First for the 1st time! Yeh me!

Nope. Silver second.

Although my church background is generally Calvinist/Reformed, I can still see the obvious inconsistencies. Ask those who preach unconditional election, limited atonement and irrestable grace why they believe people end up in hell, and the answer will usually be pretty simple: It is their fault because they choose to go there.

This answer comes despite the fact that a sovereign God chose their existence, chose their birth, chose the circumstances of their life that shaped them into the person they became yet also chose not to elect them (meaning Christ’s sacrifice through His death, burial and resurrection wasn’t for them) and did not offer irresistable grace.

Just some thoughts, I’m sure this has been debated for two milleniums already. 😛

Wow dee! This post of yours is a can of fishin’ worms and a Bosnian mine field all rolled into one. I’m bettin’ it’ll be a barn-burner with the comments exceeding…

First, I do not think legalism is grace of any type. It sounds as though these churches are terrified that the woman might *gasp* get corrupted by having too much time away from the church. That’s pathological control, not grace.

Second, I guess my grace is as cheap as it comes, I do good things because it’s the right thing to do. I’m don’t consider myself any better than others, certainly I don’t consider myself “sanctified” or “chosen” in any way shape or form. I don’t really consider whether I’m serving God when I give to charity or volunteer with a kids sports team or even let the waitress know she forgot to put my coffee on the dinner bill, I certainly don’t expect an eternal reward for doing those things.

When it comes to the TULIP grace, I genuinely don’t get the point. If God already knows who’s to be saved and who’s not then why have Jesus come at all? What’s the point of creation? Are we just in a movie that will run to predetermined end? Maybe because I’m not an elect I don’t get it. I don’t feel irresistibly drawn to faith.

That being said, I have let go of much antipathy towards faith that I was feeling in the last year or so, is that grace?

Christiane wrote:

I’ve experienced grace in my own life while in the midst of deep grief. ‘Thankful’ does not even begin to describe my reaction to this gift at that time. There are no words.

“There is nothing that can replace the absence of someone dear to us, and one should not even attempt to do so. One must simply hold out and endure it. At first that sounds very hard, but at the same time it is also a great comfort. For to the extent the emptiness truly remains unfilled one remains connected to the other person through it. It is wrong to say that God fills the emptiness. God in no way fills it but much more leaves it precisely unfilled and thus helps us preserve — even in pain — the authentic relationship. Further more, the more beautiful and full the remembrances, the more difficult the separation. But gratitude transforms the torment of memory into silent joy. One bears what was lovely in the past not as a thorn but as a precious gift deep within, a hidden treasure of which one can always be certain.”
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

To be enabled by God to bear searing grief and realize that it is because we loved and because we still love the one who has gone ahead … that we realize we are being ‘sustained’, that we are experiencing being ‘hugged’…. grace that comes when we are heart-broken can be a powerfully strong entity indeed.

Grace-base legalism is all about control.
The Doctrines of Grace say God just made humans so he would have some things with which to play eeny meeny miny moe.
Hyper-grace is what certain church leaders and certain husbands use as an excuse when they behave badly.
Cheap grace is what certain church leaders and certain husbands demand from us when they get caught behaving badly.

My thoughts about cheap grace –

Romans 6:1-3,5
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? …For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection”

In a union of love, a spouse doesn’t need a list of rules to follow- they are crestfallen when they realize they’ve hurt the one they love. The law of love governs their behavior, it motivates them to act in a way that values and respects the object of their love.

If a person has no sensitivity to the effects of their sin, I have to wonder if they are really united with Christ. It’s like a marriage where there is no true union, no love. The spouse has no concern for the pain his/her unfaithfulness causes to the other spouse- it doesn’t matter to them because they are joined in word only, not in heart. In a case like this, all the rules in the world won’t make up for the core issue: there is no union of mutual love.

To the people who live an ongoing pattern of disregarding Christ and disrespecting him, I would say,

2 Corinthians 13:5
Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you— unless indeed you fail the test?

@ Christiane:

That’s a beautiful quote, Christiane. I’m going to save it.

Dee wrote, “We see this sort of legalism in two camps. The old time Baptist who had rules about dancing, movies, and dress codes.

I find all this a difficult concept. There must be things which amount to sin. In the examples quoted, there have to be types of dancing, certain movies, and styles of dress which are off-limits for a Christian.

So, to chose a non-contentious subject, I can’t imagine any Christian saying it’s OK to watch porn. But there are obviously lots of things which are more debatable – eg nudity and sex scenes in regular movies, violence, bad language, etc. Where do we draw the line?

There has be a place for freedom of conscience – people deciding what is right and wrong for them – but there also has to be a place for the church teaching on matters of conduct and lifestyle.

In case people are wondering, I did grow up in a Baptist church, yes, an English one, but still Baptist 🙂

Difficult passages of Scripture:

Jesus: Come to me…
Jesus: No one can come to me…

Jesus on repentance: Do you suppose that these Galilee were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

When they heard this [Gentiles coming to faith] , they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

Well, it’s an old problem. Whoever defines the words gets to control the narrative. Now thanks to a century of ad men and propaganda, most folks are pretty savvy to this, but especially in the religious world people still get sucked in. John MacAurthur is probably foremost in this group, using words like love and grace and redefining them to mean “my status quo”, but there are others as well. Heck, he even calls his website “grace to you” despite the fact that he is about as gracious as a pregnant hippopotamus! I don’t actually think the issue is reformed doctrines, even if I do think Calvin’s system cherry picks the Bible (most systems do). I think the real issue is with wicked men who take advantage of faith to gain power and wealth.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Heck, he (MacArthur) even calls his website “grace to you” despite the fact that he is about as gracious as a pregnant hippopotamus! I

What a precious quote. And true!

On the topic of “hyper-grace,” I recently finished writing “UN-accountable: Case Study in Systems Analysis and Ministerial Accountability,” using the immense amount of information and documentation that became public between March and December 2016 about Tullian Tchividjian’s reported serial grooming/seduction/adultery. Yes … a semi-boring title, but it’s descriptive. I identify various institutions and individuals that played a major role in promoting and/or protecting Mr. Tchividjian, and analyze some of his articles and apology statements. Here are three paragraphs that tie in with a main conclusion, that “grace” as he applies the term consistently involves no taking of responsibility and therefore additional people harmed.

So, excluding the social media fans/followers [120,000+ on Twitter plus Facebook], there were over 150 individuals in at least 10 institutions who had direct connections with Tullian Tchividjian as his superiors, peers, or subordinates. And yet, it seems nobody could keep Tullian Tchividjian from his two adulterous relationships he has already admitted to (after they were discovered or disclosed), or from his reported predatory/seductive behavior patterns, or from his reported multiple failures to tell the full truth.

Why? What was happening (or not happening) here with accountability? What dynamics were going on with the individuals and institutions involved, such that someone with what turned out to be such distinctive (in my opinion) patterns of deception, manipulation, and seduction could get by for so many years before his sins were evident?

[…]

As a sidenote on theological issues, I can’t recall seeing anything from Tullian Tchividjian in any of his statements or quotes about the Holy Spirit as a means of grace in empowering us to resist temptation as prevention and interception. He seems only to emphasize grace and mercy and forgiveness after the fact of sin. In his own case, this often means after disclosures are drawn out by others rather than confessed by himself, which means that any attempted interventions failed.

Perhaps others who’ve studied Mr. Tchividjian’s theology more intensively can comment about his views on the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. But lack of presence or emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment does seem to be a pattern in the law/grace/hyper-grace systems. In my thinking, when the Holy Spirit is left out, you have a “closed system” where nothing and no one can break in to stop the cycle of sin-forgive-grace-temptation-sin-[repeat ad infinitum]. So, this kind of irresponsible, unaccountable, and unresponsive pattern of living means anything goes under the banner of grace — which is just as damaging to self and others as is the behavior modification for conformity of the hyper-legalism end of the spectrum.

It is so sad that the word grace has become a word that means any thing but grace to certain people. When I see the name Grace in a churches name I shudder because it usually means legalism and other unhealthy items.

I like this.

Justin Holcomb is an Episcopal priest and teaches theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary. (Copied from the link.)

http://www.christianity.com/theology/what-is-grace.html

@ brad/futuristguy:
Great comment.

The very idea that I had to go to church one week after my children were born, is beyond my scope of comprehension. First of all, the needs of newborns need to be taken into count. Newborns need constant feeding and care. Mom also needs a lot of care. What about the women who have c-sections? They have stitches and can’t move about too much. A lot of doctors recommend not taking newborns out in public for several weeks due to their immune system which is not fully formed and they can catch things quite easily. I worked in the church nursery for many years during Sunday School. I would see some new moms bring their babies to church that were just a week old. These moms spent most of their time in the church nursery rather than in the actual church services. So my answer to Davis is that when my kids were newborns I did what I thought to be best for the health of my babies and myself. I don’t owe anyone an explanation. That is between God and me.

One thing that I think is worth noting: a lack of cultural knowledge has skewed our interpretation of the temple codes. Following the birth of a son, a mother was ritually impure for 33 days, following the birth of a daughter, a mother was ritually impure for 66 days. I doubt very much that on the eighth day after giving birth the mother would actually be present when her son was taken to be circumcised. Daughters, obviously, were not circumcised. While women are ritually impure, they have to follow specific codes. (Leviticus 12)
And looking up the ceremony itself, it seems that the role of the women is limited. On the eighth day, the mother hands her son to her son’s godmother, who takes the child to the door of the room where the ceremony will take place and hands the child off to the child’s godfather, who takes the child to the guy who will perform the ritual. Daughters, obviously, were exempt.

The summation of Calvinism into Five Points is not new. The Synod of Dort in 1618-19 issued a doctrinal statement in five points (aka canons). The Canons of Dort was a response to the Five Remonstrances of the followers of James Arminius (d. 1609). The synod that produced this confession was attended by Calvinists from several nations.

I have come to the conclusion that “Grace” in a church’s official name means the same as “Democratic” in a country’s official name:

The more adjectives about Democracy there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.

Sally Calder wrote:

What did we do before John Calvin explained the Bible to us?

Probably whatever God did before there was a Calvin.

Molly245 wrote:

If we accept the fact that salvation is totally a gift, then it makes no sense to turn around and say to exhausted believers..”But now you have to follow these rules and schedules and do work work work to get sanctified.

I am not real into the stark contrast of the terminology anymore but I don’t think it is the work that sanctifies but sanctification causes us to not want to harm others and to seek good for them. The free gift had a condition, beluef and metanoia. what we call repentance. The problem with “belief only” is the demons believe, too.

I guess the question is whether what we call sanctification is synergistic or not. If not, then my part is navel gazing on whether God forces me to change or not. I would not really have a part in that change. I don’t view that as legalism because I must find my own way and not with lists from others. I am not clear on what others see as human responsibility within the cheap grace-deterministic paradigm.

Where is Chris LeDuc getting this idea that “God commanded” mothers to travel to the Temple to have the circumcision done? Is that in the Bible?

