrate that one has put his faith in Christ. Baptism does not save a believer; it shows that the believer has been saved. Baptism of infants gets them wet, but doesn’t get them saved.
O.C.S. Wallace in his book “What Baptists Believe” puts it this way: “Salvation comes to the soul that comes to salvation. Forgiving Savior and penitent sinner meet.”
The Calvinists persecuted the Anabaptists because the latter preached the truth about “Believer’s Baptism.” In many ways, the Anabaptists were the true reformers of the 16th century, not the Calvinists.
Ken F wrote:
It depends. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally have a view that’s sort of a mixture of Penal Substitution and Governmental. Of course, to me, the point is just to know that God hates sin and Christ provided the means by which I can be reconciled to Him. Slap whatever label on that you like.
elastigirl wrote:
Away in a Manger and Beautiful Saviour do it for me every time. And then there’s the old Lutheran standard: Now Let the Vault of Heaven Resound.
elastigirl wrote:
Hopefully they will, and see for themselves why this stuff truly is immortal, and like diamonds it never wears out.
Velour wrote:
Very wise words. From what I’m learning, a lot is ‘hidden’ from people until the neo-Cal leaders have them ‘locked-in’ via contracts and formation of social bonds within the faith community;
and then they hit them hard with the abuse. I guess it’s a stealth thing, yes. So cynical. So unethical.
siteseer wrote:
I remember our Newman Club at university had mass with guitars, and how we all loved that in those long-ago days of the folk-music craze. But when it came time to go to Church with the family, it was ‘TRADITION’, and we loved that too. I guess the difference was that we didn’t see that one way was ‘better than’ the other, just maybe more appropriate for a certain setting. The Newman House didn’t have a piano or organ, but among our members were a lot of great guitar players, one of whom was Jewish and just liked hanging out with us. She played at mass and she was great. She was our friend.
At home, going to mass ‘en famille’, taking up an entire pew with Mater and Pater and children and an aunt or a godmother, etc…. total tradition. Wouldn’t have it any other way because it was part of who we were and we were a part of it.
Here is a hymn very apropos to the subject of this post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POi3ViZ5kgI
(2 Timothy 1:12)
Christiane wrote:
I liken these NeoCalvinist, authoritarian, abusive churches as being like a Venus Flytrap
plant. It’s baited nicely until some insect walks in, then the jaws slam shut and you’re eaten alive.
I love love love the words to Andrae Crouch’s song.
How can I say thanks for the things you have done for me
Things so undeserved yet you gave to show your live for me
The voices if a million angels could not express my gratitude
All that I am and ever hope to be I owe it all to Thee.
To God be the the glory , to God be the glory for the things He has done
By Hus blood he has saved me, by His power he has raised me , to God be the glory for the things He has done
Just let me live this life and let it be pleasing Lord to Thee, and if I gain any fame let it go to Calvary.
Ken F wrote:
We all see something different in the Bible. This is why strictly following any theology can lead to some nasty business. If I understand your post, God attempted through Noah to warn of the coming destruction. People refused to listen, so people used their free will to disobey & perished as a result.
It’s all in the context
@ Christiane:
My grandmother worked in the daytime & left my mother in the care of Catholic neighbors. The whole neighborhood was Irish Catholic, I think. Anyway my grandparents didn’t go to church & the neighbors were disturbed that my mom was not baptized so they had the service done without my grandparents knowledge. This was England in 1940s. It was my mom who taught me Catholics believe no baptism no heaven. Old habits must die hard, my siblings & I were all infant baptized.
@ Max:
My wife comes from that position. I think it bugs her a bit that I’ve never taken the plunge, so to speak. I was just a soggy baby.
Jack wrote:
What religion was your Mom?
Jack wrote:
I don’t think you understood my post. I prefaced it with, “We don’t know this for sure.” My point was that we often assume more about what the Bible says than it really does. I used that as a counterexample for folks who are convinced that God was cruel in saving only Noah and his family. That position assumes that all those “innocent” people were not given an opportunity to be saved. But we don’t know that for sure. I believe God is much less cruel than what we assume, and the hint is Noah’s NT title of “Preacher of Righteousness.”
@ Christiane:
Her early years were in the Catholic tradition. Her dad was Irish Catholic, her mom was English but I don’t think either went to church. I think her exposure was through education like Sunday school. Both my parents were sent to Sunday school but my grandparents didn’t attend church. The reason was for moral education but I think they wanted a quiet Sunday morning without the kids.
@ Jack:
My mom eventually became confirmed in the Anglican Church, which is what we were raised in.
@ Ken F:
Thanks for the info. Even with your explanation, I still saw something different in the story.
Every part of the Bible can be debated. I just don’t think blind adherence to any theology trumps doing the right thing today.
However we interpret the Bible, some things are just plain wrong.
Slavery, killing disobedient children & homosexuals, wiping out your enemies to the last man, woman & child, subjugation of women. Our liberal democracies have (in principle) left these views behind.
That quote from John Piper sys it all…. Can you say dripping with arrogance..
@ Kevin Jackson:
LOL-I didn’t notice that!
@ Beakerj:
That is an awesome comment!
@ Beakerj:
I am praying for you.
@ FW Rez:
Well said! 🙂
Ken F wrote:
I hipe to illustrate this important point with a post I intend to write about divorce and the misuse of Scripture. They quote the Scripture verse that backs up their perspective and ignore lots of other verses that do not.
@ Marie:
No stoning allowed! Great comment.
@ okrapod:
Wow. This weekend, the ELCA church of which my mother was a member sang a couple of well known hymns. I noticed that some of the lyrics were changed. I was not in the mood to pursue it then but would like to take it look at it now.
Hi all-quick update
I am now back in town . After a meeting today, things will be settling down at my house (Lord willing!) I hope to get caught back up over the next month. Thank you all for being patient with me.
roebuck wrote:
It didn’t work that way for me. Perhaps it’s because I learn best through reading and writing (I’m learning American Sign Language and have to resort to drawing and taking notes to make it stick). I don’t have the ability to pick up or play or sing something by ear. My last church did get a children’s choir started – but I doubt there’s such a thing as a beginner’s choir for millennials.
I remember one day as we were singing ‘Family of God’ how frustrated I was with the whole situation – how they sang this hymn every single Sunday and I still had no idea how to sing like everybody else. There was around two dozen people – so there wasn’t any real harmony because the high singers were over-represented and there wasn’t enough low singers to balance them out. They made nails scratching on chalkboard seem pleasant by comparison. At the next church, I was astounded at the high-schoolers who texted each other and played with each other’s hair rather than sing hymns with their parents and the elders on Sundays. I just really don’t see a point in singing music that I can’t stand. If there’s nothing wrong with you not liking contemporary music, then there’s nothing wrong with me not liking hymns.
Jamie Carter wrote:
This is why so many churches went to offering both contemporary and traditional services. It was either that or lose one group or the other.
There is even a mega church that is building a “chapel” on its massive grounds for people who want a small church environment. Wrap your head around that one!:o)
@ Dee:
Welcome back. Catching up will be a massive undertaking!
Dee wrote:
Welcome back!
Former CLCer wrote:
My husband had this happen too (“posterior vitreous detachment”) a couple of months ago. He’s still seeing an ophthalmologist, who’s keeping an eye on it (no pun intended) to make sure retinal detachment doesn’t occur as well.
@ Ken F:
Being of a musical bent, I loved this. So funny!
Debi Calvet wrote:
I couldn’t remember the technical name for it. But that is it.
Jamie Carter wrote:
And I find it to be annoying and boring. Actually, it makes me want to run out of the church and never return, which is essentially what I’ve done. But then my taste runs heavily to art music (so-called “classical” music), and that was my training. That’s what speaks to my soul at the deepest level.
Dee wrote:
Glad to have you back, Dee.
Hey, don’t push yourself too hard at catching up. I have no doubt that you are anxious to get back into the fray, but I know the past few months must have taken a toll on you. Make sure you take care of yourself first.
@ Dee:
Take it easy get some rest and relaxation. Good to have you back though! Thanks to Deb for holding down the fort.
Dee wrote:
As if we had any reason to exercise “patience” toward you, loving Dee! God bless you. <3
Debi Calvet wrote:
Each sentence is packed with music theory. I love that type of humor.
Jamie Carter wrote:
As far as I know, this song isn’t considered a hymn, unless things have changed in the last 30 years. (I’m no more a fan of Gaither-style music than I am of praise-band stuff.)
Dee wrote:
Take your time, sweet lady. You have been through a lot, Dee, with Polly’s recent death.
Please be gentle on yourself. Hugs to you and your husband and family.
We’re praying for you folks. Please let us know if we can do anything for you.
Marie wrote:
I had never questioned penal substitution before a couple years ago. It’s all I had been taught, and I believed it. But when I put it under cross-examination it completely fell apart. That put me through a bit of a faith crises, but I came out the other side in a much better place. The atonement is MUCH bigger than a legal transaction.
@ Dee:
So glad you are back. I hope that you and your family are recovering and that good memories of Polly are coming to the fore.
Ken F wrote:
Yes, I think that is definitely true. I have never understood the mania to focus on only one aspect and then making that aspect the whole of it. I want to tell those people to embrace the power of AND.
Debi Calvet wrote:
It was in the hymnal, therefore it’s a hymn. The newest songs in the hymnal were mostly Gaither tunes. I don’t understand why hymns are the golden age of music … almost as if the Holy Spirit decided not to inspire any more music in the decades and centuries to come.
It makes me wonder how many hymns were too terrible and unpopular and didn’t get put in the hymnal and how ones like Royal Telephone Line made it in.
Debi Calvet wrote:
I know! I laughed. Seriously Dee, take your time. Just so glad to see you back.
Ken F wrote:
I need to study this at some point as well. I’m currently deprogramming from another false teaching that my ex-NeoCalvinist church taught.
@ Jamie Carter:
We had some really bad music in the 70’s youth group. My mom was trained as a classical musician yet played these simple tunes with joy along with the hippie guitar players…..because…… at least we were singing. :o)
Anybody remember, “Pass it on”? Does anyone sing that anymore?
Funny, I can remember more Fanny Crosby lyrics than I can the more the modern stuff we sang all the time in youth group or Singsperations. I don’t know why.
I have never heard of the Royal Telephone Line! But the seekers had some weird music for kids about Jesus as a superhero and playdough man.
The more I read John Piper the more I think what an odd little man he seems.
Sadly the church I have attended for 20sum years seems to be slipping into a form of Neo Calvinisum…but I’ll have to wait and see how the preaching turns out.
Dee wrote:
It’s not just neo-cals (nor is it just the subject of marriage) Dee. I think that quote mining and the spin-meistering of Scripture is widespread enough to qualify as an art form in evangelical-land.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Like I said above, my hymnbook has songs in it from the year c.800 to the late 1960’s. All through the ages of the church, songs were added to the body of music produced by the saints of the church. For hundreds of years, believers learned music from those who went before them and added music of their own generation. I find in singing these old songs, even if the language has changed a bit, those saints struggled with the same struggles I have, they understood and loved the same God that I love. There is a connection there to the body of Christ through the ages; we are all one body. Then suddenly in this past generation, we threw out the old -everything- and went with only the new. To me, that seems very strange. I’m for new music, too, but why did we not add the new to what we already had, retaining both?
I have never cared for the Gaithers’ music, myself. I think it marked the turning point where music became hard for the congregation to sing together, because it was a style more suited for performance.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Here’s a Muffism that should stir the pot:
“Beethoven’s Violin Concerto is no less inspired than anything out of a hymnal.”
Velour wrote:
Have you ever read “The Shack” by William Paul Young? I initially avoided it because I don’t like to jump on bandwagons. I eventually read it and got a lot out of it, but was not quite sure what to do with it because it was such a different way of viewing God. I read it again when I was in the middle of my research on Calvinism. Based on what I’ve learned, I highly recommend it, if only for the purpose of rattling your cage. He does a very good job of capturing what the early church seemed to believe about the Trinity and the atonement. But if there was nothing else that would cause me to recommend it, the new-Calvinists condemn it as heresy. I don’t think I could come up with a stronger endorsement than that. 🙂
Since your pastor was trained by John MacArthur’s seminary, a great place to unlearn penal substitution is to see what John MacArthur teaches about it and then believe the opposite. Most new-Calvinists say something along the lines of “penal substitution is the skeleton upon which all the other atonement theories hand.” But MacArthur teaches that it is the ONLY way to understand the atonement. John MacArthur goes so far as to teach “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” Wow! It sounds like he thinks Jesus is not God. He could have meant the Father, but I wonder what he thinks the Holy Spirit was doing when the Father was venting his wrath on the Son. And what would he say about 2 Corinthians 5:19 – “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”? If our reconciliation happened on the cross, then the Father was “in Christ” on the cross. That’s how the Bible describes it, not how penal substitution describes it.
siteseer wrote:
I thought it was Charles Wesley who did that. I grew up in the United Methodist church – most of his hymns have great thoughts but are unsingable (is that a word?).
Welcome back, Dee, and God bless you.
Velour wrote:
Yes. The Incarnation itself is something Western Christianity needs to look at as a greater part of our healing. I think the Eastern Christians understand much better even in the context of ‘mystery’ than we do in the West.
And yet both East and West came out of Jerusalem, each eventually emphasizing some different points of view, while also sharing much of Apostolic tradition with one another.
If we want to understand the Apostolic tradition that came out of Jerusalem in a more complete framework, we might benefit from looking towards the East, yes. Even in the Byzantine Catholic faith of my Ukrainian godmother, there was a respect and awe of what is holy that was ‘more than’ and revealed itself in her humility and simplicity. I think her people brought with them to this country some elements of their heritage influenced by the humble Eastern Christian acceptance of sacred mystery, yes.
We Westerners could use more quiet time for pondering the holy in reverent prayer;
and less time spent in the intellectual ‘doctrinal’ hubris that results in the false pride of ‘being right’ about those things of God that are shrouded in mystery.
Ken F wrote:
I read it because LifeWay banned it.
@ Christiane:
actually that quote should be credited to KEN F.
“The atonement is MUCH bigger than a legal transaction.”
sorry for error
Debi Calvet, I feel the same way you do about contemporary church music. After growing up with it during the mid 70s through early 90s, and hearing the newer stuff in other contexts, I can’t stand it. The PCA church we were in until recently has a clear preference for stuff by Matt Redman, Keith Getty, etc. over the Trinity hymnal I was accustomed to for more than a decade. As for CCM, I was burned out on that by the time I graduated from college in the late 90s.