I heard Amy-Jill Levine say that the idea of grace is much present in Jewish thinking way before Jesus and Paul.

Paul certainly knew this and spoke in terms understandable to his audience of Jews, hellenized Jews and Greeks. I am a bit wary of seeing too much Greek pagan influence in his thinking as disproportionate to Jewish thinking. Paul certainly preached to one and all, but he was not himself from a pagan background and he never renounced his own Judaism regardless of his comments about his understanding of the law. Think, some of what is being discussed in the new perspective on Paul conversation.

okrapod wrote:

I heard Amy-Jill Levine say that the idea of grace is much present in Jewish thinking way before Jesus and Paul.

I agree with this which is why I do not really subscribe to the whole law/grace dichotomy that is so prevalent today. I just don’t see it as either/or.

For myself, I have greatly benefited from looking at some Jewish ideas about law and grace, among other things, it being that both Jesus and Paul lived and died as Jews who were each recognized during their lifetimes as being people who informed (if not conformist) in Jewish matters.

I have also greatly benefited from looking at Roman Catholic ideas of grace/faith/justification as well as some related issues, and how they perceive that. Ideas do not spring de novo or ex nihilo but rather are built on prior ideas one way or the other, and our ancestors were all a part of the ancient church and its ideas up until 1054 AD at least and some all the way to the protestant reformation. Those ideas did not magically go away; one needs to be aware of them, and aware of what developed of those ideas in Roman Catholicism post reformation, because this is the counter balance to how various protestant ideas developed post reformation.

I highly recommend that people do this, but with the warning that perhaps people who do that might end up with some different perspectives than if they never did that.

Like a chemistry prof of mine used to say when he hurled himself around chem lab declaring his own theories of mostly everything, “It is all grist for the mill, grist for the mill.” Bless him. I really liked that man and his idea that minds need all the stimulation and challenge they can get. Just a side thought.

Lea wrote:

The men then respond. One claims that the Bible made a woman bring a baby to the Temple for circumcision after 8 days and they didn’t have cars then so women should be able to get to church. If it was good enough for the women of the Old Testament, it is good enough for women today. A one week rule is born!

That example blew me away. There are a lot of women who I’m sure didn’t make it to temple, since they died in childbirth, or were probably too ill to come. And most women make it to the doctor in a week, but that doesn’t mean they need to be in church, and bringing a baby to soak up germs. (Someone over at SSB brought up a bible verse from somebody who stayed home to counteract that Mary one, too.) That whole thread just seemed ridiculous. We are talking about adults. They don’t need a sick note, they need to be left alone to make their own decisions.

I feel bad for all these wives who seem to have been dragged to church immediately.

Women and husbands and children of all sorts get the heck out of these control factories. They are not churches.

dee wrote:

What kind of a church was this? Had you asked them not to contact you?

Dee, it was a “church” (with a silly, self-important name) pastored by a MacArthurite, and which today is totally “lead” by a Master’s Seminary product. He would call and told me I would not make it out there without his church, that I would not survive if I don’t come back, and that I did not have permission to leave. He meant there was nowhere else that I could go; nowhere else where I could find “the truth” (isn’t that what they all say? The funny thing is that I was never even a member of said establishment (long story; husband; trouble). When the “pastor” called a third time, he screamed at me, and I told him that they would not see me again and that I was not afraid to leave or to find another place or people to worship with. I simply put the phone down while he was screaming. Done. He did not call again, but then the rumors, gossip started. This “pastor” even showed my emails to him to all and sundry (which, I thought, was unethical).

While still there and having been called a “passenger” from the holy pulpit, a church founder asked why I had not joined, and I said I was feeling uncomfortable with the weird teaching and “rules” and “commands.” For instance, we were emailed and told to prepare food on Saturday, so that we did not have to “work” on the Sunday, weird, cult-like stuff like that. So, this cocky guy (pious beyond belief during church time but super rude in private) told me that I was under this church’s authority regardless. After that comment, the wheels came off very quickly; thank God.

They even went as far as to blame my divorce on NOT heeding to their superficial and unbiblical counseling (and that coming from someone who was married for the second time. Can you spell hypocrite?).

Recently, this same church gave every member a lecture and notes on how to defend TULIP/Calvinism. Yes, not to defend Christ, or present the gospel (which they simply cannot do, as Jesus did not die for anyone who turns to him), but to defend the weird teachings of men.

Salem? Some irony there, Dee, as that’s where the Puritans (Calvinists) committed their “noble” deeds (I’m sure you are aware of that?). This is nothing new, this “control” thing.

No, there was zero “grace” in the church I left. None whatsoever.

dee wrote:

Boston Lady wrote:
When I left such a “church”, my name was blackened in meetings and I was called numerous times by the “pastor” and told that I’d not survive without THEM.
What kind of a church was this? Had you asked them not to contact you?

Dee, oh, and there was “no excuse” for not coming to church or whatever meetings they dreamed up. Because I did not conform or bowed down to their authority, they would openly ignore me after Sunday services. What a friendly and loving bunch…not!

Nancy2 wrote:

Hyper-grace is what certain church leaders and certain husbands use as an excuse when they behave badly.
Cheap grace is what certain church leaders and certain husbands demand from us when they get caught behaving badly.

Brilliant.

This may be somewhat off topic, but it appears that church leader Doug Wilson has officially decided to drop the Federal Vision label in favor of…he doesn’t yet know what. Reading between the lines, I’ve got my own ideas as to what he’s really doing here. https://dougwils.com/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html

Lydia wrote:

My view of Sovereignty is totally different than the typical New Cal definition which basically means that even God is not Sovereign over His own Sovereignty! :o)

At which point, the “typical New Cal definition” becomes Socratic Atheism:

Since God can only will what He hath been Predestined to Will, God is NOT God, Predestination/Fate is.
“Eh, Kismet…”

dee wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
humble

The believe they are humbles since they always talk about being worms in God’s eyes. They can be mean as all get out worms though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEBW5AEHTSA

Dale wrote:

Jesus is king of kings; he turns their hearts like water.
Take warning, Or judges of the earth. Worship the LORD with reverence and rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled.
And as many as we’re appointed to eternal life believed.
The secret things belong to the Lord our God.
I think God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are one of these “secret things.”
The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Acts 13:48 according to Ellicotts Commentary:

“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.—Better, as many as were disposed for. The words seem to the English reader to support the Calvinistic dogma of divine decrees as determining the belief or unbelief of men, and it is not improbable, looking to the general drift of the theology of the English Church in the early part of the seventeenth century, that the word “ordained” was chosen as expressing that dogma. It runs, with hardly any variation, through all the chief English versions, the Rhemish giving the stronger form “pre-ordinate.” The Greek word, however, does not imply more than that they fell in with the divine order which the Jews rejected. They were as soldiers who take the place assigned to them in God’s great army. The quasi-middle force of the passive form of the verb is seen in the Greek of Acts 20:13, where a compound form of it is rightly rendered “for so he had appointed,” and might have been translated for so he was disposed. It lies in the nature of the case that belief was followed by a public profession of faith, but the word “believed” does not, as some have said, involve such a profession.”

Your quote from Proverbs 16 does not say that God made them to be wicked. It means that he has a purpose for all things but that does not preclude choice. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18).

The proverb about a king’s heart is more about governing a nation than about personal salvation. Please examine the context of all your quotes.

Now some opposing Scriptures:

God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only son that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)

God desires ALL MEN to be saved and come to a knowledge of truth (1 Timothy 2:4)

God is not willing that ANY should perish (2 Peter 3:9).

God IS love (1 John 4). His authority and power operate interdependently with that attribute, as well as his attributes of justice and truth. God cannot lie and he cannot be unjust or unloving. So this notion of “ABSOLUTE sovereignty” (as passionately expressed by my former Calvinistic pastor) is unbalanced and false.

@ okrapod:

From the link you indicated (Holcomb on grace):

A shorthand for what grace is – “mercy, not merit.” Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve, and not getting what you do deserve. Christianity teaches that what we deserve is death with no hope of resurrection.

There was time when I signed onto these strict binaries with no reservation whatsoever. That time is past. I now see ‘karma’ and ‘grace’ as inextricably linked, both of them as valid operators on the operands of life.

I’ve done some bad things in my life and times, but none of them deserve* torture by fire for eternity, so grace ensures that I get hell anyway? Even though I don’t deserve it? Karma argues that I don’t get hell because my good qualities outweigh my bad. Do you see the cognitive dissonance in Holcomb’s thesis?

*when you (generic you) control the term ‘deserve’ at the outset, you control the narrative, and you can shut down any objections rooted in ‘fairness’, or real world jurisprudence. From there it’s easy to assert that a jaywalker deserves the same punishment as a mass murderer.
Dr. Fundy pointed this out quite nicely up-thread.

Clarification on my last post: The traditional translation has been challenged but I am not sure which rendering is correct, but interesting nonetheless.

Dee – you bet I was a heathen. I gave birth to an 11 pound 9 ounce baby. I don’t think any many could or would want to do this. It was several weeks before I made it back to church. Then we traveled 900 miles to have her dedicated at my home church. So maybe it was ok after all.

Boston Lady – these same men who tell you to prepare the food on Saturday so you don’t have to work on Sunday, sure don’t mind all the women cooking on Sundays for special dinners at the church, as in a big Thanksgiving meal, etc. Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.

ishy wrote:

They’re probably not the ones doing the cooking or anything else on Saturday either.

@ Harley:

Yes, you two, it was the church of contradictions aplenty. There is a song from the 80s, the “Church of the Poison Mind” (singer and band unknown to me) that I still hear in certain (weird) places. Anyhow, when I hear it, it serves as a mocking reminder of the cult days and how I’d somehow managed to pass that time without losing my composure or my dignity or my sanity, but Jesus is faithful, and on many occasions I and another could almost physically feel a gentle push on us to get up and leave the church. We had an idea it was the Holy Spirit strongly indicating to us to leave. And as you know, we did. God knew we were in the wrong club, and after a few firm pushes, I agreed.

If we go to the other side of hyper-grace, honestly, I think it’s just an excuse to get away with whatever and still make money off gullible people. I don’t think there’s any deep theology or thinking at all involved. Guys like Tchividjian want instant grace for themselves while continuing to show utter disdain for the rest of humanity, and they’re just spoiled toddlers.

@ Muff Potter:

You must have one heluva résumé.

@ ZechZav:

It’s so important to remember that we’re not reading the original words of the Bible in English, but someone’s translation. The sad awakening I’ve had over recent years is how much politics and preconceived beliefs have corrupted translation work. In the past, I had faith in the neutrality and professionalism of translation teams, whereas today I am cynical (thanks, in large part, to Mr. Grudem for opening my eyes). I wonder how many of the concepts that are commonly accepted are based on mistranslations.

Dee,

Jen Wilkin’s article is titled “Failure Is Not A Virtue,” not “Failure Is Not An Option.” She’s not teaching perfectionism.

Thank you for your clear and accurate presentation of the Doctrines of Grace.

Since you (reluctantly) asked for a book recommendation, I will yet again mention Michael Horton’s “For Calvinism,” the companion book to Roger Olson’s “Against Calvinism,” both of which I read.

dee wrote:

I cannot conceive holy God specifically ordaining the specific acts that led to Jessica’s death. Due to my daughter’s illness, I spent way to much time on the oncology floor of Dallas Children’s Hospital. Once again, I cannot see God specifically ordaining tiny children to such suffering.

I too have oceans of respect for Pastor Burleson, but I cannot and will not sign onto any such thing, my conscience will not let me.
The gods of Egypt and the gods of the Canaanites? Yeah I can see them engineering and ordaining cruelty to the weak and the helpless. But the God of Abraham? No way in hell. He’s not anything like them.

@ brad/futuristguy:

Of the Tchividjian books I have, only one, “Jesus + Nothing = Everything,” has an index; the Holy Spirit is mentioned on six pages. This passage is revealing:

“It is the Spirit of Christ who daily bears testimony with our spirit that we are ‘in’ forever – that it is finished! It’s the Spirit that preaches the gospel to our weary spirits when we need it most, reminding us that everything we need and long for is already ours *in Christ*. It is the Spirit that daily reorients us to the liberating reality that there’s nothing left to do. It’s done! The Spirit’s *subjective work in me* consists of his constant, daily driving me back to Christ’s completed *objective work for me*.” (p. 137; * = italics.)

Interesting: Two of his books are titled “Glorious Ruin” and “It Is Finished.”

JeffB wrote:

Interesting: Two of his books are titled “Glorious Ruin” and “It Is Finished.”

The gift of Prophecy…

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Perhaps others who’ve studied Mr. Tchividjian’s theology more intensively can comment about his views on the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. But lack of presence or emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment does seem to be a pattern in the law/grace/hyper-grace systems. In my thinking, when the Holy Spirit is left out, you have a “closed

@ JeffB:
Yikes. He is flowery platitudes like Piper.

Dale wrote:

We have a “sin nature” that the Bible says we inherited from our forebear, Adam.

That is a very common misconception. Nowhere does the Bible say we inherited a sin nature from Adam. It says we inherited mortality (“and so death spread to all men”). This is a big difference. Also, nowhere does the Bible say we have a sin nature. It says we have flesh (sarx in Greek). Some translations incorrectly translate sarx as sin nature. But that is interpreting the Greek rather than translating it. Interestingly, Jesus came in the sarx and suffered in the sarx. But I don’t think anyone would go so far to say that Jesus came in the sin nature or suffered in the sin nature.

@ JeffB:

That quote sounds to me like it confirms my gut feeling that “sanctification” is merely walking in the truth of “salvation.” It’s all about knowing objective truth, feeling the freedom from the weight of it — but what about practicalities of living it out? But what happens to undo harm that has been done? Or to warn and prevent us from inflicting damage? Or is everyone else just supposed to live in whatever mess I/we create for others by our actions? What about fruit of the Spirit?

Ken F wrote:

Nowhere does the Bible say we inherited a sin nature from Adam. It says we inherited mortality (“and so death spread to all men”). This is a big difference. A

Bingo

@ siteseer:
I can relate to this myself. The more I dug in, the more I had to consider other meanings, etc. The one thing that helped me was to keep an overarching broad theme of the consistent message within many sepeeate books, their literary devices, historical contexts, etc: God’s provision for our Rescue.

@ Ken F:

I think many Calvinists are so hung up about “God’s glory” and “God’s sovereignty” that they ignore his other attributes. I believe that God has all power and authority but the Bible also tells us that God is love, that he is just and that he is faithful and true.

When I challenged my former Calvinistic pastor he kept reverting back to “God is sovereign”. I asked “if God has decreed whether someone is going to be saved, then is the offer of the gospel to the non-elect sincere?” He said “I don’t know, I just trust in his sovereignty and can’t answer”. He was so hung up about God’s sovereignty that he denied his faithfulness to do so. The Bible is clear that God CANNOT LIE. He cannot “deny himself” and act contrary to his own nature.

Relentless logic doesn’t help, it just gets us deeper into trouble.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Perhaps others who’ve studied Mr. Tchividjian’s theology more intensively can comment about his views on the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. But lack of presence or emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment does seem to be a pattern in the law/grace/hyper-grace systems. In my thinking, when the Holy Spirit is left out, you have a “closed

Tchividjian’s theology is in line with that of my former pastor; my former pastor spoke at Tchividjian’s conference in 2015 so one might surmise that they are essentially on the same page, theologically. When one attends a supposedly “Calvinist” church with a “grace boy” as pastor, the emphasis as far as my experience lies, is on justification. Christ’s rightousness is imputed to us, and He bears the punishment we deserve on the Cross. All well and good. However, these pastors fail to move beyond justification to our sanctification, a working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer making us more and more like Christ throughout the rest of our lives. Thus, at least in my experience, one hears practically nothing about the Holy Spirit. More problematic, nee deadly for unbelievers hearing what I sincerely believe is a false gospel, grace boys are quite reluctant to mention sin or repentance. Critics have labeled this “grace” emphasis antinomianism, against the laws [of God], a very old heresy.
Someone above mentioned how translations of scripture have skewed meanings of essential doctrines; I read last week that the Greek word for antinomian was all through the original Greek text but has since been mistranslated as darkness, among other meanings. The verse that caught my eye was Matthew 7:22-23. ….depart from me, you who practice lawlessness… In the greek, which is supposedly the inspired Word of God, that word is antinomian.

@ Rhonda Montgomery:

That’s *very* helpful, Rhonda — thanks! And this overemphasis on imputed righteousness and justification is where the horrible cliche of it meaning “just as if I’d never sinned” may be twisted to refer to objective positional truth — but the consequences in the lives of others of those sins don’t self-erase because of “grace.”

Ironic, it’s all forensic/accounting terminology and position truths related to sealing by the Holy Spirit — but nothing about walking by faith and being accountable, by means of the Holy Spirit. So, it’s all individualized and there is no recourse theologically to make things right in community.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

And this overemphasis on imputed righteousness and justification is where the horrible cliche of it meaning “just as if I’d never sinned” may be twisted to refer to objective positional truth — but the consequences in the lives of others of those sins don’t self-erase because of “grace.”

This article is one of the first I read from an Eastern Orthodox perspective: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness. It addresses imputed righteousness in a way I had never heard. I am not EO, but I am finding their theology very compelling. It predates the Reformation by more than 1200 years (their theology was locked down in 787).

@ Ken F:

There is a good book by a Brethren author called “The Faith of God’s Elect” by John F. Parkinson. He re-introduces the teaching that Romans 9 is rabbinic midrash to demonstrate that God saves on his terms – by grace through faith. Ishmael is a picture of man trying to gain God’s favour by human works whereas Isaac was the means that God has chosen. Esau represents the one with “the birthright” who was rejected – which corresponds to the Israelites who did not believe. The point being that God does not regard works of the law, works of the flesh or being born an Israelite automatically puts you in God’s favour. You have to come to him by faith.

@ ZechZav:

Jacob was chosen over Esau while still in the womb. Isaac was chosen by the proclamation of God and announced before Sarah got pregnant with him. How is that faith? Do the unborn and even the not yet conceived have faith?

Eric Davis’s selfish, thuggy, heartless, self important, know nothing misogyny is the reason I have not been to church since I was fifteen and find atheist men a million times more loving, respectful, and compassionate towards women and little girls.

JeffB wrote:

Jen Wilkin’s article is titled “Failure Is Not A Virtue,” not “Failure Is Not An Option.” She’s not teaching perfectionism.

I’m kind of confused what she’s teaching.

These days, obedience has gotten a bad name. And failure has gotten a make-over.

Interestingly, Jesus battled legalism in a different way than the celebratory failurist does. Rather than tossing out the Law or devaluing obedience to it, he called his followers to a deeper obedience (Matthew 5:17-48) than the behavior modification the Pharisees prized. He called for obedience in motive as well as in deed, the kind of godly obedience that is impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. Rather than abolish the Law, Jesus deepened his followers’ understanding of what it required, and then went to the cross to ensure they could actually begin to obey it.

Has obedience really gotten a bad name? What does that exactly mean?

She seems to be saying that the new testament message is that we now must obey in motive as well as deed (motive wasn’t important before?) and that we are now able to do so through the Holy Spirit. Rather than setting us free from law, Christ came to deepen our obligation to it? As Miles Stanford used to say with a chuckle, “Try away, try away!”

Ian wrote:

The old time Baptist who had rules about dancing, movies, and dress codes.

I find all this a difficult concept. There must be things which amount to sin. In the examples quoted, there have to be types of dancing, certain movies, and styles of dress which are off-limits for a Christian.

So, to chose a non-contentious subject, I can’t imagine any Christian saying it’s OK to watch porn. But there are obviously lots of things which are more debatable – eg nudity and sex scenes in regular movies, violence, bad language, etc. Where do we draw the line?

There has be a place for freedom of conscience – people deciding what is right and wrong for them – but there also has to be a place for the church teaching on matters of conduct and lifestyle.

In case people are wondering, I did grow up in a Baptist church, yes, an English one, but still Baptist

Ahem. These are things that SOUTHERN Baptists had/have a rules. We somethings assume all Baptists are SBC, well, because if you’re not then you’re not really …

Card playing is also on the list. Luck is depending on the devil to bring you good fortune. (Maybe playing Poker is ok, since many call it a game of skill. At least draw poker.)

In the 60s don’t mow your yard or rake your leaves on Sunday.

My wife and I know people who have stated that a good Christian will not watch an R rated movie. Because we all know the MPAA applies good Christian values in determining their rating.

Rules make life easy. You don’t have to think. Nuff said.

Ken F wrote:

What is her take on the point of the story. Taken in context with the other parables around it, what point was he making by telling it?

She did not get into that in what I heard. There is a lot of stuff by her on youtube including a lot about parables, so maybe she discussed that elsewhere. However, of what i have heard, like the workers in the vineyard parable she just talks about what the parable said, not why he said it.

But about the grouping of the sayings of Jesus in the gospels, are we not just assuming that the groupings have specific meanings based on groupings. After all, it was the authors of the gospels who did the literary presentation. We have no evidence that I know of that the groupings were done by Jesus. For example, the sermon on the mount which some say was not a sermon and not on a mount but was rather a literary device to create a setting for some of the collected sayings of Jesus. For instance, did Matthew who did grouping ever say that the reader should understand that not only the content itself had meaning but also there was another layer of meaning in how they were grouped. I know people do assume that-the lost coin, the lost son, the lost whatever-but I do not see where the gospel authors said that themselves. And I do not see in the gospels themselves where there is consistency in talking about settings. For example the incident in Jesus’ home synagogue is placed in the home synagogue and that forms part of the story. But the feeding of he five thousand does not say what he preached, or how the people responded to his preaching, or how many were healed or how it came to be that those people were away from home without lunch boxes and I always wonder how they went to potty all together out there like that. But none of that is pertinent to the story, and none of that is discussed. So we have that sort of thing in the gospels sometimes-a parable here, an incident there, a reported conversation with the disciples, all with no apparent context given or necessary.