I can relate to what okrapod said earlier about the struggle over whether the things I don’t like may be helping someone else, and how I have no right to insist on my own preferences if everyone else seems to like it. Privately, I may believe that my educated musical tastes really are superior to so much culturally impoverished dreck that seems to attract more people, but good luck trying to persuade them otherwise. C.S. Lewis once mentioned his preference for high Anglican liturgy, and how loving his neighbors in church might entail putting up with some low church singing, for example. (Lewis disliked hymns altogether.) The last thing I’d ever want to do is come across as an elitist snob who doesn’t care about the welfare of fellow Christians. I suppose I could put up with what’s at church and listen to what I really like at home, but would that just fuel my discontent? Kind of hard to go elsewhere with only one vehicle right now.
Ken F wrote:
No, I haven’t read The Shack because the NeoCalvinists at my ex-church said that the author was a heretic. I will now read it on your recommendation.
I just bought a Today’s New International Version Bible (TNIV) because the Comp promoting ESV Bible promoters tried to quash the TNIV.
siteseer wrote:
‘performing’ before a quiet audience . . .
I’d rather be a part of a rousing faith-filled Sacred Harp a capella hymn than sit silently being ‘entertained’. The congregation is NOT an audience. Liturgy is ‘the work of the people’ together in worshiping God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDl7HH5q934
Ken F wrote:
I can’t bear to study anything more of John MacArthur’s. In fact, I took all of my NeoCalvinist books, including his, and tossed them in the recycling container. It felt so good.
I just find MacArthur, like Mark Dever and the rest of them, lacking in love. Their lack of love shows up in all of their poor decisions and teachings.
@ Ken F:
One needs to be careful to not skate too close to patripassionism.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Think about it this way, modern music is about 80% (or 90-95%) hymns that never made it into the hymnal. Except far more repetitive and musically weak. Most of it will be gone in 5-10 years.
Velour wrote:
In the first four chapters he sets up the rest of the book by describing a fictional account of why the main character would be so utterly angry with God. That part of the story is very disturbing to read. It might be better to start at chapter five for the first reading if you don’t want to wake up trauma. The chapter on judgement was the most informative and healing for me.
Today while walking my dog I finished part 4 of this 13 part series: http://perichoresis.org/the-shack-revisited-orama-great-barrier-island-2014/. The first 42 minutes of that segment is Baxter Kruger. Starting at about 42:25 is W Paul Young. If you have time to listen to it, it is very good (the first three parts have also been outstanding).
Christiane wrote:
Do you recommend any particular books or blogs from Eastern Orthodox Christians?
(My grandparents were Russian Orthodox Christians. They had a lovely church and
faith.)
Ken F wrote:
Thanks Ken F. for the suggestions about The Shack. Will do.
I will listen to Baxter Kruger this evening.
okrapod wrote:
And we also need to be careful not to skate to far to the other extreme of penal substitution where the relationship between the Father and the Son was broken. All penal substitution advocates I have heard point out Psalm 22:1 to prove that the Father turned away from the son: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” On the cross, Jesus did not have a lot of breath and energy to recite a complete Psalm, so he only quoted the first verse, which was a customary way of referring to a passage like this (I’m pretty sure that they did not title the Psalms by by number back then). Verse 24 says this: “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” This tells us that the Trinity was not divided during the crucifixion.
Velour wrote:
This poor man does NOT understand about the Good News, and yet so very many look to him.
@ Velour:
I learned about the eastern viewpoint from my godmother who was Byzantine Catholic (that’s Catholic, but a different ‘rite’ than the Latin ‘rite’);
but I also always enjoyed two other specific influences:
there is a blog favored by Imonk called ‘Father Orthoduck’ which is good thoughtful reading;
and then there is the music of the East, which you have yourself shared here (and thank you); I particularly admire the ‘basso profundo’ a capella voices which are so deep and reverent in their singing of the eastern hymns;
and I am in awe of the work of Roman Hurko and here is a sample of his choral work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo
The writings of Athanasius and the Cappodocian (sp?) Fathers is something I greatly admire. These Fathers of the Church represented a more Eastern point of view, which helped save the young Church from the heretical teachings of that day.
I am also an admire of John Chrysostom’s writing, which is so faith-filled, it radiates Our Lord’s light.
And Ken F. has shared a MAGNIFICENT site by Baxter Kruger, this:
http://perichoresis.org/free-lecture-series/
That should get you started. And for atmosphere, while you read, make some samovar tea! Good to know the faith of the ones who came before us. They are also with us in the Body of Christ even now. 🙂
@ Ken F:
So which, if any, of the multiple theories of the atonement did you settle on? FWIW I think that they all contain certain similarities.
There is a certain cognitive dissonance that I am having, so I might as well ask the question. Some of you are Orthodox or had ancestors who were Orthodox and some have studied Orthodoxy. You all seem to be emphasizing things like mysticism and simplicity and humility and quiet reflection and prayer and such. The problem is that when the local Greek Orthodox here have their spring money raiser and we go over there and among other things go to their church and listen to their presentation and browse the booksellers’ stuff and listen to them, they do not sound like that. They are religiously aggressive, very anti-catholic as to whether the west or the east is the one true church and/or churches, and we had that one court case here where the church sued a parent for not raising their child GO after the GO parent died since there had been a contract to that effect.
Now, I like these people, admire their business success, and just generally had rather deal with aggressive people because they don’t tend to get their feelings hurt, but still there is a difference between what I am hearing here on TWW and what I am seeing a couple blocks down the road.
Somebody help me with this.
NJ wrote:
I think it might – for me, when I leave church and I see the elders whistling their favorite hymn with such joy on their faces – I’m happy for them. But then I know that they’ll never do the sort of music I like so I can say that from the other side – it’s a sort of misery that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. When people sing, look around and you can read it on their faces how delightful it all is – but in my hymn-only churches, that’s a feeling that I miss out on.
Though I will say that I really did enjoy that video online of the special music where two instrumentalists played “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “House of the Rising Sun.”
Lea wrote:
The hymnals my church used were outdated as well – printed in 1991, quite a lot of the newer material didn’t exist at the time. I have no doubt that some of the songs from the past few decades will be as sacred as hymns in the future. I don’t doubt that when “In the Garden” was sung for the very first time everybody realized right away that it was a hymn-book worthy hymn they had heard.
okrapod wrote:
I have been following the discussion about the cross and Ken F’s research about Penal Substitution. The Eastern Orthodox view of Jesus death on the cross is quite different than the NeoCalvinist teaching on Penal Substitution Atonement.
Do Christians of any denomination “walk the talk” of their beliefs? If each Christian was the “only Bible someone ever reads” would how we treat others and conduct our lives measure up to what we profess with our lips about our faith? I think we can all say that we’ve seen plenty of problems with that occurring in our lives and churches which is why this blog exists.
The Greek Orthodox churches also have Spring food and music festivals in my area too.
I haven’t been but know people who love going to them. No one has mentioned being evangelized like in your area.
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics do seem to be in contention about whom had the “first church” and is the “real church”. I learned to ignore that growing up with some of my Russian Orthodox relatives who sincerely said that because that is what they were taught.
I look for the “fruit’ of someone’s faith and I don’t care what denomination they belong to. Do they love others?
Velour wrote:
Two years ago Emmanuel Enid (Wade’s church) had Paul Young come and preach. At some point during the weekend, Paul shared his life story. I remember listening to it and found it very moving. I believe it is important to know Young’s background because it helps those reading The Shack understand certain angles of his book.
It’s a long, but captivating message, which can be accessed at this link:
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=paul+young+and+emmanuel+enid+and+youtube&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
okrapod wrote:
The Eastern Orthodox view makes the most sense to me. Here’s a great article worth reading: http://www.pravmir.com/the-original-christian-gospel/. I was thinking of quoting a few sections, but it’s all very good. It touches on many of the discussion topics on this and the last thread.
Yesterday I fell in love with the Russian Orthodox polyphonic chants that several posted. I would be so tempted to become EO. But I cannot get past the way they practice church. To me it feels very oppressive – too much of the old Roman Empire. I watched a video I found on the website of an Orthodox church in my area that showed the priest preparing for the Eucharist. I have a hard time believing that the first century church did it this way. Not sure where to go from here.
Velour wrote:
I don’t think the Greek Church in our area ‘evangelizes’ in the conservative evangelical sense, no. Not at all. They are a faith community that celebrates its own specific Greek heritage, hence the glorious baklavas, spanakopita and lamb/eggplant dishes (yum!) for sale at the festivals.
Jamie Carter, yeah, I know what you mean. For myself, I have a hard time worshipping to certain kinds of music. It’s like I have an emotional block and end up with more focus on the music than God.
At least you never had to sing Amazing Grace to the tune of Gilligan’s Island (true story).
Deb wrote:
In part two of this series he gives a very detailed version of his story (almost 90 minutes): http://perichoresis.org/the-shack-revisited-orama-great-barrier-island-2014/.
Trauma alert! This is a very detailed story of abuse.
Deb wrote:
Thank you for sharing that, Deb. I will listen.
NJ wrote:
Or “A Mighty Fortress is our God” to the tune of “Come on Baby Light my Fire” (it really happened when I was in college).
NJ wrote:
Hysterical.
Did you get to wear Hawaiian shirts?
Ken F wrote:
Not to worry. What is that saying by Samuel Clemens? “”re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”
We are all being helped on the ‘sojourn’ by what we share with one another. Each faith community has gifts to offer the whole Body of Christ. We are ‘human persons’ each with our own distinctive point of view, and I see this is a good thing, in this way:
“The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray.” (Emerson ‘Self Reliance’)
I think IF we have good will towards one another, we are in a place to celebrate our diversity with one another, and not use it against one another.
You will see and understand what I cannot. And if you share your particular point of view, my own understanding is increased in that sharing.
We are all on the same journey, in a ‘strange land’, and it is not without Divine design that we are not carbon copies of one another. Enjoy your unique perception of what you encounter, don’t be troubled by it or mis-trust your own heart.
St. Nicholas/Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Cincinnati, Ohio has an awesome festival every summer. It’s cheap to get in, and you can park in the local Catholic high school lot and catch one of the buses they run to the event. Those gyros are delish, and you can watch kids dancing on stage. If you have kids of your own, you’ll spend more on the rides, plus the inside hall with all the booths has those expensive but oh-so-delicious treats (baklava sampler, anyone?).
I’ve been in the sanctuary where you can listen to a priest give a talk on the history of Orthodoxy. The guy I heard was a convert, and could easily have been mistaken for a Catholic priest in appearance. I thought he did a fair job laying out the history, without undue rancor. There was another room where you could see historical artifacts, and displays outlining the history of Orthodoxy in general, as well as the Greek version in particular. At no time did I get a sense of animus toward the other branches of Christianity. Maybe it depends on which diocese you’re in.
Christiane wrote:
I was thinking yesterday I should go to a bakery and buy a Napolean. My Russian grandparents made them from scratch. They had a Samovar. They made all kinds of food from scratch. Canned. When they saw a visitor approaching down the road, they would set the farm table with all kinds of cookies, pickles, homemade butter and bread. Everything.
Guests were given grocery bags of canned fruit and vegetables, homemade pickles,
and tins of homemade Russian cookies. Oh yes, and butter that my grandparents made.
Sometimes also bottles of milk from their cows.
Russian Easter dinners started after midnight Mass and ended at about 5 a.m.
My family gave my grandmother’s trunk from Russia that she brought in 1917 to the Angel Island Immigration Station for their museum. Angel Island is in the middle of San Francisco Bay.
My grandmother Natasha’s story is on the left, here: http://aiisf.org/immigrant-voices/discover/#sf-{“2″:”Russia”,”search-id”:”discover”}
Christiane wrote:
Yes!
@ Christiane:
Thanks for the Eastern Orthodox book recommendations.
@ Ken F:
Oh, no……LOL.
I remember once singing a reworked Eagles tune.
“I got a peaceful, easy feelin…
You’ll never let me down (or something like that)
cause I’m already standing
on solid ground.”
@ Christiane:
@ Velour:
I apparently did not make myself clear. I did not use the word ‘evangelize’ but I rather said ‘religiously aggressive’ which really is different. I mean more seizing an opportunity to explain what they believe and declaring that they are the one true church and while we are at it the Spirit proceeds from whom and don’t even question icons and furthermore aren’t you glad you have finally heard the truth. They do not accost people on the sidewalk or anything like that. So, that is why I did not call it evangelizing. It is apologetics seizing the opportunity.
Velour wrote:
I wish. It was at a Baptist summer camp (GARBC).
okrapod,
I’m sorry to hear that. I guess even the Orthodox have their fundies.
@ Velour:
I just started listening to it again. Set aside about an hour and a half. I think you will be deeply affected by what he shares.
@ NJ:
I would not call it animus so much as an enthusiastic attempt to blot out error, all done nicely but firmly. So, I don’t know, is it animus to think that one is right and the other guy is wrong? Maybe I need to stay away from the word aggression. Being aggressive is to take the initiative. It is a wonderful human trait, the opposite of which is passivity which may not be a mortal sin but it is not all that good a survival mechanism either.
Really, I have not meant to malign these people. I have meant to say that they do not seem to fit the picture which some seem to see. That is it. No more or less.
And yes, when I examine my thinking I may be a tad biased. Father Whoever from back there tried to maneuver around my car rather than wait a minute, swiped it down the side, asked me please to not report it to the insurance company and could we work something out. We could and did, but there was nothing about that whole scene or about how Father W wanted to handle it that fits some model of, well, mystical and prayerful silence. Nor was it about religion, so don’t anybody make anything out of this more than it is. But perhaps this may be influencing my perceptions.
NJ wrote:
Baptists don’t hula? I learned how to hula from the Dennis the Menace comic book.
Deb wrote:
OK. Thanks for the heads up, Deb. I will listen to it next weekend then, after I go hiking.
The GARBC aren’t IFBs, but I ‘ve never seen them dance.
Ken F wrote:
I hear you. Been there and done that about the what to do now issue. What I/we did was narrow down the list of non-negotionables to a very few, and then we could find something according to the narrowed down list. In one of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poems she says something about ‘the love I seemed to lose with my lost saints’. When one grows up and puts away childish things, somehow nothing ever quite replaces the ‘lost saints’ of one’s childhood religion. But when the lost saints have been discredited then that whole ease of believing is gone because now one knows and forever then knows that not everything is true.
Cue Muff about individual conscience, which we still have.
Ken F wrote:
And yet when you engage them with what a proof is and what it is not, they’ll say you’re infected with liberalism and no longer “believe the Bible”.
To which I reply:
Not true, I just don’t believe the Bible the way you believe the Bible.
okrapod, fair enough. Actually, what sticks in my craw is when some of them want to insist that to be authentically Orthodox is to also be eastern. In other words, there can be no such thing as Western Orthodoxy. Rome screwed that up too early, and too pervasively, for western church culture to be saved. Some jurisdictions like the OCA and the Antiochian are better in that regard.
Better in the sense that they don’t believe what I just outlined.@ NJ:
Velour wrote:
Velour, your grandmother Natasha (Natalya) was beautiful. What a great story! I am getting on in age and I remember how the old people canned food and saved fruit by preserving it in various ways. We are the poorer for not being more self-sufficient, I think.
Ethnic heritage is something to celebrate: I know my best memories are of visits to the memere and pepere up in the North, where love was ‘feeding people’ in abundance and with good hearts. I really enjoyed reading about your grandmother’s journey and what she went through to become a part of our land here. You have a special heritage! I think your kindness must be a part of that, because in your family, people struggled and worked hard in the face of difficulties, and that breeds a humility that often shows up in kindness towards others. It’s in your DNA. 🙂
Thanks again for sharing that link.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks OKRAPOD,
I know that there is no knowledge of ‘animus’ between the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic communities of my town where I was raised,
BECAUSE in school, the nuns taught us that, if we got hit by a bus in front of the Greek Orthodox Church down the road, the priest could come out and give us the last rites. Believe me, the nuns wouldn’t have said this, had they not had some faith in the integrity and respect that the Orthodox had for people of other faiths. I have never experienced any sense of animus on the part of Eastern Orthodox people, no.
Arminianism stands or falls on the existence of prevenient grace. Arminianist Robert Chiles has written that, if the doctrine of prevenient grace is wrong, Calvinist logic is irrefutable. In the article above, it says: “Arminians differ among themselves about some of the details of how God’s prevenient grace works, probably because Scripture itself does not give a detailed description.” Roger Olson, considered a leading Arminianist, has written that, to find prevenient grace in Scripture, one must read “between the lines.”
Most Arminianists believe in the concept of Total Depravity, yet they say that no one actually lives in this state because prevenient grace immediately steps in and gives mankind enough grace to be able to choose God or not. To them, then, TD is merely a hypothesis, not a reality.
Admittedly, our concepts of fairness are better served by Arminianism than Calvinism, but Scriptural support is hard to find unless one reads “between the lines.” The verses they give supporting prevenient grace, for example, are pretty easily refuted if you examine their contexts. Olson, in his book Against Calvinism, gives ONE Scripture reference supporting all of Arminianism.
I know that this comment will not exactly evoke feelings of contentment in most of those who read it, assuming they take it at all seriously. I’ve defended Calvinism (I wish it were called “Augustinianism”) enough on this blog to want to do it again. But I at least wanted to show how even some of its defenders are unsure of prevenient grace.
JeffB wrote:
Based on scripture, I reject both because both rely on bad assumptions. Calvinism cannot be supported even by reading between the lines.
I’m still looking for someone who will answer the penal substitution questions I posted here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-6/#comment-253033
If you are a defender of Calvinism, would you be willing to give it a try?
@ okrapod:
Great comment!
Muff Potter wrote:
Now you’re singin my song!
@ JeffB:
I have never understood why we need prevenient grace, either. Don’t get me wrong, I think people were horribly corrupted but I don’t think God had to invent grace in order for them to respond. He was always there providing rescue. Always available for wisdom.. Humans never lost the image of God, they threw it away. I put the responsibility totally on humans.
Ken F wrote:
Be sure to let us know how things develop. Right now you sure seem to be in the same place as I.
Christiane wrote:
Thank you so much for your, as always, kind and encouraging words.
It’s wonderful that you and I have had good memories of our grandparents. I think that is why I am protective, kind, and helpful to those who are immigrants, travelers, and in need. My grandparents did not speak very much English and were, despite how hard they worked and how self-sufficient they were, were still vulnerable in American culture.
So I always was gentle with them and learned to do same for other people.
I was sitting outside a college cafe a few years ago. A distressed student from Somalia
sat down in a chair at my table and poured out her heart to me and cried. She didn’t understand her medical assisting classes, her books. Her husband was killed in Somalia.
She has a young child. She was living with other people from her country, but was still alone. I listened, came up with an action plan to get her help from her instructor and the college, helped her with her homework, explained what it was asking, dried her tears,
gave her something to eat, and gave her my phone number and email.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve had the same experience but I would add that in my experience the aggressive EO “evangelists” were recent converts, people who washed out of protestant churches in the last few years and took refuge. Some of them adopted a “one true church” aspect of EO. Just my experience, you’re mileage may vary.
@ Velour:
You and Christiane are very fortunate to come from the people that you do. You have both turned out to be exceptionally compassionate people. I am glad that I get to listen in to some of your conversations here.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve had the same experience but I would add that in my experience the aggressive EO “evangelists” were recent converts, people who washed out of protestant churches in the last few years and took refuge. Some of them adopted a “one true church” aspect of EO. Just my experience, you’re mileage may vary.Ken F wrote:
Now that I think of it, they are making quite the assertion. They not only take scripture out of its proper context, they claim Jesus was quoting scripture out of context.
Yeesh, don’t hit the back button before making another comment.
Velour wrote:
If those people didn’t like the book and the author, then you know they’re good!
okrapod wrote:
Thank you for your kind words, Okrapod. I learn so much from everybody here, including you.
It wasn’t all roses in my family. There were the nice Russian Orthodox Christians and then some meanies on the other side of the family. So I just try to focus on the good examples in my family.
Have a great week.
Please pray for Harley who posts here, if you’d be so kind. Her foot surgery is Wednesday.
Patriciamc wrote:
Spot on.
NJ wrote:
Oh my heavens! The GO church in my area has the best festival! I’m a member in spirit twice a year: for the festival and the Christmas bake sale. I have to have some spanikopita and amygdalota, and those spice cookies with honey and nuts (can’t remember the name). I also love the talk in the sanctuary about EO. I also had a convert make a small comment about other flavors of Christianity, but it wasn’t too bad. I appreciate EO and enjoy the exotic aspect of it, but I disagree with the no women priests rule and the notion that they are the only true church. To me, churches that uphold the core tenants of Christianity (RC, EO, and the vast majority of Protestant denominations) are all true churches. To me, the ones that aren’t true are the ones that depart from the core beliefs: Mormonism, cult groups like Gothard, etc. As for evangelizing on websites, I think Internet Monk had an EO evangelist commenting on there for a while. For every, single post, he brought the point back to how EO was the best. People were really rolling their eyes after a while.
A Christmas bake sale? Ooh, I may have to investigate.
JeffB wrote:
Apologies in advance if I have totally misread your comment. Been that kind of day.
I appreciate that you linked Calvinism to Augustinianism, because I got myself into a bit of semi-hot discussion with a YRR pup about Augustine. The pup looooooooves Augustine but, when quizzed about some pretty important doctrines that flow from Augustine, he drew a blank. I think he is in love with Augustine’s Confessions and with the praiseworthiness-by-association with Augustine.
I also hope that you realize that Calvinists read between the lines, too. In fact, having been in various Calvinist circles along the Presby-Baptist spectrum, I can report that some of the most creative and intellectual-sounding theologizing is done by Calvinists of the Presby persuasion. Perhaps because they have had more time being Calvinists than Reformed Baptists have, though some sectors of Baptist thought are trying madly to rectify their deficit on this count. Piper, Grudem, and Dever come to mind.
One of the best between-line-readers I know of (one degree of separation several different ways) is theologically unhinged yet has managed to keep getting educated people to listen and fund him and his enterprises. Said unhinged Calvie is related in some respect to other issues discussed on this thread, but I’m not going to go there. Another one I have met on several occasions is in the pulpit of a church some of you would recognize, and said individual is every bit the con artist as any others discussed here.
Arminians have different ideas about Prevenient Grace. OK, but ask a P&R (or a Baptist!) what Baptism does, and see what kinds of answers you get. Hint: a variety.
It is complicated…
Bill M wrote:
I keep looking for the right church, but history seems to show that the church has always been pretty messed up. Even from the very beginning the Apostles Paul and John had to write letters to address dysfunction in churches. But if we found the right church we would probably worship it instead of God. Maybe church dysfunction is part of the master plan.
For now I am continuing to attend the same SBC church that I have been attending for the last 9 years. They have not gone down the YRR path, but I think it’s only a matter of time. A few years ago they decided that adult Sunday school was a bad idea (my pushback on that decision is what got me in so much trouble with the elders). But now it’s back, but with programs purchased from Lifeway. I fear this will be the gateway to full YRR. I have lost my enthusiasm for church. Being just one hole away from the buckle of the Bible belt, I’m not seeing any viable options for other churches.
@ Muff Potter:
joni mitchell
carole king
Patriciamc wrote:
Love those!!! Also pastitio. (We have a Greek food festival too-I guess that’s a thing).
I don’t think they have a Christmas one though! Will have to investigate.
@ NJ:
“At least you never had to sing Amazing Grace to the tune of Gilligan’s Island”
++++++++++++
oh, dang, that’s funny!
A|MAzing grace how |SWEET the sound that |SAVED a wretch like|ME (rest rest) i|
ONCE was lost but|NOW i’m found ’twas |BLIND but now I |SEE (rest rest) ’twas|
[modulate]
GRACE that taught my|HEART to fear and|GRACE my fears re|LIEVED (rest rest) how|
PRECious did that|GRACE appear the|HOUR i first be|LIEVED (rest rest) when|
[modulate]
WE’VE been there ten|THOUSand years bright|SHINing as the|SUN (rest rest) we’ve
NO less days to|SINGhis praise than|(rest) WHE-N WE’D|FI-RST BE-|GUN—|–||
@ Ken F:
a|MIGHTy fortress ISour-Go|OD (rest rest rest) a|
BULLwark never FAY-ay-li|ING (rest rest rest) a|
HELPer he aMID the-flo|OOD (rest rest rest) of|
MORTal ills preVAY-AY-li|ING (rest rest rest) for|
STILL OUR anCIENT-fo|OE (rest rest rest) doth|
SEEK TO workUS-wo|OE (rest rest rest) his|
CRAFT AND powerARE–| (rest) GREEEEAA|AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT (rest)|
(hmmmm….there’s 2 more lines left to sing….)
Velour wrote:
THIS is Christianity lived out…. beautiful !
Christiane wrote:
That’s what we’re supposed to do.
I was tutoring a college student from Vietnam in English and Business Law, since I have a paralegal education. She was behind on the Business Law and it took some gentle prodding from me to find out that she couldn’t afford the textbook and was using the copy in the college library. Her parents live in a little village in Vietnam and they couldn’t afford it.
So one evening I said to her, “I have to get a good pen in the college bookstore as the ink is out of mine.” I had her come with me, got the Business Law book, and paid for it and handed it to her. She cried.
The Vietnamese students decided since they had the Business Law textbook, they would
take turns taking the course each quarter and keep the book in pristine condition. She introduced me to these young scholars one night at a coffee shop. They were just beaming.
She said everybody in the village in Vietnam had heard about it from her parents. Why would someone buy a poor person from Vietnam from their village an expensive American textbook?
My reply: “God says that when you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.”
That’s why I did it.
Christiane wrote:
Amen!
Patriciamc wrote:
Thanks, friends.
My heart would break in a million pieces if I didn’t do the right thing when God puts a person in front of me.
I think people see that in me, as the Somalia woman honed in on me at my outside table and told me her situation, and no one else.
okrapod wrote:
Some of this is inexcusable; some of it is understandable. Bear with me a little, as I give a little background.
When Orthodoxy spread into different countries, the missionaries translated the Bible, the liturgical worship into the local language, and established the church within that country, with local bishops to be among the people. That is why you have Russian, Greek, Romanian, Serbian, American, Syrian, Antiochian, Bulgarian…etc. Orthodox Churches. It’s the same dogma, but presentation in different languages and music.
But the establishment of Orthodoxy in America has happened in a different way: it was brought by _all_ language groups, _all_ cultures as they immigrated to America–sometimes to get away from religious persecution, and sometimes walking _into_ racism/ethnic rejection in America. This has continued even into our time.
But over time, as the children of immigrants grew up, the children were more assimilated into America, and the parishes mutated into Cultural Preservation Clubs…a place where the old people could worship in their native tongue (which makes a difference in worship!) but also a place to pass along the culture to the young people, and even to try to prevent their assimilation. This need not be a bad thing…but in some places people have lost sight of the _church_ part and it has all become cultural preservation. I know of a priest who visited an ethnic church and was told that it was not Christ’s church but the RUSSIAN church. I myself have been asked, “Why are you here? You are not Greek!” This is heresy, and I am not using that term loosely, but canonically–to hold that the Church belongs to one ethnic group or another has been deemed a heretical teaching. (There’s a fancy word for it that eludes me right now.)
So maybe to some degree, that will explain what you experienced. It is wrong, and I am sorry that this happened to you. May God have mercy on those who have made this mistake. And even as they made it, perhaps understanding the background will help resolve some of your dissonance.
As for humility, we should always be humble. Always. But if we are going to fail at humility, it is likely to be much more the case at a Parish Festival which is celebrating the motherland of a particular parish. It’s part of the reason our priest has kept us from holding a festival (beyond the question of what an American Ethnic Festival would LOOK like–right?). That doesn’t _excuse_ the lack of humility but perhaps it explains it a little. And, yeah, some parishes just … don’t get it.