Entering this comment stream late, after celebrating my wife’s birthday today. By God’s grace, we have come a long way together. I was young and now am old, here’s what I’ve come to know about God’s Grace. It cannot be reduced to a theological doctrine, a system of interconnected doctrines, or religious laws of men. It is spiritual in nature. It cannot be learned or earned. It cannot be bought or caught. It is dispatched into a believer’s life from God through Jesus by the Spirit. The humble and repentant are best positioned to receive it. Lots of church folks talk about it, but few experience it.

A.W. Tozer defined it this way: “Grace is the good pleasure of God that inclines him to bestow benefits upon the undeserving. It is a self-existent principle inherent in the divine nature and appears to us as a self-caused propensity to pity the wretched, spare the guilty, welcome the outcast, and bring into favor those who were before under just disapprobation. Its use to us sinful men is to save us and make us sit together in heavenly places to demonstrate to the ages the exceeding riches of God’s kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”

@ Dale:
That verse does not say that we have a sin nature. It says that we are sinners. Something I learned from EO theology is the reason for our sin: fear of death (see Heb 2:15). If my understanding is correct, EOs do not believe in original sin in the sense of it being an inherited nature passed on like genes. They teach that our problem is we are all born as mortals. It is our fear of death that makes us slaves to sin, which makes each of responsible for our own sin. It’s not a sin nature that we inherited, but a death nature. Consequently, the solution is new life, not some kind of legal remedy. EO theology has forced me to re-think quite a lot – I’m still a work in progress.

Boston Lady wrote:

ishy wrote:

They’re probably not the ones doing the cooking or anything else on Saturday either.

@ Harley:

Yes, you two, it was the church of contradictions aplenty. There is a song from the 80s, the “Church of the Poison Mind” (singer and band unknown to me) that I still hear in certain (weird) places. Anyhow, when I hear it, it serves as a mocking reminder of the cult days and how I’d somehow managed to pass that time without losing my composure or my dignity or my sanity, but Jesus is faithful, and on many occasions I and another could almost physically feel a gentle push on us to get up and leave the church. We had an idea it was the Holy Spirit strongly indicating to us to leave. And as you know, we did. God knew we were in the wrong club, and after a few firm pushes, I agreed.

Church of the Poison Mind was a Culture Club song, from the same album as Karma Chameleon.

@ Ken F:
And there is the metaphorical aspect of death as sin. Death ias condemnation. Juxtaposed with conquering death so we have new life now and eternally.

@dee dee wrote:

When grace morphs…

IMHO “morphs” is the operative word.
– The Torah morphed into the Talmud.
– The Gospel morphed into many different “isms” – Lutheranism, Methodism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc.

– “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6 NASB

From a dictionary: Grace – (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

Ken F wrote:

ZechZav wrote:

Relentless logic doesn’t help, it just gets us deeper into trouble.

I’m coming to the conclusion that earlier ages of Christianity embraced mystery before going very far any of these paths. The Calvinists headed pretty far down some logic trails but then ended up at the same point: mystery. The difference is the Calvinists caused a lot of damage along the way and lost sight of beauty. The branches of Christianity that embraced mystery earlier caused less damage and got to retain beauty.

yes, there is a definite difference in how Eastern Christianity is more comfortable with the mystery of God;
and how Western Christianity seeks to sometimes ‘know’ that which we may not have the ability to understand.
Would that we in the West thought more along the lines of our Eastern brothers and sisters and celebrated the ‘uncreated Light’ of God with the same reverence.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

On the topic of “hyper-grace,” I recently finished writing “UN-accountable: Case Study in Systems Analysis and Ministerial Accountability,” using the immense amount of information and documentation that became public between March and December 2016 about Tullian Tchividjian’s reported serial grooming/seduction/adultery. Yes … a semi-boring title, but it’s descriptive. I identify various institutions and individuals that played a major role in promoting and/or protecting Mr. Tchividjian, and analyze some of his articles and apology statements. Here are three paragraphs that tie in with a main conclusion, that “grace” as he applies the term consistently involves no taking of responsibility and therefore additional people harmed.

So, excluding the social media fans/followers [120,000+ on Twitter plus Facebook], there were over 150 individuals in at least 10 institutions who had direct connections with Tullian Tchividjian as his superiors, peers, or subordinates. And yet, it seems nobody could keep Tullian Tchividjian from his two adulterous relationships he has already admitted to (after they were discovered or disclosed), or from his reported predatory/seductive behavior patterns, or from his reported multiple failures to tell the full truth.

Why? What was happening (or not happening) here with accountability? What dynamics were going on with the individuals and institutions involved, such that someone with what turned out to be such distinctive (in my opinion) patterns of deception, manipulation, and seduction could get by for so many years before his sins were evident?

[…]

As a sidenote on theological issues, I can’t recall seeing anything from Tullian Tchividjian in any of his statements or quotes about the Holy Spirit as a means of grace in empowering us to resist temptation as prevention and interception. He seems only to emphasize grace and mercy and forgiveness after the factPerhaps others who’ve studied Mr. Tchividjian’s theology more intensively can comment about his views on the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. But lack of presence or emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment does seem to be a pattern in the law/grace/hyper-grace systems. In my thinking, when the Holy Spirit is left out, you have a “closed system” where nothing and no one can break in to stop the cycle of sin-forgive-grace-temptation-sin-[repeat ad infinitum]. So, this kind of irresponsible, unaccountable, and unresponsive pattern of living means anything goes under the banner of grace — which is just as damaging to self and others as is the behavior modification for conformity of the hyper-legalism end of the spectrum.

dee wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Perhaps others who’ve studied Mr. Tchividjian’s theology more intensively can comment about his views on the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. But lack of presence or emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment does seem to be a pattern in the law/grace/hyper-grace systems.

Intersting point.

If everything is predestined, God’s will from the beginning, why do you need a Holy Spirit? Moreover, why do you need Jesus? If God decided before you were born if you are going to heaven or hell, then that a priori knowledge is a salvation in and of itself.

MidwesternEasterner wrote:

Church of the Poison Mind was a Culture Club song, from the same album as Karma Chameleon.

Love Culture Club! Great band!

okrapod wrote:

Jacob was chosen over Esau while still in the womb. Isaac was chosen by the proclamation of God and announced before Sarah got pregnant with him. How is that faith? Do the unborn and even the not yet conceived have faith?

Are you suggesting that that God chose Jacob to eternal life and chose Esau to the alternative? The text doesn’t say that and neither does the historical narrative on which it was based. Not all points in an analogy/allegory fit, sometimes it just uses one point of similarity to teach something.

It says that the elder will serve the younger. Isaac was not chosen for salvation whilst Ishmael was rejected from it – in fact God promised to bless him somewhere in Genesis. The point is that “not done good or bad” means that works are not a factor. Isaac and Jacob picture God’s chosen channel of blessing as opposed to man’s own effort or ancestry. These are the points he is leading to:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (v16).

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. (NIV)

I would really recommend John Wesley’s commentary on this, he exposits the chapter at length: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/romans/romans-9.html

@ Kemi:

“If everything is predestined, God’s will from the beginning, why do you need a Holy Spirit? Moreover, why do you need Jesus? If God decided before you were born if you are going to heaven or hell, then that a priori knowledge is a salvation in and of itself.”

God chooses among the unregenerate whom He will regenerate. He does this by giving them the Holy Spirit. When they are spiritually alive, they choose Jesus. (e.g. John 3:3-8)

No one receives salvation except by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus in payment for the penalty of our sins (His Atonement). (e.g. 1 Peter 3:18)

So each Person of the Trinity has His part to play in salvation.

Former Fundy wrote:

As far as the environment of legalism in neo-Calvinist churches, I’ve been convinced lately that neo-Calvinists just have a different set of rules from the fundamentalism that I left behind.

I disagree that they are just a new kind of fundamentalist, as they not only rewrite the Bible as they see fit while leaving out large portions of it, but they minimize Christ to a large degree. They not only minimize Christ in their theology of the eternal subordination of the Son, and do so just to put themselves in the place of God the Father on earth, but they also just don’t talk about Christ except as a sacrificial lamb. Their “bible” basically is the Old Testament and a few Pauline verses in the New Testament. I would argue they are not even Christians. While many fundamentalists have a rigid view of the Bible, and are very legalistic (and miss the many points in the New Testament about our freedom in Christ), I believe they still hold a high view of Christ, His ministry, and His death and resurrection.

I do think the neo-Cals are very good at hiding the fact that they aren’t Christians. They use much of the same vocabulary as fundamentalists, but they’ve attached wholly different meanings to those words. And I think it’d be really hard to notice that they just don’t talk about Christ or anything from the gospels if you weren’t looking for it. The leaders know Christianity well, and what appeals to the type of members they want. I’m not even sure some of the leaders believe what neo-Cals believe, but they use it to get power and money for themselves like con-men.

dee wrote:

danci

dee wrote:

Ian wrote:
There must be things which amount to sin. In the examples quoted, there have to be types of dancing, certain movies, and styles of dress which are off-limits for a Christian.
I think those things are outlined in Scripture. One has to be careful in imposing one’s set of standards on how that is lived out. For example, what constitutes acceptable dress varies from cutter to culture.
For example, some cultures coverup the female form under long dresses and head coverings. Others see no issue with skimpy dress. Just look at the beaches in the Middle East and compare them to the beaches of Brazil. Can you truly say one is godly and on is not?
Some believe that women should only way “female” clothes. I am one who almost always wear pants and leggings albeit cute pants and leggings.
Ian wrote:
there also has to be a place for the church teaching on matters of conduct and lifestyle.
This is a most difficult problem. Do you want to be the one to determine which R rated movies one can see? Do we really need lectures on not attending adult porno film festivals?
Sovereign Grace Ministries, according to attendees, used to say how many buttons needed to be buttoned on a woman’s shirt. They even allegedly said that women should not wear cross body purses since they emphasized the breasts. Seriously? Women have breasts-get over it. Cross body purses are convenient for shopping and leaving hands free.
I wold not want to be the one in charge of making up these rules. Would you?

Hi Dee,

The more “fundamentalist” groups do say that their views come from scripture – for example that God has created men and women differently, they should therefore dress differently, and the trend towards unisex dressing (ie women wearing pants!) comes from the world rejecting God’s design. Needless to say I disagree.

And I obviously totally agree with you that cultural values play a huge part in this incredibly difficult area. The extent to which we should conform to the norms of both the local Christian community and the wider society is an interesting one.

But isn’t it interesting how so much of this stuff is all about men making rules for women. Whether it’s ayatollahs in Tehran or SGM pastors in Louisville (!), the desire of men to control, subjugate, oppress, and even abuse women is clear for all to see.