But a lot of parishes do. And it might not be entirely visible to people who are not part of the parish, but I promise you, it is there. It was one of the things that drew me to my parish, seeing people love their enemies (who had guns and big mouths and meth labs) and pray for them; seeing people feed the hungry; asking and offering forgiveness for offenses; caring for one another post-partum or in illness; burying the dead with care and love. But it isn’t that visible to those not in the parish…because to advertise humility is sort of oxymoronic, right? 🙂
So I know it is there…and that sometimes it is not. When people tell me they want to visit an Orthodox parish, I try to locate one near to them that is past the ethnic heresy. I know it is out there, and I am sorry. But I also know of far more welcoming parishes, filled with humble people who seek Christ and to be like Him.
I hope this doesn’t sound snooty. I was Protestant for 50 years, 30 years of it in 2 wonderful Presbyterian churches. Many of the people in those churches are better Christians than I ever will be, including my BFF.
By the way, one of the big benefits to me of reading TWW has been to understand why so many are “nones and dones” now–I had no idea of the kind of awfulness that so many on this blog combox have experienced because my experience was a good one. BI am starting to understand the nones and the dones, and even to wonder if I would not be a “done” about now, given the direction my former church has gone combined with the things that have happened in my life over the past 10 years…
Maybe the background provided here will give a little ease to the dissonance re: what you experienced.
@ Velour:
i read the story of your grandmother, Natasha — so interesting, so evocative. i feel like i know her. i wish i could have met her. and your grandfather. do you have the recipe for his spicy vodka?? (did you write that story, about your grandmother? it was lovely to read)
Two books that might be of interest for those who want to read the Church Fathers but are jumpy about reading outside of a Protestant viewpoint might want to check out these two books by James Payton. He has a good understanding of EO teachings but has remained a Protestant. I found them very interesting and have been reading through the latter for awhile.
Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition
A Patristic Treasury: Early Church Wisdom for Today
@ elastigirl:
Thanks Elastigirl for your kind comment. I would have loved for you to have met Natalie and John, my grandparents. They would have welcomed you like family. If you had been there in the Spring time when the calves were born, Grandpa John would let you name one as your very own each Spring. My first calf was tan and white. I named her “Taffy”.
I don’t have Grandpa’s Vodka recipe. They didn’t measure anything. They just did it by sight. In the case of Vodka, buy the hottest red peppers you can find and add them to different bottles of Vodka. Maybe 3 in one bottle, 6 in another, etc. I don’t remember how many that he put in them. Let them age for months. Then try some.
My sister wrote the story. I had my grandmother’s trunk from Russia and I had played with it upstairs at the farmhouse since I was a toddler. A big leather trunk with cream fabric on the inside with a pattern of violets. I’d had it for years since my grandmother died and I decided to ask the Angel Island Foundation in San Francisco if they wanted it. They did for the Immigration Station Museum on Angel Island. It’s a nice ferry ride from
San Francisco or Marin County to the island which is a state park.
The curators at the Immigration Station Museum had to buy everything for the collection and the trunk was the first period piece that they didn’t have to buy. So my sister wrote up the story when they asked for it. The photo with the Chinese writing is from her passport photo and it was stamped in Harbin, China.
I have the Russian Orthodox Church cookbook from their church. I’ll let you know if I find any interesting recipes and post them.
@ Ken F:
Are you using The Gospel Project in Sunday School?
@ PaJo:
Thanks, PaJo. I just copied your post about these books to the top of the page, under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/etc. tab so that people can find the titles easily in the future.
Deb wrote:
No, I think that would be too obvious because that curriculum is clearly Calvinist. They are using “Disciples Path.” I have not been able to find out much about it other than it is Lifeway.
@ Velour:
🙂
@ Bridget:
Thanks Bridget and other folks for the prayers. My eye situation WAS very freaky and really strengthened my prayer life! My vision is slowly getting better. I did read that it can happen in the other eye, but hopefully this eye will clear up first, and hopefully that won’t happen. Glad to know you’re fine, Bridget. The ironic thing is that I work with students who are visually impaired, so I not only know what could happen, but I also gained instant compassion for my students.
elastigirl wrote:
Amen! to both artists!
Ken F wrote:
What? No!!!
okrapod wrote:
This is so profound.
Former CLCer wrote:
Oh, my goodness, so does my husband (teacher of the visually impaired in a local public school district), who is recovering as you are.
Arminius was a reformed theologian. Framing the debate as Arminianism vs. Calvinism leaves out, well, the 75+% of Christians who don’t have much dog in the fight.
This quiz is deliciously close to Christian Universalism. I like it 🙂
Ken F wrote:
In fact, this is true. Surely you’ve read the famous passage in John 3:16 –
Ken F wrote:
Here’s the thing. It may be obvious to you that The Gospel Project is ‘clearly Calvinist”, but to someone who knows absolutely nothing about how the study was put together, they don’t have a clue.
For example, the vast majority of Southern Baptists who are now using The Gospel Project (TGP) most likely don't have any idea that the Advisory Panel for TGP is 100% Calvinist.
Furthermore, those who put The Gospel Project together were extremely careful with how the lessons were written because they knew from the get go that if they slipped in their Reformed theology, they would be severely criticized.
There are quite a few quotations by Calvinists included in the lessons which I daresay most non-calvinists would not recognize. In Volume 1 (God’s Story), there are quotes by D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, John Piper, and J.D. Greear. Of course, they throw in quotes by Billy Graham, Adrian Rogers, and John Wesley just to get the participants used to seeing the names of these ‘authorities’.
In the volumes that follow, more and more Calvinist names are introduced. I chuckled when I saw Jonathan Leeman quoted in The Gospel Project. Do non-calvinists know anything about him? Not a chance!
Perhaps you saw the post I wrote discussing all of this — What Non-Calvinists Should Know About The Gospel Project®
@ Debi Calvet:
Yes, that’s what I am as well. Prayers for him. I know what it feels like.
@ Deb:
What I saw of the Gospel Project was that the material & those presenting the videos were the true authority. Even the session leaders were told to not trust themselves. That reminded me of some the cult stuff I’ve read. You are wrong. You know nothing. We know all. The course did not seem to be about expanding consciousness but narrowing it down to a very strict belief system. Kind of like Purpose Driven with God has only 5 purposes for you.
Deb wrote:
Sadly, just as many Southern Baptists did not know that their denomination was being taken over by the FUNDAMNTALISTS very few southern baptist in the pews know their denomination is being taken over by the CALVINISTS!
@ mot:
Interesting spelling of the 'F' word. 😉
@ Jack:
Agreed. Why are there members of The Gospel Project Advisory Board who aren't even Southern Baptist?
Way to go LifeWay. 🙁
Deb wrote:
mot is right. The Southern Baptist Cluelessness (SBC?) goes so far beyond TGP. Most don't know that most of the seminaries, the NAMB, the IMB, and LifeWay are controlled by YRR. They don't even know neo-Calvinists exist! Al Mohler, Jared Moore, David Platt, Thom Rainier ……… aw shucks, they're just good ol' boys!
Deb wrote:
Brings back memories.
About 30 years ago I was sitting with the finance committee of the hospital board of trustees on which sat the SBC pastor of First in a nearby town. So he said something or other about the Fundamnmentalists and the hospital administrator saw his opportunity and said ‘Dr. X isn’t your daughter a student at Liberty?’. So I looked at the pastor and he looked at me and we knew. What we did not know is that it was already too late to save the hospital specifically because of financial mismanagement. Oh well, at least he was not a fundamnmentalist.
@ okrapod:
Clarification. I was not a member of the board. I had been asked in to discuss the issue of whether the radiology department could generate more income for the hospital. I am not pretending to be something more than what I was.
@ okrapod:
I have witnessed quite a few similar incidents. The thing is, that is totally accepted now, and even admired.
And never mind the financial mismanagement…. if your politics are correct.
@ Jack:
And worse they developed a cradle to grave curriculum with that indoctrination. They wined and dined bloggers like SBC Voices to not only promote it but to defend it against uncomfortable questions concerning the contributors and the focus. They were downright insulting to anyone who dared question anything about this life saving curriculum.
One of the contributors was James MacDonald, of elephant debt fame, who had just recently wrote an article, “Congregationalism is from Satan”!
That is about as unbaptist as you can get. Now MacDonalds mega empire for Jesus is in the SBC.
Lydia wrote:
Beside the point, but isn’t there another James Mac/McDonald who is Quiverfull? For me it’s as confusing as the various Jareds who pop up in the SBC.
Anyway, this question screams at me: What do James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Paige Patterson and C.J. Mahaney have in common? I apologize to all the others I should have included. It is not primarily doctrine which has been amazingly flexible for these men and others. It isn’t practice, which is similarly flexible, at least between the clergy class and the pewpeons. It is centralized power. It is empire building, and I do not mean the Kingdom of Jesus, the Messiah. Each of these men has built man-centered empires and has called disciples after themselves to multiply their ranks and expand their empires.
What I have observed over these many years in evangelicalism is the erasure of long-standing boundaries (which are healthy, IMO) which protected other communities from the pathology of each of those communities. ISTM that we now have an amalgamated evangelicalism that has no boundaries of principle. And the unifying rally cry for this process has been “Unity” or “For the sake of the Kingdom” or “For the Gospel” or my personal favorite “For the fame of Jesus’ name.”
It seems to be the spirit of the age that every aspect of our lives–secular and church–is trending toward less freedom, less individual agency/responsibility/freedom, less virtue/principles/values, and toward a weird sort of pseudo-hyper-individualism that is a disaster in the making if one is concerned about human potential and flourishing (oh, how I hate the way that word has been re-purposed.)
Lydia wrote:
What??
I would have had no idea any of this YRR/neo-cal takeover stuff was happening if it weren’t for this site. I just knew I couldn’t manage to make myself ‘fit’ at a Baptist or non-denom church anymore. I didn’t know WHY.
Yes, there is another James McDonald (sp?) who was involved in the homeschooling/quiver-full movement. I once got them confused.
Yours is such an excellent comment that we need to include it in an upcoming post.
@ Clayton:
“Arminius was a reformed theologian. Framing the debate as Arminianism vs. Calvinism leaves out, well, the 75+% of Christians who don’t have much dog in the fight.”
+++++++++++++++++++
i imagine that if the relatively small faction of neo-calvinists weren’t yipping & prancing around as the only viable alpha male, this kind of clarification would not have been necessary in the first place.
@ Deb:
I’m guessing it’s not just SBC being targeted. I’ve seen non evangelical denominations on 9 marks lists or was it acts 29? Plus they probably want to target lucrative indie mega churches where the power is already focused on the pastor.
@ Lydia:
It will be up to Baptists to reclaim their denomination. Or any denomination for that matter. Education will play a big part in that. Forewarned is forearmed. Unfortunately most just abandon ship leaving the assets to the usurpers. Or maybe the majority of Christians like the assuredness of what the Calvinists are selling. I don’t really have a frame of reference anymore as I’ve pretty much left the faith.
Jack wrote:
I don’t know about the majority of Christians re calvinism, but people do like to absolutely sure that what they believe is absolutely true. With that assurance they can go ahead and commit themselves to it. That very commitment then gives meaning to their lives. Nobody wants to fall of the cliff into ‘futility futility, all is futility’.
Lea wrote:
Yes, I saw that alarming quote too.
Like you, I find that I — and many other faithful Christians that I know — also couldn’t fit into one of these NeoCalvinist, authoritarian churches. It seems we aren’t the only ones. 200,000 living members are fleeing the Southern Baptists every year, fed up with NeoCalvinism, Complementarianism, and Authoritarianism.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, I like your *Biblical* Commentaries.
@ Jack:
I think it is too late to reclaim. I do think the SBC will be around for a while, though. Did you know the Neo Cals voted to change the name to “Great Commission Baptists”. Al Mohler even tweeted after the vote that Southern Seminary would now be known as the Great Commission Baptist Seminary. That was several years back. I pass it every day. Sign was never changed.
I think those who view Jesus Christ so differently than the typical Protestant/Catholic framework/structure will find each other. Let’s hope they don’t institutionalize themselves too much.
Keep in mind I predicted the demise of mega churches 15 years ago. :o)
I could not have been more wrong. There is always an upcoming generation to win with new strategies and programs.
Velour wrote:
How long before they build a Berlin Wall topped with razor wire and minefields around their churches to keep their people in?
Gram3 wrote:
Totally agree. Both church and gov are into controlling us under the guise of helping. It’s as if they want dependent little lemmings because it is all about power and control. And the best way to do that is pitting groups against each orher and promoting groupthink and shaming freedom of conscious. It makes issues impossible to discuss from all angles.
Lydia wrote:
A Mass Movement can get by without a God, but always requires a Devil.
And WITCHES among us to be smelled out and burned.
@ Lea:
Here are a few blog posts Bill Kinnon wrote about it
http://kinnon.tv/?s=Congregational+ism+is+from+Satan&submit=Search
Ken F wrote:
I once heard “Amazing Grace” sung to the tune of “House of the Rising Sun”, but that was just a guy with a guitar seeing if he could do it; nothing official.
And Dr Demento had a track with “Gilligan’s Island” sung to “Stairway to Heaven”; the two matched perfectly, just like “Amazing Grace” and “House of the Rising Sun”.
They say J.S.Bach used to crack up whole choirs using segments and riffs from local drinking songs in his church music, and I have found myself singing filk lyrics to hymns with the same tune — “If you’ve a knife, you’ve no need for a Crown”. (Though I never sang “Lord of the Dance” using the Wiccan filk lyrics — the filk tune was different from the one usually used in church.)
@ Deb:
I remember. His wife Stacy co wrote a book called, “Passionate Housewives”, a take from the popular show at the time. They were also very busy making sure there are no bad reviews on Amazon.
They were affiliated with Doug Phillips as if that does not say it all.
Velour wrote:
Didn’t this one Rabbi from Tarsus (the same Rabbi these guys cite chapter-and-verse) write something on that very subject?
Lydia wrote:
Like the Eighties saying in local SF fandom:
“It’s gotta be good! All the Christians are denouncing it!”
Think about that for a minute.
Lydia wrote:
Douggie ESQUIRE (he really liked that faux-Title of Nobility, didn’t he?), keeboarping his Commander’s Handmaid.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
David Hayward/Naked Pastor in Canada has some great cartoons on these topics.
I’m on Twitter too and get some of them that way.