@ ZechZav:

No, I am saying that the prophesies about those children at the time of their birth had nothing to do with ‘eternal life’ that being something that somebody has read into the story from a Christian perspective.

Christianity reads a lot into OT stories. Whether or not Christianity is correct in doing that is a totally different question.

ishy wrote:

the eternal subordination of the Son,

This (perspective) is a raging debate right now in Calvinist circles, largely promoted by passages in the ESV supposedly mistranslated by Grudem, et al and reinforced by The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (I think it is called). This complementarian organization may now be defunct or at least discredited by the likes of Byrd, Pruitt, and Truman.) Wartburg Watch has commented on this topic.

Kemi wrote:

If everything is predestined, God’s will from the beginning, why do you need a Holy Spirit?

According to Tullian from his book quote above in the thread, the Holy spirit preaches the Gospel to you daily.

@ Rhonda Montgomery:

If only CBMW was defunct. Either that or overhauled.

dee wrote:

Former Fundy wrote:

They’ve managed to throw off the weird rules about Bible versions, music, and dress . .

Well, they are pretty big into the ESV. Boy do they ever have rulesThat is why I read TGC website every day to see what they have come up with now. The lice example was posted just a few days ago.

Wait…the lice example? If that’s not a typo, I’ll have to investigate. I’ve been recently dealing with the little buggers on young scalps.

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
John 1:16 NASB

Like George Muller, though a thief in his youth, became a benefactor of thousands, pulling orphans off the streets of England, and providing for them a new life. Muller died with the clothes on his back and a legacy of God’s grace to him and what he did for others.

Lydia wrote:

The last thing the princes of the church were doing is seeking Hebrew understanding for translations or interpretations. A quick glaring example is the Christmas story and ‘no room at the inn” meaning.

I saw this over the holidays and it seemed very strange.

@ Lydia:

God doesn’t force. He replaces. He births us anew.

okrapod wrote:

For instance, did Matthew who did grouping ever say that the reader should understand that not only the content itself had meaning but also there was another layer of meaning in how they were grouped. I know people do assume that-the lost coin, the lost son, the lost whatever-but I do not see where the gospel authors said that themselves.

And matthew was writing later, and some thing his focus was on writing to the gentiles, iirc. So it’s interesting to compare his stuff (like the genealogy) to Luke’s…they have a different focus.

@ okrapod:
Jewish practice. There is no way people of their tribe would turn them away and in the City of David! The design of most dwellings had a part of the space for the protection of animals. IOW, they made room. There is a lot more detail but I don’t have it in front of me. There is also some interesting information on the translation of “inn” which changes the perspective.

Some translations have changed it to ‘no guest room’ available. That misses the point, too. As if there were guest rooms. :o) I won’t even get into the practice of childbirth.

My thinking is subsequent translators did not understand Jewish practice/tradition.

Lea wrote:

And matthew was writing later, and some thing his focus was on writing to the gentiles, iirc. So it’s interesting to compare his stuff (like the genealogy) to Luke’s…they have a different focus.

Comparing ‘adds’ to our understanding when something is examined from different perspectives and observations shared, yes.

The problems come when people are unable to accept that their point of view is not the only perspective and that no one else but themselves has anything worth contributing to the understanding of what is being observed. The conversation then moves from a ‘dialogue’ into a ‘debate’ with a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ and the only real winner becomes the laws of dichotomy and dualism.

Good thing the Body of Christ is not like that, but rather a gathering of people contributing their part to the whole, to build it up. Each person has something special to give that no one else can, and so it is said that ‘all are needed’ and that ‘no one is dispensible’.

It’s kind of like that saying:
‘you can fool all of the people some of the time’ and ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time’
but
‘you can’t fool all of the people all of the time’.

There is a strength in the community of Christian people and in their collective wisdom which comes when they share their thoughts and their observations together ….. in time, if they have good will towards one another, and if they have called on the power of the Holy Spirit for guidance, some good will come , and the light is increased.

ishy wrote:

While many fundamentalists have a rigid view of the Bible, and are very legalistic (and miss the many points in the New Testament about our freedom in Christ), I believe they still hold a high view of Christ, His ministry, and His death and resurrection.

I think that’s quite accurate – it’s a good description of many of the older people in the Baptist church of my youth. I think this approach was dominant until quite recently, and it’s still present to varying extents in most branches of evangelicalism.

But we also have to acknowledge, as you rightly do, that these people are devout Christians who seek to please God in all areas of their lives. They are brother and sisters in the Lord and we must always love and honour them, even when we disagree.

On the subject of TGC, which someone mentioned earlier, I just noticed that they’ve published a rather positive review of Ann Voskamp’s latest book.

See https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-review-the-broken-way

I was pleasantly surprised!

One moment the thief on the cross is mocking Jesus. The next he is defending Jesus. His chooser was replaced. What he despised, he now cherished.

@ Dale:
I fail to see any difference when it comes to inability. I have had these type convos for so long living at YRR ground zero, I should probably back out now before compatablism is brought up. :o)

Dale wrote:

One moment the thief on the cross is mocking Jesus. The next he is defending Jesus. His chooser was replaced. What he despised, he now cherished.

I don’t understand this, Dale. Which thief are you talking about? St. Dismas?

Lydia wrote:

Kemi wrote:

If everything is predestined, God’s will from the beginning, why do you need a Holy Spirit?

According to Tullian from his book quote above in the thread, the Holy spirit preaches the Gospel to you daily.

But why? According to them I have no personal agency. If God has already decided whether or not I’m going to heaven, why does the Holy Spirit have to be involved at all?

And Why set up a system with a double confirmations? I’m either chosen or not before the foundations of the earth (according to them) why then in my predestined life does the Holy Spirit or Jesus have to do anything?

Christiane wrote:

Good thing the Body of Christ is not like that, but rather a gathering of people contributing their part to the whole, to build it up.

Dialogue is collaborative; cooperative; multiple sides work toward a shared understanding.

Debate is competitive and/or oppositional; two (or more) opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.

Which one offers the most positive opportunity to build up the Body of Christ, when people are comparing their observations from their various points of view?

Debate offers contrasts, but not shared ideas
Dialogue offers areas of mutual understanding which affirm important differences in a respectful way, and also discover and state mutual shared ideas.

The question I raise is what is the optimum way for people within the Body of Christ to bring their varied perspectives together for examination and mutual benefit? 🙂

For some folks, I guess honest debate would be a step up from their ‘normal’, but there are other options that may, in the context of the Body of Christ, offer more to the Church and I suggest that DIALOGUE is such an option.

@ Christiane:

I have no idea why you decided to go on a debate/dialogue rant because I mentioned Matthew and Luke, but I don’t agree. Sometimes you have different perspectives and debating it can be a very useful way of exploring a topic fully. We aren’t all going to have ‘shared’ ideas on every issue. Sometimes we are just going to disagree and that’s ok. Nothing about debating is going to be likely to reduce the amount of understanding we get on someone else’s perspective.

NC Now wrote:

(dee) The old time Baptist who had rules about dancing, movies, and dress codes

(me) I find all this a difficult concept. There must be things which amount to sin. In the examples quoted, there have to be types of dancing, certain movies, and styles of dress which are off-limits for a Christian. So, to chose a non-contentious subject, I can’t imagine any Christian saying it’s OK to watch porn. But there are obviously lots of things which are more debatable – eg nudity and sex scenes in regular movies, violence, bad language, etc. Where do we draw the line? There has be a place for freedom of conscience – people deciding what is right and wrong for them – but there also has to be a place for the church teaching on matters of conduct and lifestyle.

(me) In case people are wondering, I did grow up in a Baptist church, yes, an English one, but still Baptist

(Now NC) Ahem. These are things that SOUTHERN Baptists had/have a rules. We somethings assume all Baptists are SBC, well, because if you’re not then you’re not really …
Card playing is also on the list. Luck is depending on the devil to bring you good fortune. (Maybe playing Poker is ok, since many call it a game of skill. At least draw poker.)
In the 60s don’t mow your yard or rake your leaves on Sunday.
My wife and I know people who have stated that a good Christian will not watch an R rated movie. Because we all know the MPAA applies good Christian values in determining their rating.
Rules make life easy. You don’t have to think. Nuff said.

Now NC,

I’m fully aware that Baptists are a diverse bunch, the SBC isn’t the only US Baptist group, and the picture of the average Baptist as someone who doesn’t drink, dance, or play cards, is nothing more that a stereotype.

All I was trying to say, in a slightly humorous fashion, is that spending your formative years in a fairly conservative church does have a lasting influence on you, for better or worse. This may come across in my comments…

@ Christiane:
I understand your perspective. You come from a tradition that believes a mere human Pope is infallible, the Vicar of Christ and knows God’s will for the collective.

The winner or loser in a debate is not by force or sugary syrup but ideas, facts, reason, etc. And besides, these days all debaters declare victory so it is a moot point. :o)

Btw, I am the reigning queen of consensus. I spent most of my career facilitating it with groups. It is nice sometimes to simply disagree without being labeled. Oh if that were only possible these days.

Dale wrote:

Dale wrote:

Mark 15:32 – “Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.”
Then, we read in Luke of one of the thieves, whom you call Dismas, having a “change of heart”!

Perhaps the second thief also had a change of heart. The scripture doesn’t say how he reacted to his friend’s rebuke.

Thanks, DALE
yes, I see it. The change is also noted in the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Holy Gospel of St. Luke.
You may be right about the ‘bad thief’ changing also, and we leave him to the mercy of God, yes, with the hope that he did come also to be affected by his proximity to the Presence of Our Lord. The Gospels also note how the centurion and those who crucified Our Lord were changed by Christ’s Presence, ‘course the earthquake helped a bit there also 🙂 ….
“Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
(St. Matthew 27:54)

@ Christiane
@ Lydia

I am all for dialogue during the information gathering process. We absolutely have to hear and understand the other person’s position. But I am also all for debate during the decision making process if we are talking about law or religion or science or anything else for which there in fact may be some true or truer answers and some false or falser answers and when the decisions actually impact people’s lives.

In the classroom ResidentEducator uses the dialogue method. In the courtroom ResidentProsecutor and his opponent put it all to the test as adversaries. Both approaches have their time and place.

Ian wrote:

I take the view that there is a tension presented in the Bible between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. We have to struggle with this and accept that we can never fully understand it.

Scripture speaks a lot about God’s sovereignty. Scripture speaks a lot about man’s free will. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To attempt to put the mind of God into a neat theological box through systems and doctrines (e.g., New Calvinism) is to stand in arrogance before Holy God.

@ Ken F:

Thanks for that link, Ken F! I’ve put it on my read-soon list.

ishy wrote:

And also, I suspect, as a silencing tactic so they can continue the forced conversion of SBC churches to neo-Calvinist. While I think discussion and collaboration are important, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and disagree, if even for both sides to be heard by third parties.