After my excommunication/shunning from a NeoCalvinist church I ordered his
hysterical cartoons:
*”Held For Questioning” – 4 question marks sitting on bunk beds in a jail cell
being guarded by 2 exclamation points outside their cell
http://nakedpastor.com/2014/11/do-you-get-in-trouble-for-asking-questions/
*”Don’t Worry About It! That’s their problem!” Jesus with His staff hugging two black sheep and a crowd of angry white sheep staring at them.
*A God’s Baggage cartoon.
Person asked God who is loaded down with a backpack and towing luggage why God comes with “so much baggage”. God responds “This is your [manure], not mine!”
@ Deb:
Well, truth is, it was more of a rant/vent. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
Thanks! Will check it out.
Lydia wrote:
So, I wonder if James MacDonald has run that up the 9Marks flagpole yet…They do hold to a form of Congregationalism but deny the power thereof.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes.
And as someone pointed out on some other threads that Love is the ONLY Biblical mark of a healthy church and it doesn’t even appear on Mark Dever’s 9 Marks of a [un]Healthy Church list.
@ Gram3:
From what I could find looking into this years back they use that word in the same way the Puritans did. And what is even weirder is that I ran into it again reading John Adams describing that Puritan form of church gov. He was not a fan.
I guess to them it was congregational compared to a state church with a king who was the defender if the faith. :o)
Lydia wrote:
Well, that and the ability to skim resources off the top, regardless of whether we are talking about government agency officials or church/parachurch officials. It is a great skill to con people into thinking they are out to help the “little people” (however it is convenient to define that term) when really what they want to do is take their cut along with the others with power. If you can corral good intentions of people who do not look at cold, hard facts and reality, you can get away with the con.
Hi Wartburgers,
A couple of prayer requests:
*Billy in Texas is starting high school tomorrow. (The child abuse case that Dee wrote about and that a TX church blew handling.) Please pray for his school year, for him to have good friends.
Please pray for provision for him and his Mom. The GoFundMe account that Dee started for them is still open. It would be nice if people here could contribute every month to it, as their own personal funds permit. This helps Marquis (mom) with food and bills.
Billy will need money for his Driver’s Ed class every month. It’s several hundred dollars I believe. This is a “lab” class at the school.
Thanks to whomever it was on Wartburg who got Billy a computer which he needed for his school work. I posted that many times.
Thanks to Catholic Gate-Crasher who is buying him clothes with her employee discount and sending them to Texas.
*Harley’s foot surgery. She’s been in a great deal of pain and is having foot surgery on Wednesday. She’s also in Texas. Please pray for a successful surgery and recovery.
Please pray for Harley’s husband who will be taking care of her post surgery.
Thank you, friends!
By the way, here is the GoFundMe account link that I mentioned above for Billy and his mom:
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
@ Gram3:
It’s also like the special rules or exclusion from some rules for the elders/gov leaders but not the peasants. The rules are mandated for the peasants by the leaders.
And many peasants defend this!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=amazing+grace%2fhouse+of+the+rising+sun&qpvt=amazing+grace%2fhouse+of+the+rising+sun&FORM=VDRE
Lotz of people/groups to that. I saw a tv show where a group in New Orleans sang it …… don’t remember what show.
@ Ken F:
That’s quite a daunting list of questions in your older comment. I noticed that you referenced a page from Theopedia. On that page they quote 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13. They seem to me to be pretty good answers (for a start, at least) for your first two questions. It also mentions Rom 3:25, a good answer to question 3 (particularly read in context).
By “explicitly, I wonder if you mean Biblical evidence that answers your questions in a sort of legal language that dots every “i” and crosses every “t.” As you know, the Bible isn’t written that way, with the partial exception of the Mosaic Law.
“This particulate theory of atonement was invented during the reformation. If true, it means that the church got it wrong for 1500 years. Some go so far as to say one cannot be a Christian without believing this theory, which means there were no true Christians until about 500 years ago.”
I highly doubt that believing in the penal substitution theory of the atonement is necessary to being a believer, though some may say so.
Concerning the history: Justin Martyr (c.100 – 165) wrote: “If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?” Not a “full-orbed” explanation, admittedly, but close. Eusebius (c. 275-339) wrote something similar, with a little more detail.
Concerning God being satisfied with sacrifice, I think you have to go back to the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law, particularly its insistence on a spotless lamb.
A book I have called “Pierced For Our Transgressions” contains over 100 pages answering objections to penal substitution. Yes, it’s written by (apparently) three, uh, Augustinians, and has an introduction by the dreaded Piper, but I think you would find it worth having, if you don’t have it already.
Lydia wrote:
Highborn and Lowborn, just like Game of Thrones.
Trained very well as domesticated livestock for the Highborn.
JeffB wrote:
I tend to think (like Pre-Mil) it goes back farther than that, but remained a minority opinion until the Reformers grabbed it and ran with it.
Velour wrote:
My old D&D Dungeonmaster once used similar imagery in describing various religious terms:
1) Start with the symbol of the religion (in our case, a cross).
2) Atheism: Symbol with red circle-and-slash over it.
3) Agnosticism: Symbol with question mark.
4) Satanism/Diabolism: Symbol upside down.
5) Fundamentalism: Symbol with exclamation point(s).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeah he did, but the thing is, you gotta’ spin it so that it’s little more than just shrubbery along the true path of what’s way more important about all things Paul.
Gram3 wrote:
“FOR THE COLLECTIVE, COMRADES!”
Lydia wrote:
Party First, Comrades.
Clayton wrote:
And Luther, Calvin, and the Pope could agree 100% on only one thing:
A Final Solution to the Anabaptist Problem.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Bingo. Some were independent thinkers who would not go along with state church thinking. No freedom of conscious allowed.
(They were by no means monolithic)
Lea wrote:
I was pretty much in the same boat. I could smell something in the wind, but I couldn’t quite track it down. I have no doubt that I am child of God, but church made me angry (still does). Our pastor (a 72 year old local, now retired) would politely say things like, “I disagree with Calvinsim”, and “I do not believe that a husband is the prophet, priest and king of the marriage and home”.
But, guest speakers quote Dever, Piper, and Platt …. and the men shout “Amen!” When the guest speakers wives sing or whatever in front of the congregation, they roll over and play dead until their husband/masters give them the command to perform (good doggie? uhg!).
This stuff just started during the last few years. It is full throttle at the church we currently attend, and is creeping into the very small church we left in 2013.
I first started picking up on it when we changed churches and I discovered my husband was treating me like I didn’t count. I was too shocked to say or do anything for a few months, but now I’m flat out angry. I’m outspoken and very blunt, so I stopped attending church. I know one more condescending comment about women and my anger will take control of my tongue.
I’m staying in my Elijah cave for now, lest those Jezebel men have me beheaded!
siteseer wrote:
“Take your workbooks and turn with me
To the chapter on Authority…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X0N_bn1hbg
Gram3 wrote:
Term that came immediately to mind without finishing the paragraph: Authoritarian.
Steve240 wrote:
Like “Democratic” in the official name of a Third World Dictatorship.
(The more adjectives about “Democracy” in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship that country is.)
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Doc Fundy, could you suggest a resource or two that would provide an overview of the spectrum of soteriologies? I’m all too familiar with the Calvinism/Armenianism debate that this article outlines, and I’m hoping that a better understanding of the salvific spectrum would add some needed context. It certainly seems to have helped you to better understand the bigger picture. And I’m googling it too.
Thanks.
Nancy2 wrote:
I don’t blame you a bit. That’s awful.
I’m kind of in a different position than a lot of people, in that I was never ‘done’ exactly, but I would occasionally visit and could never settle anywhere. I thought this was more about not liking the music and finding the sermons’ thin and having seen behind the church staff curtain as a child and thus not ever having that blind trust of staff…but I think it was something more too. Before I found this site, I started attending my mainline, women ordaining, hymn singing church and haven’t looked back.
@ okrapod:
Hilarious!
Lea wrote:
Which denomination is that, please? I’ll keep it in mind and look for churches in my area, as well as refer others to it.
@ Velour:
PCUSA. It’s also old school Calvinist and super liberal.
It’s funny, I read an article by that Nate Sparx guy about how he as a progressive (meaning, I believe, politically) had to leave the evangelical church. I am mostly conservative, but I have left too.
I think you have to decide what are the things that are important to you about church and go from there, I guess. Politics is not what I consider important in church, but an overemphasis on it can detract from the actual mission. And I think sadly that has happened in a lot of denominations. I kind of wish all churches would just drop politics entirely for a few years and see what the fruit might be.
@ Nancy2:
I sure hope your husband sooner, rather than later, realizes how blessed he is to be married to you, a Woman Who Will Not Be A Doormat.
@ JeffB:
Just want to throw out the idea that the idea of stains/spots/uncleanness had to do with shame and honor and likely not with Western judicial theories. The scapegoat idea is similar. The question, then, is whether the Atonement is primarily concerned with removing the dishonor brought upon humanity and upon the very Name of God when the first humans disobeyed their King who was also the Lawgiver or whether it is primarily a Western legal transaction, for lack of a better word. Same for the Temple sacrifices.
Are you familiar with Sproul’s declaration at T4G (2008?) where he received applause for saying that the Father was saying “God dam* you” at the Son on the cross? I found that rather appalling. Sensational, but appalling.
Lea wrote:
Thanks.
Somebody else here (LawProf?) commented once before about being in a liberal church even though he and his wife were conservatives. They found like-minded conservatives and met with them, including I believe for Bible Study. The church leaders left them alone
and didn’t interfere. How refreshing.
In thinking about all of these NeoCals at my former church, who insist that women can’t teach, preach, and lead, I knew that wasn’t true. My Presbyterian grandmother had many women friends who were medical missionaries (doctors) in remote villages around the world. Those women carried The Gospel, taught, and improved the lives of countless people, bringing them to Christ. I saw the pictures.
The rabid NeoCalvinists who have Chrislam and Shehad (She+had, sounds like jihad for the NeoCals’ “war on women”, Brad/FuturstGuy’s TM) don’t realize that women have had the roles and done a fine job of it.
Nancy2 wrote:
Good for your retired pastor for sounding the warning bell.
You aren’t the only one that’s angry, Nancy2. Many of us are. My jaw just about dropped on the ground when my (ex) NeoCalvinist pastor told us that we had to “obey” and “submit” as women. My grandmother, a Presbyterian, died at 102 years old. Not even her denomination pulled that jive.
It’s destructive what’s happened in our churches because of NeoCalvinism, Complementarianism. You aren’t the only one sitting out church. A whopping 200,000
living members are angry and fed up, just like you are, with these authoritarian teachings that have NOTHING to do with The Gospel.
I’ve been commenting here for some time, but I felt moved to lurk.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Some of the best *commentaries* I’ve read on the Bible including published are from
the British Isles.
You and God have a lot in common. He lurks too.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is where most are. It’s not like they tell you they planned to take over entities and churches for Calvin. By the time any figured it out, it was too late. That movement mastered gaslighting and teaching it to the young pups.
@ Gram3:
I do not remotely see how the execution of an innocent person would restore anybody’s honor, or pay anybody’s debt or serve as a ransom (and for that matter a ransom from whom) or how it was satisfaction in any way, or how that would somehow defeat Satan. And as to some scape goat idea, really? God is happy to make some innocent person a scape goat? And that would be regardless of whose idea it was and regardless of the willingness of the victim and regardless of the resurrection for that matter.
I think we are missing something, but I do not know what it is.
Lea wrote:
Me too. The Liberal churches I have visited really push it as if you aren’t a Christian if you don’t agree on every issue. They can be the same in attitude on the other end of the spectrum. They view it as Righteousness.
Lydia wrote:
They can tend that way if they aren’t careful.
I don’t believe you should have to pick your church based on your politics.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That’s what membership contracts and “church discipline” are for, right?
Deb wrote:
some cults aren’t so ‘subtle’ in their ‘projects’ for the indoctrination of children
Steven Furtick made a ‘coloring book’ which will likely set the golden-calf standard for some time to come in how far a cult will go to foster idolization of its ‘visionary’ pastor:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2014/02/19/if-i-made-a-coloring-book-for-my-church-vision/
Gram3 wrote:
there are still people in the world who leave the phoniness behind them and find their own way back to a simpler existence that has more meaning for them …. one of these people lives in Sweden and left a major city to go back and live in the summer cottage of her family in the far north in a small area of ten residents. There she made her way by selling her photographs and paintings, and she became a famous blogger. She was later named ‘the most inspirational person’ in Sweden, so apparently in that country, going ‘back to basics’ is much admired. There is a movement in our own land to live more simply, and it has great fascination for me, as I have an ‘old soul’ longing for less ‘getting and spending’. Meet Jonna from Sweden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvtT3UyhibQ
Velour wrote:
… angels unawares, an’ a’ tha’. 😉
Best regards,
God
Velour wrote:
I kept thinking of these 2 when we were talking about music-
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/files/2013/02/singing-songs.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/memorize-worship.jpg?resize=550%2C550
@ okrapod:
That is what honor killings are all about. In my opinion, that is what makes the Atonement not the *same* as but rather very *different* from honor killings in shame/honor cultures. In that instance, someone has to pay the price to restore honor. In the case of the Atonement, God sacrificed himself to restore honor both to his name and also to humanity. That is a very strong differentiation from human culture while at the same time using human culture pedagogically. Same with the scapegoat in the OT. The shame/sin of the people is placed on the scapegoat who is then sent out to carry that shame away. Another type of the God-Man.
There is a theory that Jesus was actually crucified not at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre but rather outside the gates to the east where the large cemetery is. That makes a lot more sense to me, both logistically for the Romans and in fulfillment of the type. The cross itself was shameful, and so was the manner in which Jesus was displayed to gawkers. The Romans intended to make an example of him, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, only not in the way they intended.
Ted wrote:
… actually, I was joking. When I say “the scripture is wrong”, I’m poking fun at the fact that so many people who pride themselves on their strict adherence to scribsher, nevertheless always have an excuse for the scribshers they don’t want to obey. In this case, saying that God has reconciled all things to himself implies that the cross accomplished far more than just atonement for us, via penal substitution or penal anything else.
In my head, this makes sense. But I don’t blame you for asking the question…
The scripture is not disturbing (and I think we’re of the same mind here). It’s spine-chillingly mind-blowing. As a rule of thumb, humanity is far likelier to underestimate the purposes of God than to overestimate them. Probably.