Amen! The New Calvinists are using the high road of unity (via false humility) as a low road to accomplish their mission. The SBC non-Calvinst majority does not have strong enough leadership to knock Gen. Mohler and his lieutenants off the hill they have taken.

dee wrote:

Think about the concept of the Trinity. Can we ever truly understand it or do we merely apprehend it?

Or, in the case of the “Trinity”, have humans simply tried to put understanding and verbage around something that they do not understand, but simply think they do? The worst part about this is that people will divide over beliefs on “Trinity,” a word never uttered by God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. I often wonder if God laughs at our attempts to wrangle Him in.

@ Lane:
News to me that I’m know in Canada. Didn’t realize Canada annexed the USA. lol

Lane wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the CBF formed initial as a group of like minded moderate Baptist within the SBC in the late 80’s whose goal it was to
try and work out differences with the fundamentalist to keep unity in the SBC? If so, I don’t think that worked out so well

How can anything work when men are subversive about their intents?

Ken F wrote:

That verse does not say that we have a sin nature. It says that we are sinners.

I’m convinced that while Adam was the first sinner (Romans 5), the result of generations of sinners was the exit from the garden of Eden. The entire passage of repercussions in Gen. 3 foretold the negative, adverse conditions that would ensue outside of the garden. The garden was a specially designed haven for the first couple where God walked and talked with them in a fellowship that was not available afterward in the same spiritual way.

That happens when one is born again of the spirit and again in Revelation when God will once again dwell with mankind in the new earth as He did in Eden.

The sending out of the garden is an epic event that is treated lightly imho as to the condition of life outside that venue.

I’m focused on the inauguration at the moment so I hope I conveyed that kinda clearly. 🙂

Dale wrote:

No one is ABLE to come to Jesus unless drawn to Him by the Father.

Mat 7:7  “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 
Mat 7:8  “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 

dee wrote:

There is no will of the recipient involved in the whole process.

This is not what Calvinists teach, Dee. Unless you mean by “process” only the initiation of the quickening of the Holy Spirit. But quickening is not a process, it is an event. I like the way Tozer describes the process. It is akin to childbirth. The Holy Spirit’s quickening is an event, much like conception. We take no part in this event. The actual birth is a process – a gestation period. At the end of this process, be are born. We use our will to choose to repent and believe. So, yes we are intimately involved in the process of conversion. We use our will and choose. We just don’t initiate the process.

Unlike MacArthur, Tozer did not believe that we are quickened by the Word. Quickening is not through a mediator. It is instantaneous and is the direct work of the Holy Spirit of God. This corresponds well with the parable of the soils.

Catholicism also teaches that this quickening is all of grace and is an event – it occurs at baptism. But in Catholicism, the grace of quickening can be lost.

The event of quickening is what is alluded to in John 1:13. Born from above. Not by the will of man, but of God.

Bridget wrote:

How can anything work when men are subversive about their intents?

Bingo!

ishy wrote:

Max wrote:

Within SBC ranks, national leadership has called for “unity” within the SBC on the issue of Calvinism. Southern Baptists have been challenged to agree to disagree, get along to go along, and allow theological diversity under one big tent … in order to protect the denomination from division.

And also, I suspect, as a silencing tactic so they can continue the forced conversion of SBC churches to neo-Calvinist. While I think discussion and collaboration are important, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and disagree, if even for both sides to be heard by third parties.

Yes, unity often means conformity.

@ Max:
And it became politically incorrect to disagree. False unity based upon the arbiters of correct speech.

Max wrote:

Within SBC ranks, national leadership has called for “unity” within the SBC on the issue of Calvinism. Southern Baptists have been challenged to agree to disagree, get along to go along, and allow theological diversity under one big tent … in order to protect the denomination from division. This debate has been raging for a number of years, in which arguing about theology has darn near replaced preaching the Gospel! After years of listening to this theological wrangling, I’m still left with the heart of the problem for me … can two distinctly different views of God’s plan of salvation ‘really’ coexist in a single denomination?! Regardless of where Al Mohler places “salvation” in his theological triage, that is essential doctrine for me which cannot be skipped over in the name of unity. It makes a difference to a lost world on who gets to define evangelism and mission going forward. And it makes a huge difference to the Kingdom of God on if/how Southern Baptists will fit in future years. This “debate” is significant!

Max, remember the disagreement is not about salvation – Calvinists and Arminians both teach that people have to believe in Jesus to be saved, and they both support evangelism. The dispute is over the precise role of God and man in the way someone comes to faith.

So I’m not sure it makes a difference to the “lost world” provided that the gospel is preached faithfully.

As far as coexistence goes, it all depends on whether the majority group wants to get rid of the minority. At the moment, perhaps 1/3 of the SBC is Calvinist, and the remainder are probably more on the tolerant side. However, if the position ever got reversed and SBC became 2/3 Calvinist, it wouldn’t surprise me if they found a way of purging anyone who disagrees. Calvinists tend to be like that 🙁

dee wrote:

Divorce Minister wrote:
Yes, God freely and graciously extends the gift of eternal life through His Son. However, such a gift is useless unless we repent.
The Reformed argument claims that we are unable to repent until God first changes us. So, only those who can repent are those chosen by God. There is no credence given tp the possibility that God created us with an ability to choose so that we can say it is freely chosen.
This does not mean I am the author of my salvation. I can choose to be the Queen of England but I cannot make that happen. Choice does not equal saving myself. The salvation part is totally in the hands of God.

This is the part where I DEpart from Reformed theology. Choice has to be free in a real sense, or God is responsible for evil. I don’t know how that all works out, but God is Sovereign, AND we are real agents in deciding things, not mere puppets.

Methodists would point to prevenient grace, which I think looks better than a wooden fatalism that Reformed theology can tend towards.

As a side note, I get the heebie jeebies when these TGC people talk grace. It feels fake like my former father in law talking about love for me while aiding his daughter in the divorce. Something feels really amiss when grace comes across as Law even while denying it as such.

@ Ian:
Ian, the ratios don’t matter. The NewCals control almost all the entities and resources. Since it has always been a stealth movement using deception to gain power and take over churches and entities, it is too late to reverse course. There are few seminary grads who are not determinists.

Personally, I think Paige Patterson and AL Mohler deserve one another. :o)

Christiane wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Yes, unity often means conformity.

“in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas”

Not everyone agrees with what is necessary. I certainly would not have agreed with quite a few things Augustine thought were necessary.

Ian wrote:

In case people are wondering, I did grow up in a Baptist church, yes, an English one, but still Baptist

A Spurgeon type Baptist? I am curious to know what affiliation. My Brit friends in the North looked up Baptist churches in their area to appease my curiosity. They are agnostics. There were not many but they ran the gamet of reformed, non reformed and more charismatic.

@ Lydia:

Wiki says it was not Augustine. You ought to read the discussion on wiki; it is interesting.

dee wrote:

I believe that Calvinists would argue that, if God is able to stop sin and suffering and chooses not to so, then He is a callous God. Therefore, he must a reason for everything that occurs and that we will understand this in heaven.
I do not buy this perspective but I get it.

I don’t buy it, either. How do they decide where that dividing line is between wrong, mistaken,or evil choices/decisions/actions that people make/do, and God’s reasons for “ordaining” certain bad things to happen?

@ Max:

When it becomes necessary in the course of human events to dissolve the …bonds…

I just cannot see how it is right to choose either unity or harmony at the expense of certain things. Those things might be evidence in the case of the age of the earth, or freedom in the case of forced conformity, or scholarship in the case of biblical exegesis, or evangelism in the case of indifference, or missions in the case of aberrant theologies or practices, or any similar thing which ought not be sacrificed.

@ okrapod:
Really? Will check it out. Whoever wrote it, I still have a tendency to analyze such platitudes. The Megas used that quote all the time to shut down thought.

ishy wrote:

The words neo-Calvinists use are the same, but they have completely redefined them to mean something else.

My Dear Wormwood:

I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics; specifically, the redefinition of words into their “diablolical meanings”.

Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape

P.S. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the altar!

mot wrote:

The Neo-Cals have all the power and the money. The Non-Cals can just go ahead and say goodbye to the SBC. All they get to do is provide money and warm bodies.

Bodies for the foundations of the Great Edifice:

Human sacrifice has been practiced on a number of different occasions and in many different cultures. The various rationales behind human sacrifice are the same that motivate religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice is intended to bring good fortune and to pacify the gods, for example in the context of the dedication of a completed building like a temple or bridge. There is a Chinese legend that there are thousands of people entombed in the Great Wall of China.

For the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they killed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, “between 10,000 and 80,400 persons” were sacrificed in the ceremony.[8]
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Ian wrote:

As far as coexistence goes, it all depends on whether the majority group wants to get rid of the minority. At the moment, perhaps 1/3 of the SBC is Calvinist, and the remainder are probably more on the tolerant side. However, if the position ever got reversed and SBC became 2/3 Calvinist, it wouldn’t surprise me if they found a way of purging anyone who disagrees. Calvinists tend to be like that

There’s a critical mass in such things somewhere around 80%.

Once a consensus within a group reaches aroung 80%, Groupthink locks in and the 20% are Purged By Any Means Necessary.

@ okrapod:
maybe I should have translated it 🙂

dee wrote:

It does force is to change. It is irresistible grace. I agree that Calvinist theology believes that such a force is a good and the recipient is grateful. The person being regenerated has absolutely no choice in the matter since they are unable to even eat it to happen. There is no will of the recipient involved in the whole process.

And the Calvinists imitate their God.
Their inferiors have absolutely no choice in the matter; only Feel the Whip and Praise those Who Hold the Whip.

Calvinism is like putting a rat in a maze with one direction leading to rat joy and the other leading to rat torment, and then sealing off one path or the other and putting something rats detest over the barricade so that they would not want to approach the barricade even if they could defeat it. They end up “freely” choosing the only path available to them. This gives the Calvinist rationale to claim free will, even though it’s a complete illusion.

Dale wrote:

No one is ABLE to come to Jesus unless drawn to Him by the Father.

TULIP starts with the assumption that atonement equals salvation. But is this true?
At the risk of proof-texting, here are some verses that sound like atonement is universal:
John 12:32 – “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
Romans 5:19 – “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
Romans 11:32 – “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Calvinists see that all are not saved, so they conclude that limited atonement must be true and that God saves some people against there will. Universalists see verses like the above and assume that all people are saved, whether they want to be or not. Calvinism and universalism are therefore two sides of the same coin – the only difference is how many people are saved against their will.

But there is also the option that Jesus removed the sin problem for all humans (universal atonement) and that the only thing standing between us and “heaven” is our will. MANY Christians throughout history have believed something along this line. I encourage you to investigate the EO perspective on hell – it’s very different from RC and Protestant.

okrapod wrote:

As to what the meaning is, why would there need to be more meaning than what she said.