@ God:
Word to the wise:
If you’re going to comment as “God” – proof-read the input fields before you comment again straight away.
🙁
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I moved (to the mountains) where the interwebs are so deficient I can barely even lurk!
@ Gram3:
Do I understand you to be saying that this makes sense to you? To me it only ‘makes sense’ if we basically change much of what we have been thinking about the character of God. I just watched Craig on St Anselm’s theory and how Anselm also was talking about justice, not just satisfaction, and actually read from Anselm’s book to that effect. Okay, so in our culture we can talk about crime and punishment, and that justice needs to be served and I get that, but we do not talk about substitution of the innocent for the guilty nor do we talk about blood sacrifice-at all-for any reason. It is not all that difficult to come up with some theory linked to various prior understandings, but what I find impossible is to see how compiling one injustice (the death of the innocent) on top of another injustice (sin) somehow makes it all better.
Unless, God is just like that and we had all best just go hide under the bed. Now, that is a possibility for sure. So what I am saying is not-what do people say about the atonement-I got that. I know what they say. What I am saying is how can we get past the apparent moral breach that these theories seem to think is okay. And for full disclosure, the Jews say that putting to death the innocent for the guilty is forbidden in scripture. Not talking about goats here, talking about people.
God wrote:
One of the best sermons I ever heard went through numerous scribshers possibly interpreted as times when you were joking. Glad to know you’ve still “got it”!
Gram3 wrote:
You have described one of the most mysterious and powerful paradoxes of our faith. Sometimes we overlook the great power of sharp ‘contrast’ to shock us into awareness: that this Person dying on a Roman cross would someday overcome pagan Rome defies all logic, and for that fact alone, is compelling for those who see something in play that goes beyond ‘reason’ into faith.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Just like a Madrassa in Pakistan.
okrapod wrote:
This ‘something’ may include the type and magnitude of the power to heal all Creation within the Paschal Mystery. I think about this when I go back and read from two related sources: the book of the prophet Isaiah, and the Holy Gospel of St. John. There are some references in the book of Revelation that also are connected.
I don’t think we are so much ‘missing something’ as it may be greater than we can comprehend, and therefore in the realm of ‘mystery’. There comes a point where faith translates into ‘trust’, which I think is something of an affirmation of faith in the way it calms our fears and celebrates our hope.
Okrapod–some folks don’t see a moral breach because they don’t see Jesus dying to somehow pay off the Father. Or being put to death to do so.
They see it more as “law of the universe states x punishment for deed y.” And so the ONE GOD of the universe volunteered to take the punishment and in so doing defeat Satan. More Christus Victor and less penal substitution. And of course it is the law giver Who volunteers to take the punishment decreed.
Or like if you saw a three year old about to get hit by a truck, knew you could not move fast enough to save him without getting hit by the truck yourself, and still pushed him to safety. Or saw someone drowning, knew you would drown if you rescued her, and did so anyway.
I think it is less about the punishment or legal clearing of a sentence or debt, and more about illustrating the awesome love God has for His creatures. He literally would die to save us.
If I committed a heinous crime, were sentenced to a torturous death, and my hubbby stepped up and took the sentence, I don’t think I’d waste a lot of mental energy trying to decide if the sentence were fair but rather be blown away by that kind of breath taking human love.
And then to have the Creator show me that kind of sacrificial love? WOW!
@ Christiane:
Well, except that the fall of Rome was not due to several factors, not just religion. And pagan Rome’s residuals were alive and well in Europe for centuries upon centuries after that. And I could have sworn that when I read the news this morning there for sure was still pagan Rome, just dressed in different clothes.
Don’t misunderstand me; I do believe that the day will come, but not yet.
@ okrapod:
Not sure where the disconnect is occurring. If we believe that Jesus died for us, then we are saying in some way that an innocent person died on behalf of or as a substitute for a guilty person. If that innocent is God himself (and I believe that Jesus was the Incarnate God) then I do not see how it is a moral problem for the Judge to offer himself–in satisfaction of, in payment of, to restore the honor of–himself.
When it comes to the OT sacrificial system and the Tabernacle and then the Temple, I do not think it is controversial to say that they were types or fore-shadowings of something far greater and that they were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ along with the rest of the Law. People differ about exactly how that works out and applies to us today, but that basic idea isn’t a new one.
okrapod wrote:
And that differentiated the people of Abraham’s God from the surrounding nations and their gods. However, the Law does not forbid an innocent person from paying the debt or offering to do the time for a guilty person, as far as I know.
Now, if you want to talk about a strictly delineated Social Trinity that borders on practical tri-theism with ESS thrown in for good measure, then there is a moral problem, IMO.
@ Dave A A:
Here’s what I want to know. You moved to the mountains and have limited internet. How in the world are you going to wade through all the 9Marks stuff for us? 🙂
@ Christiane:
For me personally, the paradoxes and unexpected twists are one of strongest reasons I believe the Christian explanation for the way things are. That will probably get me into trouble, but I never could understand why anyone expected to understand God and his ways and his purposes. That’s also one of the reasons I love the story of Queen Esther.
Lydia wrote:
Do you recall the diabolical post James McDonald (not to be confused with MacDonald) wrote when Phillips resigned? Implying that the devil brought down Phillips for being a citadel of righteousness, whereas ol Scratch doesn’t bother tempting little cracks in the wall like pewsitters so sorely. Can’t seem to find his blog at all now. Think he took a sabbatical last year over overzealous “church discipline” issues– can’t find that either with Satan oppressing the Internet where I am…
@ Christiane:
A lot of people have had no choice. :o) They were not phoney. Just trying to prosper their family.
@ Dave A A:
Lol! I did not catch that one. In the early days of blogging the patriarchal cult survivors were out in force. That is where I heard if these people. I had no idea!!!
Doug Phillips was like a character out of a cheap B movie. Ever seen a grown man play so much dress up?
okrapod wrote:
Yes. Big problem. One of the challenges might be how some view the Law. I fear we overdo the legal and forensic aspects in relation to the atonement. Not saying it is totally absent but it might keep us from a bigger picture.
Gram3 wrote:
Hoping to get decent WiFi next month– until then I’m just a 2-1/2 Marxer.
Lydia wrote:
Hi LYDIA,
I remember my Pop working three jobs and still planting the whole back yard with a huge garden, with his compost heap in back of the garage (my mother insisted)
He did both: He ‘prospered’ his family in jobs that would have been difficult for any man to hold even one of them; and he kept his roots in the ways of his family before him in using his resources to put food on the table and bank the savings, with the added bonus that my father’s produce was organic and we children turned out much taller than our parents, with good teeth, and respect for hard work having seen our father give his waking hours for our benefit.
Sometimes, looking back, I think it was that garden work that kept my father going. That, and the Church. And the yearly visits to the Family up north, so much anticipated and enjoyed. Yes. Some kinds of work energize us, so I believe it was that my father’s garden work was for him a sanctuary in those days. With the one exception of my father’s recipe for spam cacciatore (which went with him to his grave), I would say our family ate VERY well. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
Well, he did get to act (a general,IIRC) in “Alone Yet Not Alone”, more infamous for the Oscars scandal with the song. His part was apparently edited out after his inappropriate relationship with Lourdes Torres, who had played Hylea with Jubilee Phillips as Young Hylea.
@ Gram3:
After reading through this stuff for a while (not near as much as some of you guys) because frankly, PSA, freaked me out, I lean more towards Christus Victor which is pretty much what was taught in childhood along with Ransom. Substitution did not come up.
It keeps the main thing the main thing. Death was the consequence of sin. The wages of sin. Is death. God in the flesh conquered death. It also brings balance. The tendency is to focus on the cross to the detriment of the Resurrection.
There are so many proof texts we can pull out to back up one Theory or another but I fear we ignore communication devices of that era especially when it comes to sin and death. We could ask, was human death ever meant to be natural?
@ Dave A A:
Darn! I missed that one. :o)
@ Christiane:
I was speaking in more recent terms like now.
Christiane wrote:
made me laugh!
Lydia wrote:
I think if my father was raising us today, in this economny, he would still have three jobs and a large garden. I think people do have certain choices and my father’s ‘free’ time wasn’t spent in front of telly (although he loved Archie Bunker and McHale’s Navy), so I think it must have been that HE had witnessed his own parents give of themselves to the max before him, and they had come from similar people.
I don’t understand how it works, but people who come from that kind of example in their lives do not easily abandon that kind of role model,
although education and opportunity may offer them even more choices. My brother works between eleven and fourteen hours a day as a physician. On weekends when he is not ‘on call’, he has a working farm near Charlottesville, with farm equipment that both he and his wife can run. It’s their ‘get-away’. Like father, like son. DNA, Lydia …. some genetic memory maybe? Whatever it is, it’s there. Even today.
Debi Calvet wrote:
It was awful stuff. But we loved Pop so much, we ate it without complaint. That’s one memory I will NEVER forget. We do still fix his recipes for pea soup and ‘Johnny cake’, a kind cornbread, very economical, and very nutritious. 🙂
@ Christiane:
I am curious why you think the people I am referencing don’t want to work. They do. And several jobs making half what they used to and are over 50.
Lydia wrote:
Not before the Fall, as I understand it. As for theories of the Atonement, well, we don’t really know, do we, and I don’t even think we are supposed to focus on the What and the How but on the Who.
God wrote:
Fall is upon us here in California. Soon I will be making Yorkshire Pudding from
a certain Scottish contributor here on TWW with ties directly to God.
In the meantime, I am eating a mostly vegan diet to make my doctor happy and my
lab results slightly better. Thank goodness for really good vegan, smoked bacon
that looks like the real thing. I made chili with it. Eat it for breakfast.
And even make (Vegan) Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches with it. I also added
avocado.
But every now and again I will indulge in animal products.
Gram3 wrote:
YES!!! The various ecumenical councils and creeds started by the early church focused on correcting heresies. Theories of the atonement were invented just for academic interest. I don’t think we are supposed to know the technical details of the what and how. But we are supposed to know the Who and why.
JeffB wrote:
Jeff,
Thanks for the reply. I had never questioned penal substitution (PSA for short) until a little more than a year ago. I think by now I’ve heard about every argument for it, and many very good arguments against it. At first it felt like I was diving into heresy when I questioned it. But the more I looked at it the more I became convinced that there is no scriptural support for it. There are many very good arguments that are quite well constructed, but they all rely on assumptions that have no clear support from the Bible. I think that should bother everyone who believes it.
By “explicit” I do not mean so unambiguous that everyone in all times and in all places will understand the verse to mean exactly the same thing with no degree of difference. But I do mean that it should be hard to explain it in another way if not for a particular passage. For example, it’s pretty clear that the Bible stresses that Jesus lived, was crucified, spent some time dead, was resurrected, and appeared alive to many people before his ascension. There are numerous verses that make this abundantly clear. Likewise, even though the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, there are many passages (such as Jesus’ baptism) that make it impossible to argue against the concept of Trinity. In that sense, both of these teaching are explicit. PSA does not have that kind of explicit support. It can only be obtained by reading content into passages that is not there. I’ll go to the examples you provided:
– 2 Cor 5:21 supports the concept of substitution or exchange, but it says nothing about a penalty being paid or wrath being satisfied. So that verse won’t work to prove PSA. In fact, just a few verses above it says God reconciled us to him, which is exactly the opposite of PSA where God is appeased (reconciled to us). It also says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This is the opposite of PSA, which says that God turned away from Christ during the crucifixion.
Gal 3:13 says Christ REDEEMED us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. Like the above passage, it says nothing about a penalty being paid or God’s wrath being satisfied. It can be understood to support PSA, but it can also be understood to undermine PSA. In this sense it does not explicitly support it.
– Rom 3:35 is the classic go-to verse because it uses the word “propitiation.” Have you studied that word? No one knows for sure how to translate it. The Greek word is Hilasterion. I’ve read good arguments that propitiation (to make favorable) does not respect the Greek grammar. “Expiation” (removal) is another translation that makes better sense of the Greek grammar, and better support passages such as 1 John 1:7 that talk about our sin being cleansed or removed: “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” Propitiation changes something about God (doesn’t the Bible say that God is unchangeable?). Expiation changes something about us . I think the best translation for that word is “atoning sacrifice” because it leaves it a bit unexplained in the same way that the Bible does.
– The OT sacrifices for sin don’t talk in terms of penalty or satisfying God’s wrath. Jesus is called the lamb of God. In no case were sacrificial lambs ever punished by being beaten and tortured. They were humanely put to death, or else made free to go outside the camp (scape goat). Lots more could be written about the OT sacrificial system, but it does not prove PSA.
– The Justin Martyr quote is interesting but it fails on two counts. First, it supports substitution, but penal substitution (very similar to the two passages you listed). Second, my questions ask for Biblical support, not opinions of early or late theologians.
All the big Calvinist ministry leaders teach that PSA is the foundation of everything else that is true about the atonement. For such a pivotal explanation of the atonement, I would think that there should be more explicit support from the Bible. I’ve personally engaged with one big-name leader mentioned on this site and got no better answers than yours. He questioned my motives, my character, and my salvation (you did not do that). But he did not answer the questions. That tells me something about PSA. Most of the ministries ignored my questions, so I was very glad that this one leader took the time and effort to have dialogue with me.
Ken F wrote:
This, I love
okrapod wrote:
Explanations like this have been a big help for me in trying to come to terms with the very good questions you ask: http://perichoresis.org/on-the-death-of-our-blessed-lord-jesus-christ-2/.
I don’t have it all figured out yet, but I feel like I am on a good trail…
I once had a pastor who was of reformed persuasion but I didn’t know that at first. I knew there were pockets of Calvinists in the SBC but I thought they were even more scarce than the “liberals” everyone was so concerned about in the day, so I never expected to meet one. I don’t remember him ever discussing soteriology, predestination, election, etc. The point at which I realized he had a very different perspective than I did was when he declared that the primary theme of scripture was God’s authority rather than God’s love and redemption. His perspective on God’s sovereignty was where he baffled me most. God was in control, not so much in a caring and redemptive way but was micro-managing and manipulating all the details of life. It seemed that his perspective was that if something bad happened to you, God not only had allowed it but actually had orchestrated it.
I believe that bad things happen to us in this fallen world that God would never wish but because he has given us free will, both as mankind in general and as individuals, these things will happen. God, however, is gracious and will find a redemptive purpose for these things.