Jesus himself claimed to speak in parables as a way of expressing a greater truth. There are MANY examples of allegory in the Bible, both in the OT and NT. To suggest that Luke strung together a collection of unrelated stories that contain no allegorical moral meanings or lessons is preposterous. It’s almost like a form of Gnosticism – only certain properly enlightened people are able recognize that the stories are mostly devoid of religious/spiritual meaning.

Max wrote:

I was young and now I’m old … and during my journey I’ve come to discern what genuine unity looks like. What is unfolding within SBC is a compromise for the sake of harmony, not unity. Majority Southern Baptists can’t afford to be harmonious, but unified.

Excellent Max! I was once you and now I am old also. The majority of the SBC better act today before it is too late.

Lydia wrote:

Ian wrote:
In case people are wondering, I did grow up in a Baptist church, yes, an English one, but still Baptist
A Spurgeon type Baptist? I am curious to know what affiliation. My Brit friends in the North looked up Baptist churches in their area to appease my curiosity. They are agnostics. There were not many but they ran the gamet of reformed, non reformed and more charismatic.

Hi Lydia,

My old church was Baptist Union, also in the north of England. The Baptist Union is our largest Baptist grouping and is now called Baptists Together. I don’t think I’d call it a Spurgeon-type church – that sounds rather reformed – their influences were more the missionary movement and Billy Graham. But for various reasons, the culture in that church, particularly amongst the older generation, was very conservative a few decades ago.

The Baptist Union, as I understand it, is fairly middle-of-the-road and broad-based. I don’t think many of our reformed Baptist churches are members – they’d regard it as too liberal for them. It has ordained women since the 1920s! We don’t have many reformed Baptists over here – some belong to a smaller grouping (Grace Baptists), others are independent.

@ Ian:
Thanks for the info! Are you familiar with Adrian Warnock in London? He seemed to fit in with the McArthur Baptists but more charismatic.. There are also many New Cal youth groups here going to Wales a lot because of some affiliations. . Beware. :o)

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Bingo.

Kemi wrote:

And Why set up a system with a double confirmations? I’m either chosen or not before the foundations of the earth (according to them) why then in my predestined life does the Holy Spirit or Jesus have to do anything?

I missed this earlier. Double confirmation! Never thought of it that way.

I have had this Convo with so many YRR for so long. I always ask about the “regeneration activation” so you “can” believe. I mean, why wait to activate what has already been chosen for you before you are born. Did God wait, in our lifetime, for Grudem and AL Mohler? Just kidding!

And I get your point and raise the pot– what is the point of Christ, the Cross and resurrection, at all? It was all decided before the foundation of the world. Add in PSA and, IMO, the whole thing comes periously close to Greek paganism and its fatalism and dualism.

@ Muff Potter:
Both camps are Protestant. That is the golden thread for cousinship, imo. I dont have a tribe so I adopted Pelagius since I have been called that by the YRR for the last 10 years.:o) I did some research on the guy and think he got a bad rap. Most of what we know about his beliefs is written by his very authoritatian detractors.

I think all adults can choose to do good or evil sans the mentally deranged, sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. When Mahaney said he was the worst sinner he knew, we should have believed him. Same for Tullian who said he could do nothing good. Sigh.

Lydia wrote:

. When Mahaney said he was the worst sinner he knew, we should have believed him. Same for Tullian who said he could do nothing good. Sigh.

I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again, their religion will not see the 22nd century. The availability of competing information (not seen since Gutenberg’s movable type printing press) even to the lowliest economic rungs of society via the world-wide web, has begun to seal their doom.

dee wrote:

Well, they are pretty big into the ESV. Boy do they ever have rulesThat is why I read TGC website every day to see what they have come up with now. The lice example was posted just a few days ago.

You know, it might be amusing, just for grins and giggles, to go through the TGC website and collate all the rules they’ve promulgated on their site for their followers.

@ truthseeker00:
‘lenses’

dee wrote:

As everyone know, I love Wade. He and I have discussed this in depth. But here is where I cannot jump over. I talk to Wade about the murder little Jessica Lunsford. It is gruesome and she suffered greatly

I’m only marginally familiar with her story, but I read about little Victoria Martens a few months ago – something very similar as what happened to her happened about a month ago to another girl, by her foster mother.

I don’t believe God foreordains any of that evil, and I have no idea how any one can possibly find it comforting to think that He is behind it.

Lea wrote:

That example blew me away. There are a lot of women who I’m sure didn’t make it to temple, since they died in childbirth, or were probably too ill to come. And most women make it to the doctor in a week, but that doesn’t mean they need to be in church, and bringing a baby to soak up germs. (Someone over at SSB brought up a bible verse from somebody who stayed home to counteract that Mary one, too.) That whole thread just seemed ridiculous. We are talking about adults. They don’t need a sick note, they need to be left alone to make their own decisions.

Something else just crossed my mind about this subject.

The Old Testament also had a bunch of other rules, like, you shouldn’t do any work on the Sabbath. Well, when Jesus broke that rule to heal the sick lady on the Sabbath, the Pharisees had a fit. Jesus told them to stuff it because that woman was a daughter of God who had been in bondage to Satan for years. He said if any one of you had a donkey trapped in a well on the Sabbath, you’d yank it right out, so how much more do you think God would be OK with me healing this lady?

So. Even if there was an OT rule that says “Women who just had a baby are required to attend services this weekend,” Jesus would probably be okay with overturning it, or bending the rules for some situations.

Sometimes religious people misapply rules, and they overlook God’s intent for the rule.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

mot wrote:

The Neo-Cals have all the power and the money. The Non-Cals can just go ahead and say goodbye to the SBC. All they get to do is provide money and warm bodies.

Bodies for the foundations of the Great Edifice:

Human sacrifice has been practiced on a number of different occasions and in many different cultures. The various rationales behind human sacrifice are the same that motivate religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice is intended to bring good fortune and to pacify the gods, for example in the context of the dedication of a completed building like a temple or bridge. There is a Chinese legend that there are thousands of people entombed in the Great Wall of China.

In ancient Japan, legends talk about hitobashira (“human pillar”), in which maidens were buried alive at the base or near some constructions to protect the buildings against disasters or enemy attacks,[5] and an almost identical trope/motif appears in the Serbian epic poem The Building of Skadar where a sacrifice of a young mother still nursing her child will keep the city of Skadar (today Shkodër in the northern tip of Albania) walls from an evil Vila.[6][7]

For the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they killed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, “between 10,000 and 80,400 persons” were sacrificed in the ceremony.[8]
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

This movie scene is quite relevant:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-Lv_Q22ww

okrapod wrote:

I am saying that the prophesies about those children at the time of their birth had nothing to do with ‘eternal life’ that being something that somebody has read into the story from a Christian perspective.
Christianity reads a lot into OT stories. Whether or not Christianity is correct in doing that is a totally different question.

Sorry I think I misunderstood your comment. I agree with what you say above. It is indeed true that Christianity reads a lot into the OT. This is one of the values of understanding the background of the Bible and the cultural context of the Bible.

truthseeker00 wrote:

If there is no choosing, there is no point in the cross. This, of course, is why Calvinism must turn salvation into a forensic legal transaction, rather than the beautiful act of loving mercy that it is. ‘Debt cancelled. Here is your get out of hell free card. Next.’ It is no wonder these people are as cold as ice. If they had any heart they might grieve for those their imitation god consigned to hell – for no reason other than to ‘get himself some glory’. They might have the ‘grace’ to not rejoice that at least they were chosen, and to hell with the rest – literally!

No Calvinist I’ve ever met has been able to refute this, even the ones I respect. I’ve known some that have loved Jesus, but it seemed like it was at the expense of their theology, not because of it.

I decided long ago that I felt a tension over this issue in the Bible, and unlike the Calvinists I know, I am fine with the tension. I don’t feel like I have to have an explanation for everything, and that God would impress answers on my heart if He felt I needed them. Expressing this to a few Calvinists nearly made them have heart attacks. So I wonder if many of the people who choose Calvinism as their theology are people who feel like everything must be black and white. In that they are most like fundamentalists, I think.

ishy wrote:

. So I wonder if many of the people who choose Calvinism as their theology are people who feel like everything must be black and white. In that they are most like fundamentalists, I think.

They seem to have a heavy need for a sense of their own ‘righteousness’, position of being among the ‘elect’, and an assurance that nothing they do can ever change what was determined for their sake before they were created.

Without that need being fed, they would be unable to point the finger at ‘the others’, they would be unable to have that deep contempt for other persons who are told to be ‘submissive’ to them (I still can’t BELIEVE that all SBC men have stooped so low), nor would they be able to ‘lord it’ over others, adding to the burdens of the others instead of helping them bear their burdens. Talk about making a ‘shipwreck’ of faith, a result of abandoning Our Lord in exchange for a pride so evil that it attacked the very Lordship of Christ and attempted to replace His point of view with their own male-headship ‘inerrant’ views of Scripture. And people have been injured? Is that a surprise?

On the subject of ‘unity’, I think people get confused about how a unified people of faith can absorb diversity within their unity comfortably and to their benefit;

but that IS the model of the Body of Christ,
and that IS the model of the Holy Trinity

Maybe people who don’t understand could take another look at ‘diversity’ in a more positive light.

‘Unity’ was never meant to be a lock-step thing with no expression of individuality; nor was it ever the opposite: a group of individuals who could not come together to have communion with one another in Christ.

God did not make us identical robots. But He has created us for Himself. And He has, through the mystery of the Incarnation, come to be ‘with us’ for all eternity, having assumed our humanity into His Person.

End of ‘rant’ 🙂

@ Christiane:
I thought the One True God was of one will. Not diverse wills. One of the challenges with ESS is the person’s of the Trinity often do the same thing. One example is, who raised Jesus from the dead. Scripture actually mentions all Three are involved.

mot wrote:

The majority of the SBC better act today before it is too late.

My father used to tell me that there are three types of people in the world: (1) those who plan to make things happen, (2) those who make things happen, and (3) those who wonder “What happened?!” Majority (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists are in the latter category … with a too little-too late effort to stop Calvinization of their denomination.

Christiane wrote:

@ Lydia:
your comment is not making sense
did you not think that the Holy Trinity is a model of unity and diversity?
what is your understanding of the unity and the diversity within the Holy Trinity???
Hard to understand you, if I don’t know where you are coming from, no.

I see the Trinity as total unity. One United Will. Not diverse wills. One Teue God. Not diversity in gods. I know that is not politically correct but so be it. ESS tries to make us believe the Trinity had diverse wills

@ Christiane:

You wrote earlier:

“On the subject of ‘unity’, I think people get confused about how a unified people of faith can absorb diversity within their unity comfortably and to their benefit;
but that IS the model of the Body of Christ,
and that IS the model of the Holy Trinity”

Thanks for the Anthanasius quote but I fail to see how it communicates “diversity” of will in the Trinity or communicates the Trinity “absorbing” diversity. I don’t see the Trinity modeling “diversity” for us. I see One True God. United in will.

Christiane wrote:

nor was it ever the opposite: a group of individuals who could not come together to have communion with one another in Christ.