This pastor is a godly man and I don’t think he tried to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. One of the hallmarks of his ministry was a true zeal for sharing the Christ with others. I’m not trying to disparage him but to use his views to highlight where I have experienced cognitive dissonance with Calvinism.
Velour wrote:
Growing up in Southern California, fall didn’t mean much to me until I tried snorkeling in November and realized how much water temps had dropped. We did look forward to the rainy season; both days of it.
@ Ken F:
Well, I have a possible explanation, and it was what I was taught growing up. I think it surely must have a name, but I am not sure what the name may be. When I have done some more research and have a name hopefully I will write something about it.
FW Rez wrote:
Ahh yes. I heard this at my former NeoCalvinist church. In “Biblical Counseling”. In peoples’ homes. It was just INSANE. What is the difference between this fatalistic
approach to life and Hinduism? It’s all “karma” right? Something bad happened to a person
because they somehow “deserved” it.
I like the other words being used to describe this authoritarianism/NeoCalvinism.
*Chrislam
*Shehad (She+had, sounds like jihad, for the NeoCals’ “war on women”. Invented
by Brad/FuturistGuy).
Gram3 wrote:
I’m with you. I think the same thing about baptism. It’s water. I looked at a picture of outerspace and the heavens. I thought of God…out there too and He must shake His head that we quibble over water. Infant baptism. Adult baptism.
Velour wrote:
I think that number was just for the SBC, and only one year, probably 2014 or 2015. I’ve heard estimates of the total number of “Dones” in the US that are between 16 and 32 million. Some have left the faith altogether [typically called “nones”], but many remain in the faith, just not in church. In fact many say that the only way they could salvage their faith was to distance themselves from the church.
My pastor friends stare blankly when I say that.
Personally, I’m not actually a Done… I just can’t find a church in my area that doesn’t set off all sorts of alarm bells.
Deb wrote:
That was a great post. I used the info I learned from it to ask my pastor and one of the elders whether or not the church will be using that curriculum. This was in the context of me fairly regularly bringing up my concerns about new-Calvinism. I was told no about The Gospel Project. But then I found “Disciples Path” announced in the bulletin recently. Here’s the Lifeway link: http://www.lifeway.com/n/Product-Family/Disciples-Path. It’s not written by well-known names. I started looking up each of them but ran out of time. It’s a mix of Calvinist and non-Calvinist contributors.
The Gospel Project is sneaky because you have buy it to know what’s in it. Nearly every link I found in the website goes back to The Gospel Coalition. Anyone with even a very limited knowledge of new-Calvinism can find the Calvinist connection. But Disciples Path does not have the obvious connections. I don’t trust it.
@ Ken F:
I always seem to make wonderful typos. Rom 3:35 should have been Rom 3:25, and “it supports substitution, but penal substitution” should have been “it supports substitution, but not penal substitution”
I cannot blame spell-checker for those mistakes…
GSD wrote:
I’m not a Done either. But I have have had the same experience as church after church has practices that set off alarm bells.
Well, I learned the HARD way after blowing it and getting involved in an authoritarian, NeoCalvinist church.
@GSD,
I buy matzoh crackers and red wine and take communion at home. I figure the Great Shepherd will bless it.
I just took communion awhile ago. I usually do so on Sundays after a good time at TWW.
I was out of Matzoh crackers, however.
GSD wrote:
I forgot to add, that there have been several studies that I’ve gotten through Twitter that have had these huge numbers leaving the Southern Baptists, not just a study from a few years ago.
I think Max or Muff or one of them knows more details and has also commented on this pattern.
Velour wrote:
I think Max is your goto guy. I know absolutely zilch, nada, about the Baptist faith.
Muff Potter wrote:
I knew it was an “M”.
Remind me, did you do a *tour-of-duty* of Calvary Chapel?
JeffB wrote:
Animal sacrifice is one thing, but human sacrifice? All through the Hebrew Bible we are regaled with how much the Almighty hated and loathed the detestable practices of the Canaanites which almost always included, and were based on human sacrifice.
Now I’m supposed to buy into it without a second thought and chalk it all up to “mystery” and “his ways are not my ways” and whatever other U-235 clobber verse is launched my way?
No can do, the cognitive dissonance is way too much and my conscience won’t permit me.
Velour wrote:
Membership declined by 200,000 in 2015. Ed Setzer admits it! I’ve read it on another SBC web page, too, but I can’t remember where.
http://bpnews.net/47015/baptists-reflections-of-the-stats-guy
Muff Potter wrote:
Do you have an understanding of what is called ‘The Ban’ in the OT? You might want to look it up.
Christiane wrote:
Here’s one perspective on ‘The Ban’ in the OT that helps look at it with a bit of light, I think this is something that will really bring some things together for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0
JeffB wrote:
The Justin Martyr quote was in reply to the above statement.
2 Cor 5:21 – Before the part about reconciliation, there is verse 10, which speaks of all appearing before the judgment seat of Christ to receive our just due. Then vs. 14 leads into the passage about reconciliation. I think it’s pretty clear that judgment precedes reconciliation, even Christ’s judgment on behalf of us (vss 14 and 15).
Gal 3:13 – I don’t see how “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” cannot be seen as His paying a penalty. The penalty is in the next sentence: Hanging on a tree.
Rom 3:25 – From the little research I’ve done on “hilasterion,” I’ve seen that it comes from the Greek verb, “hilaskomai,” “to propitiate” (placate or turn aside wrath.) This has been disputed mainly by C.H. Dodd, who agreed that the foregoing is the most common meaning in classical and Hellenistic Gk, but that this was not the meaning in the “Jewish” Greek literature that formed the background of the NT. He said that in the LXX it meant “purge,” “forgive,” “expiate,” referring to man, and not propitiate referring to God.
Apparently, Leon Morris and Roger Nicole say that Dodd’s claim that hilaskomai in Jewish Gk writings differs consistently from its classical and pagan meaning “to propitiate” is incorrect. This meaning is found in the writing of Josephus and Philo, which Dodd ignores. Also, this meaning in the Apocrypha (4 Maccabees 17:22) and in the early non-biblical texts 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas.
Concerning the LXX, they say there are several examples where hilaskomai mean the averting of God’s wrath, and that this is plainly implied in the context (i.e. Ex 32:14, Num 16:46, 2 Kings 24:4, etc.)
There are some places in the OT where animal sacrifices appease an angry God: 1 Sam 26:19, 2 Sam 24:25, Job 42:7-8.
Muff Potter wrote:
One of the *contrast* references to human sacrifice practiced by the pagans occurred at Banias, Ceasarea Philippi. The location of the Temple to Pan which was literally the Gates of Hell. Human sacrifices were demanded by Pan. That is where Peter made his famous declaration that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I do not believe that God “demanded” a sacrifice but rather himself became the sacrifice.
At Banias, innocent human victims were sacrificed. We are told that Jesus laid down his own life and no one took it from him. So, I see great contrast being drawn purposefully. Banias was not a leisurely stroll from Galilee. Jesus had a purpose when he took the disciples there.
And if that is not controversial enough, that is also the site of one of the “heads” of the Jordan River. Which clearly means that the stream flowing from the spring has authority over the Jordan River. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
There is another way of looking at it, that mankind was under a death sentence due to the Law, that being consistent with the initial judgment of God that ‘in the day you eat of it you shall surely die’. Now, if God intrinsically in his character is both just and merciful then any resolution to the problem would have to be consistent with both justice and mercy. If God were to forgive without satisfaction of the demands of justice then he would have to violate his own character (justice) in order to do that, and that would be impossible for God. If God were to choose justice (the death of man) without mercy then again it would violate his character since man would be dead-not forgiven-dead, and thus beyond mercy. Thinking this way one might say that God would be forced to choose between the two, and this choice either way would violate the very character of God and basically destroy Him; besides what would be big enough to actually ‘force’ God to do anything much less violate His own character.
But, If the pre-existent Word were to become man, the very creature that was under the death penalty, and still remain sinless such that he had no sin of his own (only our sin) then were he to be executed according to the just Law of God because of the sins of man, then the law would have been fulfilled (just as Jesus talked about the law remaining until it was fulfilled) and there then remained mercy for humanity. God then having been both just and merciful. Thus, Paul could say all that he said about the Law.
To me this looks like a brilliant plan. Now can one use the terminology of ‘sacrifice’ for this, well sure, but not in the way that the pagans understood sacrifice. God was not just out looking for blood, He was exercising justice in order to redeem man. (There are a couple of quotes from even Anselm about justice, or so I heard read on a video I saw on this subject.) Could one use the term ransom, sure in that we are ransomed from death and ransomed from the demands of the Law (death penalty). Could one talk about satisfaction, sure in that this satisfies both the justice and mercy of God and is sufficient to pay for the debt owed to God by man. Could this show Christ as the champion of mankind who achieves by his death and resurrection what man could not achieve for himself, you betcha. All of the above in one way or another.
The next issue would then be, why? If God knew all about this, perhaps even set it up this way (think: the lamb slain before the foundations of the earth) then there must be a really big master plan of which this is only part. I think there are some clues to what may be going on, but that is a very different discussion.
okrapod wrote:
Exactly!!! God cannot violate his own Law/Justice/Holiness or deny his own Goodness/Lovingkindess/Mercy. The Cross and Resurrection are where those meet. What happened at the Fall was nothing less than High Treason against God (to employ a Mohlerism.) But the humans who committed that were also his own beloved children. I agree that the part about “slain before the foundations of the world” is difficult.
Again, I think the sacrificial system was primarily pedagogical as a contrast to the pagan practices they were surrounded by. God was saying, my way is not that way, and I will show you a much better way. I will provide the lamb, and I will be the Lamb.
@ Christiane:
Thanks for your kind reply and the you tube link. Barron gives an excellent talk on the genocidal doings in the ancient world of the Bible as do many Catholic thinkers, and especially the Jesuits. I am in complete agreement with him about the seals spoken of in The Revelation of St. John the Divine, and that all of human history must be looked at through the person of Messiah.
Absent though (other than one nebulous allusion) was any reference to the concept of penal substitutionary atonement which was the gist of my previous comment.
okrapod wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
This is a very tempting path to go down, but we have to be very careful. Here are a few thoughts to consider that I ran into on my journey:
– The OT concept of justice is very difference than our modern Western view. In the OT the words for justice and righteousness are so similar that they are often translated one for another in English. The emphasis is on setting thing right and putting things into their proper order. We think of justice in legal and punitive terms. But that’s only a very small slice of how the OT authors viewed it. It’s the difference between restorative justice and punitive justice. Justice is also closely linked to the concept of mercy. So to talk about balancing justice and mercy is not something the OT writers would consider. See Michah 6:8 – “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Justice and mercy are listed as complementary rather than opposing qualities.
– If God is bound by anything other than his own character and will then he is not God. There is nothing God cannot do other than what he chooses not to do. He is not bound by any higher law since he is the ultimate lawgiver. We need to be very careful not to create a god in our own image. He is in no way constrained by our logical conclusions.
– Nowhere in the Bible do we find anything to support this train of thought. It’s a fine speculation, but completely unsupported by the Bible. It’s ok to speculate about things like this, but once one goes beyond what the Bible actually says one departs from the faith that was handed down to us.
– This line of thinking is one of the primary arguments in support of penal substitution.
Muff Potter wrote:
Hi MUFF, I must say I tend to agree with Gram 3, this:
“I think the sacrificial system was primarily pedagogical as a contrast to the pagan practices they were surrounded by. God was saying, my way is not that way, and I will show you a much better way. I will provide the lamb, and I will be the Lamb.”
Those words ‘I will be the Lamb’ tell us that God wanted us to understand that bringing us back to Him had a price, but that HE would take care of us in HIS way. All He asks of us is to look upon the Lamb Who was slain, and repent, with broken hearts. The Crucified Lord speaks to us of God’s love for us. The Father’s love, and the Son’s love, freely given for us: ‘forgive them for they know not what they do’ tells us that.
JeffB wrote:
There will be judgement, and we should come to terms with what that means. But that passage says absolutely nothing about Jesus satisfying the wrath of God by paying a penalty.
JeffB wrote:
The Bible is absolutely clear that Jesus died for us. But it does not describe it as a legal substitution that satisfies the wrath of God. Something much bigger happened.
JeffB wrote:
The point about this one word is that it is really all that PSA advocates have to support their argument, and it’s a disputed translation. Non-biblical texts are interesting, but the questions I asked focused on what the Bible says. It also needs to be examined in the bigger context. If God can be appeased then it means God can change. PSA assumes that God was once favorable toward us (pre-fall), but then became angery with us (the fall), and then became favorable with us again (post-crucifixion). In PSA it is God who does the changing. Where does the Bible support this? In the account of the fall in Genesis, there is no evidence that an angry God stormed out of the Garden. The Lord walked in the garden in the cool of the day as always – no change in God. It was Adam and Eve who changed. They found themselves hiding in fear from the God that they had re-interpreted in their fallen state. They lost their true knowing about God. Luke 10:22 says “No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” We are so badly fallen that we have no way to know the Father except through Jesus. Jesus had to come in the flesh to redeem us and restore us into fellowship with the Father. He is the one who gathered us back into relationship with the Trinity.
JeffB wrote:
These verses say nothing about appeasing an angry God. The sacrifices required in the OT were for us, not for God. They were to satisfy our sense of justice, not his.
JeffB wrote:
It’s an interesting quote, but it does not support PSA. Can you provide a quote from an early church father that clearly says Jesus paid a penalty to satisfy the wrath of God? PSA was not articulated or believed by any major branch of Christianity before the time of Calvin.
I’ve read hundreds of pages of arguments in support of PSA and hundreds of pages of arguments against PSA. Just below the list of questions I posted on the open discussion page is a list of links to some of the better articles I read arguing against PSA. If you have not read these, it would be good for you to read a handful of them, if for nothing else than to give you some better ideas on where to focus your arguments. I’m also interested in your answers to my questions 4-18.
In the big picture, if PSA is true then it should be abundantly clear through multiple passages and a big-picture reading of the Bible. It fails on both counts.
@ JeffB:
I wrote a lengthy reply that is not yet visible. Please check back later.
Ken F wrote:
I certainly agree with that. One aspect of his character is justness or justice or righted relationships or righteousness or holiness. I didn’t say anything about Western legal systems binding God’s thoughts or actions. At least I don’t think I did. God’s character is what we are supposed to conform ours to and not the other way around, as I understand it.
Hi Wartburgers,
Please pray for Harley, if you’d be so kind. She’s having her foot surgery tomorrow.
Thanks, friends.
Gram3 wrote:
You did not and neither did I. That is a red herring. It goes like this: because someone might have thought (said) X then someone did think (say) X.
About conforming to God’s character, I think this is where trouble can arise. I call it the ‘one and only’ or else ‘either/or’ mistake. We can focus on one aspect of God’s character excessively and forget or refuse to deal with some other aspect of God’s character, as it suits us at the time. God gives good things to man. Whee, let’s focus on that. God demands things of man. Arrgh, don’t say that. God loves the world. Hyper whee. God is ultimately going to have it his way or the highway. Double arrgh. God is complex beyond what we can comprehend. Indeed. It takes more than one way of looking at some things to see the bigger picture. No way, because I have the one and only absolutely correct and comprehensive way of looking at things.
On the other hand there is all or nothing. We must try to accept what can be known about God all or nothing. If we just pick and choose what we like and omit what we do not like, then we have not described God but only our own preferences. That is easy to say but hard to do.
@ Christiane:
I think you were very fortunate to have escaped the prejudices held in some Orthodox countries (like Greece) toward Catholicism.
Havd you done any reading on the Great Schism?
@ Christiane:
That’s nifty.
The thing is, a lot of people over here – many not religious at all – are keeping shape note singing alive. The Sacred Harp is the most well-known shape note hymnal, but there are others. I’d imagine some of the groups who do it have websites, though I’ve never looked. But i used to see info. about “singings” in a now-gone folk music mag that i read for many years.
It doesn’t surprise me that folks on the other side of the Atlantic have taken it up.
Billy, in Texas, (Dee covered his abuse case on TWW) has started high school.
His Mom posted on the Open Discussion thread that the teachers have given him lists
of additional supplies he needs to buy for his classes. Here is the GoFundMe account for Billy and his Mom.
They need help with school supplies, bills, and food.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
The $500 that was donated his mom spent on some school supplies and bills they had to pay.
The list is on the Open Discussion thread.
@ okrapod:
Honestly, this is so ancient and complicated, but yes, there is (not so much in the US, but in historically Orthodox countries) a lot of animosity toward the RCC. It’s a prejudice that many Orthodox in the US would like to jettison, but it isn’t easy for a lot of people back in the Old Country. I recall tha a now deceased ecumenical patriarch visited the US in the late 90s, and a lot of EO folks here were hoping he would start some kind of rapprochement. Instead, he referred to Catholics as heretics, and it all went downhill from there.
I have a notion that things have become a bit more friendly since then, but you gotta figure that you’re dealing with truly ancient prejudices (the Great Schism between the EO and RCC was in 1054), and also with many people not truly knowing much true info. about other xtian churches, or even their own. Iirc, in Greece, it is not only the state church but the only legally recognized church, and in Russia, it is illegal to convert from the RO church to the RCC. There is a lot of misinformation and there are many completely unjustified fears on all sides of this.
@ Gram3:
I am skeptical about this biz of Pan demanding human sacrifice. Maybe in that specific location, people not 8nly elevated the worship of their own version of Pan among the chief gods of the pantheon, but cobbled it together with the gates of the underworld (Hades or Tartarus, “hell” as understood by many Western xtians didn’t really exist in that scheme of things) and did all this.
I am skeptical for many reasons, one of them being that i don’t recall coming across any mention of this when i took courses in Greek and Roman art and art history. Could be that they skipped it, but equally, it could very well be that the sources you’re citing have misunderstood a number of things, are blowing a local cultus way out of proportion, etc. When confronted with things like this, i think it’s a good idea to look at books and writers that deal with the period(s) and questions via knowledge of ancient histor, archeology and classical literature.
Either way, it wouldn’t be the 1st instance of an xtian writer both exaggerating and mischaracterizng the beliefs of others. Am afraid that has a very ancient pedigree, from the 1st c. A.D. onward.
@ numo:
Above the chief gods of the pantheon, that is…
Gram3 wrote:
Sorry if what I wrote came across as an accusation. I was just trying to warn about being careful. I’ve found that Calvinist build a theological house of cards on speculative assumptions, which can lead to some very bad beliefs. Any statement about God not being able to violate his own standard is nothing more than speculation. But Calvinism is built on this as one of its pillars.
JeffB wrote:
I have yet to find a new-Calvinist teacher who has said that PSA is not key to a proper understanding of the gospel. If you are still following this thread, can you provide a quote from any of the new-Calvinists who say that it’s merely optional and just one of several viable options? Also, my lengthy reply to you is now visible.
Ken F wrote:
The sacrifices that God commanded were meant to satisfy OUR sense of justice, not His? WE decided that there is atonement in blood, so, to satisfy our sense of justice, we came up with animal sacrifices? I must admit I’ve never heard of this before. As far as I know, nowhere in Scripture is God interested in our sense of justice except to ridicule it.
If you mean that they were to provide temporary covering for our sin and guilt, yes. But, again, they were not man-made laws – they were revealed to us from God. And, no, God doesn’t NEED them, but they provide satisfaction for him and sometimes avert anger.
It doesn’t say that God was angry in the garden, but He did curse the serpent, multiply the pain in childbirth, and curse the ground so that it would be difficult to cultivate. He also mercifully provided coverings for Adam and Eve.
In the OT, there are almost countless times when God is angry at sin and the people who commit them.
No, God doesn’t change His mind (1 Sam 15:29), but if circumstances change He will act accordingly. For instance, He was going to wipe out Ninevah, but Ninevah repented and He didn’t wipe them out.
I’ll try to read some anti-PSA stuff, and try to find a New Cal who says it’s merely optional.
JeffB wrote:
Hebrews 10 offers insight. Verse 4 says: “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” It’s true that God requires blood, but only one sacrifice ever actually accomplished what was needed. As far as the clothing God made for Adam and Eve, it was for them, not for God. He was not ashamed of their nakedness, they were. So he met them where they were. The sacrificial systems seems to have been put in place for a number of reasons. But I’m saying that no sacrifice ever appeased God’s wrath in the sense that penal substitution describes. But it did do a lot to satisfy man’s sense of justice until Christ provided the perfect sacrifice. It was not invented by man, but it was made for man until the perfect sacrifice could be offered. Why God did that and why he took so long are huge questions that the Bible does not describe. But let’s not suggest that an unchangeable God can somehow be changed when we sin and then be changed again when a sacrifice is offered, but then be changed again in some kind or endless cycle. If God is really that fickle, why should we trust him?
GSD wrote:
Yes, that describes the sad dilemma of a growing group of believers who have had it with counterfeit worship in the organized church, places where strange fire is offered to the Lord. They know the authentic when they see it and have chosen to step away from places that don’t have it. They are done with doing church without God, but not done with Jesus.
numo wrote:
I don’t know about pan, but a couple weeks ago there was an article about a supposed sacrifice found in Greece, possible one to Zeus, on Mount Lykaion? OF course, those things get a lot of press because they are salacious.
GSD wrote:
The SBC has had declining membership for nine straight years, despite the fact that there are more SBC churches than ever before (46,000+). SBC has lost 800,000 members since 2003! Coupled with the membership decline, has been a whopping drop in baptisms by 300,000 per year (the lowest rate since the 1940s-50s)! Various reasons have been presented, but the inability by Southern Baptists to keep their youth is a major factor. The lack of passion for evangelism has also diminished. And I can tell you that the proliferation of New Calvinism in my area has been a contributing factor, with the takeover of traditional churches by deception thinning the ranks. On the other hand, the SBC-YRR church plants have growing numbers of young folks, attracted by cool bands and free coffee/donuts. However, many of these don’t actually sign up … they just show up; and are, thus, not counted as new members. Church plants are primarily crowds not congregations. All indications point to an SBC which has peaked and is now on a steady downhill slide.
numo wrote:
http://fasola.org/singings/
Some of you know this man, probably some do not. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything specific, but want to introduce his work for those who might find it helpful. When you check the web site you note that he discusses lots and lots of things. This just happens to be about PSA. His name is William Lane Craig. He has earned doctorates in both philosophy and theology, goes to an SBC church in Cobb County, lectures, teaches and debates and does a lot of apologetics among other things.
And if you wonder and watch one of his videos what you are looking at is Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/should-we-think-of-christs-death-in-juridical-terms
okrapod wrote:
Yes, ISTM that God’s character is integrated, and we should try to keep that in mind. I would really like to be a universalist, because Love. Except there are some really bad folks who have no interest in being anything like God or be in relationship to him in any way and who perpetrate great evil. That’s when I love Righteousness/Justice/Holiness.
Max wrote:
Haven’t they lost more than that? I agree it’s whopping. But I’ve gotten tweets and seen other articles that places the loss of living members, in the last few years, at 200,000 people per year leaving the Southern Baptists, fed up.
numo wrote:
Not any kind of historian. The info did not come from a Christian but rather a secular American-Israeli tour guide licensed by the Israeli tourism authority which requires some degree of knowledge. That’s a close as I’m likely to get to any kind of authority. That is not to dismiss the possibility *at all* that it might be a marketable story to Christian tourists. I will say it would have been an inconvenient foot journey from Galilee, so I assume there was some purpose for taking the disciples there. Also, as I understand it, locals adapted gods and their myths, so there’s that, too.
Ken F wrote:
It seems reasonable to speculate that God would not violate his own standards or his own character. He isn’t a pagan god who is arbitrary, capricious, and fickle. He is faithful, and I don’t see how that is possible if he does not act according to who he is.
@ Ken F:
His acts can only be grounded in himself, ISTM, but I’m not a philosopher in addition to all the other things I’m not but play on the internet.
Velour wrote:
That’s the official SBC tally, but the real numbers are hard to put a fix on. SBC keeps reporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million members, but probably only a quarter of those actually attend church regularly. Southern Baptists certainly don’t have the evangelistic outreach as a denomination which they once did.
Gram3 wrote:
I agree that this speculation is very reasonable. My caution is from my experience with PSA advocates who use this speculation in a way that has no Biblical support. They frame it along the lines of God being in some kind of a bind because he cannot violate his own holy standard and therefore has no choice but to punish all mankind eternally even though he really does not want to. He loves us too much to let this happen, but he cannot simply forgive without punishment because he is somehow bound by a law that does not allow him to just let it go. So Jesus steps in to solve the problem by taking the punishment himself. It’s a very logical theory, but it creates all kinds of theological absurdities.
I think there is much more Biblical support for the position that God is not bound in any way other than by what he chooses to bind himself. We can trust his goodness, mercy, and longsuffering. He is not fickle and he does not change his disposition toward us based on the stupid things we do.
okrapod wrote:
William Lane Craig is a very good thinker. I got a lot out of his book “Reasonable Faith.” What I very much appreciate about the article you posted is his caveats:
– “I am currently wrestling with the same sort of questions that trouble you.”
– “it seems to me that…”
– “The implication is that…”
– “these words sound to me like…”
He definitely leans toward penal substitution, but he does not seem to hold onto it tightly like the new-Calvinists. He seems to allow for differences of opinion, which I find admirable.
Since Craig, like most penal substitution supports, cites Isaiah 53, I think it’s worthwhile for me to re-post this: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2013/10/punished-for-or-by-our-sins-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53-santo-calarco.html. What is interesting about that passage is an innocent person is punished because of injustice. The punishment was the result of a sham trial. Penal substitution is all about satisfying justice, not injustice. So the metaphor does not fit well, unless we are suggesting that God unjustly punished Jesus.
@ okrapod:
I just now wrote a reply but it in time-out, probably because it has more than one web link. Here it is without including your text:
William Lane Craig is a very good thinker. I got a lot out of his book “Reasonable Faith.” What I very much appreciate about the article you posted is his caveats:
– “I am currently wrestling with the same sort of questions that trouble you.”
– “it seems to me that…”
– “The implication is that…”
– “these words sound to me like…”
He definitely leans toward penal substitution, but he does not seem to hold onto it tightly like the new-Calvinists. He seems to allow for differences of opinion, which I find admirable.
Since Craig, like most penal substitution supports, cites Isaiah 53, I think it’s worthwhile for me to re-post this: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2013/10/punished-for-or-by-our-sins-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53-santo-calarco.html. What is interesting about that passage is an innocent person is punished because of injustice. The punishment was the result of a sham trial. Penal substitution is all about satisfying justice, not injustice. So the metaphor does not fit well, unless we are suggesting that God unjustly punished Jesus.
@ Gram3:
The Romans would not have permitted human sacr7fice, i think you’ll find. Some 8me “guides” — everywhere – tell whoppers. I haven’t been able to find out a single thing to back up the claims of human sactifice to this particular deity (theh seem to have called it Pan only after Alexander the Great setabout Hellenizing the Middle East). The story is repeated ad nauseam on a lot of evangelical and fundy sites, though.
I think that adage of P.T. Barnum comes to mind. No offense intended toward you. I’ve been a guide and have heard some real lulus from supposed professionals who should have known better.
@ numo:
Apologies for typos above.
@ Lea:
Lykaion was reputed to be a site of human sacrifice by classical Greek authors. It’s likely a Bronze Age practice, so far as anyone knows today. More finds *could* change that, though.
Point being that the classical authors were already aware that it had likely happened. It was, again as far as we know today, a practice that was abandoned by the Archaic period. Stone and Bronze Ages, though – it makes some sense to me.
The weird thing is that the Greeks, from the Archaic period onward, found human sacrifice repellent, but many 20th c. scholars thought that the Classical writers were passing down inaccurate (at best) “history.” Not so much.
@ Lea:
There’s a lot more that needs to happen – archeologically, among other things – before we get anything like a clear picture of the most ancient aspects of ancient Greece.
Ken F wrote:
Amen to that!
If anyone is still following this thread, I just found this on TGC: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/meet-a-reformed-arminian
Maybe it’s a marriage made in (I won’t say).
Funny, read through all the comments and not one person mentioned where Confessional Lutheranism falls in regards to Arminianism vs Calvinism. For those interested in knowing more about Lutheranism, Issues etc and Pirate Christian Radio with their various Lutheran podcasts is a good place to start.