Are you saying we should all be able to take communion together?

I mean, I agree which is part of the reason I go to a church that has open communion, but since you don’t I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

@ Christiane:
I admit, Christians, I find a lot of your comments over spiritualizing and platitudinal. But that’s just me. If we are changing definitions, midstream, of common words, I would prefer not to go down that road. Perhaps there is another link showing the spiritualuzation of ‘diversity’ I have missed in my poor education. Let’s us part disunified in our approach to the Trinity but in peace.

truthseeker00 wrote:

This, of course, is why Calvinism must turn salvation into a forensic legal transaction, rather than the beautiful act of loving mercy that it is. ‘Debt cancelled. Here is your get out of hell free card. Next.’

And how is Arminianism any different other than cosmetic features? Both camps agree that because I (generic I) cannot be perfect, The Almighty had to sacrifice his beautiful son in order to assuage his anger and make me theoretically perfect. It’s not ‘good enough’ that I receive what the sower sows, terrace the rocky slope, and do the best with what I’ve got in the here and now in partnership and in friendship with him. Nope, unless I agree to be micro-managed, sign onto this, that, and the other stuff, I’m hell fodder.

@ Christiane:
I was thinking of the current common usage of such words. This has been my recurring problem with the New Cals, too. They always refer me to old dead guys for definitions of common words– midstream. And you are right, I would probably not be able to comprehend it, anyway.

It seems like what we are really debating here is the character of God. Is he a harsh, punitive God who creates sentient beings to purposely torment them for eternity for the sake of his own glory? Or is he a loving God?

I think Calvinists have a hard time reconciling an all-powerful God who is unable to effect the salvation of all, if that is what he wants; it seems like a weakness or failure. Their focus is on power. I personally feel like once their concept of God goes through all their doctrine and comes out the other side, it is more like the god of this world…

The rest of us live with the tension of believing that God is love but that he is okay with letting human beings make a choice to disbelieve him in spite of the fact that human beings are not very capable of making good decisions or understanding what the heck they are doing or thinking half the time.

I believe that every manifestation of love in this world is a glimpse of the character of God.

Muff Potter wrote:

And how is Arminianism any different other than cosmetic features? Both camps agree that because I (generic I) cannot be perfect, The Almighty had to sacrifice his beautiful son in order to assuage his anger and make me theoretically perfect.

What if it’s not so much ‘had to’ as ‘wanted to’? I don’t know, I’m always just exploring ideas. I come from much the same mindset as you, Muff.

Christiane wrote:

oh I think you are smart enough, but by ‘deep’ reading, I mean it would try your patience …. like going back and reading something again, thinking about it, trying to connect it up with something familiar, etc. etc. ….. it can be tedious

I believe there’s also another hand to this:

“One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
— Nikola Tesla —

JeffB wrote:

Please quote one Calvinist to the effect that some people are saved against their will.

In addition to my earlier answer to your comment, what do you make of this assessment from Wikipedia’s statement from Luther: “No one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own choices—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God unilaterally changing a person’s heart and turning them to good ends.” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will). Do you believe that this statement accurately reflects what Luther actually wrote in German?

Was your concern with my statement focused on the aspect of God only saving some, or on the aspect of God saving people against their will? I think it’s pretty clear that Calvinists believe that God only saves some. And I think it’s also pretty clear that Calvinists teach that our wills must be changed by an irresistible (against the will) grace. Which makes me wonder what you wanted me to answer.

Muff Potter wrote:

“One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
— Nikola Tesla —

“Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.”
— GK Chesterton —

siteseer wrote:

It seems like what we are really debating here is the character of God. Is he a harsh, punitive God who creates sentient beings to purposely torment them for eternity for the sake of his own glory? Or is he a loving God?

Well said! That really is the issue!

@ Ken F:
that quote from Chesterton reminds me of the work of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien …… I think it was Lewis who explained what he did as attempting to ‘sneak past those watchful dragons’.
And Tolkien with his Rings trilogy: Catholicism presented anew amidst the weaving of ‘fairyland’ 🙂

I suspect a lot of evangelicals find meaning in the tales of Lewis and Tolkien, and yet have no idea what it is they are connecting up with.

Did God, when He sent us out of Eden, leave us bearing traces of its wonders encoded and hidden in our love of the victory of good over evil in legends and myths, so that when the time came, we could be ‘sleepers’ awakened again by the Light of Christ? 🙂

Our poets have always know of this. Wordsworth in his famous ‘Tintern Abbey’, wrote:

” And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man … ”

Good on Chesterton for carrying the light forward. We all have within our souls an engraved need to return to the light.

@ Max:
It is even more strange how Neo Cals side step the fact they have the ability to make lots of choices in life, and they do, but not when it comes to God. If it were only total depravity, they would make better choices AFTER their regeneration was activated, right? If not, why? Driscoll is an example. Why did he become increasingly worse after his regeneration activation? It’s weird.

siteseer wrote:

I think Calvinists have a hard time reconciling an all-powerful God who is unable to effect the salvation of all, if that is what he wants; it seems like a weakness or failure. Their focus is on power. I personally feel like once their concept of God goes through all their doctrine and comes out the other side, it is more like the god of this world…

As JMJ/Christian Monist put it about Islam,
“You end up with a God who is Omnipotent but not benevolent.”

Christiane wrote:

They seem to have a heavy need for a sense of their own ‘righteousness’, position of being among the ‘elect’, and an assurance that nothing they do can ever change what was determined for their sake before they were created.

More like they’re always trying to PROVE to themselves that THEY are Truly the Elect.

Once Proof of Election was getting rich (“Blessed”), and that fermented into the Prosperity Gospel by way of Robber Baron Capitalism.

Now it’s Perfectly Parsed, Truly Reformed, More-Calvinist-than-Calvin THEOLOGY.

All to PROVE I’m More Elect Than The Other Guy.

Common thread in my last two comments:
An Utter Selfishness worthy of Ayn Rand.

@ Ken F:

I was concerned with the aspect of God saving people against their wills. And not just with *you* saying it; over time, I’ve seen or heard many people saying that that is what Calvinists believe, without giving an example. I know the answer is, as you said, that there are none who have said it, and I know what you mean by “word salad.” The problem is that most people, I think, have an image of God dragging kicking and screaming people into heaven. As you know, that is not what Calvinists believe. You described accurately the process whereby God regenerates people so that their wills now gravitate toward choosing God. They choose God because they now *want* God.

Admittedly, God changing people’s wills without their asking God to do this (although I think there are those who *do* ask this) does not seem compatible with human freedom. All anyone can do is read the Bible in good faith and try to see what is there even in the face of seeming contradictions. I write “seeming” because God may not see contradictions where we do. Ultimately , the existence of both God’s sovereignty and human freedom is a mystery. Your Chesterton quote is very apt to this discussion. I consider myself a Calvinist, but am annoyed when other Calvinists claim to see no ambiguity or mystery concerning the subject of election.

I don’t read German, but that sentence from Wiki seems to me to be consistent with Luther’s thought in that book, although I doubt that Luther ever wrote that salvation is “simple” in any way.

@ Ken F:

I should have written, “I know the answer is, as you *implied*….”

ZechZav wrote:

It is no wonder these people are as cold as ice.

On another note, I was at a complimentarian church over 10 years ago and the topic came up. One person said with great coldness “if God predestines your unsaved relatives to hell it’s his right to do that”. He later said “if the Bible is racist, sexist and homophobic so be it!” That came up in various discussions on Christian anti-semitism, opposition to women in leadership and the gay marriage debate. Others were complacent and smug in their view that God had chosen them. With this attitude it is no wonder that they can turn a blind eye and sell books by CJ Mahaney.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“I’M ELECT! I CAN ACT AS DEPRAVED AS I WANNA AND GOD STILL PUTS ME INTO HEAVEN! WIN-WIN!”

Unfortunately HUG, there appears to be a lot of that sort of reasoning within New Calvinism.

JeffB wrote:

I was concerned with the aspect of God saving people against their wills. And not just with *you* saying it; over time, I’ve seen or heard many people saying that that is what Calvinists believe, without giving an example. I know the answer is, as you said, that there are none who have said it, and I know what you mean by “word salad.”

I don’t think you can say “All Calvinists believe this…” or “All Calvinists don’t believe this…” I’m sure there are Calvinists out there who believe people are saved against their will before they are quickened. And for many of us here at TWW who have encountered neo-Calvinists, we’ve met some of them.

For many I’ve met, the reason for the word salad is that they believe you have to believe the entire framework or not, or you are disobedient to God. So they misunderstand parts because they never really bothered to study it, or they don’t want to be honest that is what they really believe. And sadly, there are a good number of Calvinist leaders out there, especially now the neo-Calvinists, who really work hard to emphasize that people shouldn’t question what they believe and just obey.

JeffB wrote:

I was concerned with the aspect of God saving people against their wills.

Please check back later – I posted a reply with quotes from the WCF, but my comment is still in time-out.

Everyone eventually appeals to mystery. It just depends on how far they get down the path before they do so. I once saw John MacArthur explain the doctrines of grace in detail. When asked how God decides whom to save he smugly answered, “Mystery.”

ZechZav wrote:

She said that she was glad when Pilate and Judas sinned because that secured her salvation.

I could not understand why some took the view of Judas as a victim, Judas had no choice and was predestined to betray Jesus. Now I understand they likely had once held to this harsh determinist strain of Calvinist belief. That anyone would relegate such arbitrary and callous actions to a Creator that they would still follow mystifies me.

If we are made in God’s image some must have projected He is as callous and unloving as they are.

truthseeker00 wrote:

If there is no choosing, there is no point in the cross. This, of course, is why Calvinism must turn salvation into a forensic legal transaction, rather than the beautiful act of loving mercy that it is. ‘Debt cancelled. Here is your get out of hell free card. Next.’ It is no wonder these people are as cold as ice. If they had any heart they might grieve for those their imitation god consigned to hell – for no reason other than to ‘get himself some glory’. They might have the ‘grace’ to not rejoice that at least they were chosen, and to hell with the rest – literally!
Oh, I know their script – I can quote it. They have been well trained to never read their bibles without their distorting Calvinist lenes, to not think rationally, to not question even the most atrocious, immoral actions of their false god and to accept whatever their ‘authorities’ tell them, however hurtful or destructive to themselves or others.
It really is the most brutal anti-Christ religion Satan could dream up.

You have articulated this so perfectly for me (and I have to believe many others). God bless you!

Debi Calvet wrote:

And this is why I cannot read anything that he writes and why I cannot respect or trust him at all. He’s “comfortable with that belief.” Comfortable!

Same here; simply can’t read one word of his. “Comfortable”? My word.

Christiane wrote:

@ Bill M:
when you see glee from some ‘saved’ ‘Christian’ that others are ‘going to hell’, you see a person in the throes of some serious trouble emotionally

Again, it’s not MY ass getting beaten!

“Ha! ha! ha! ha!
Ho! ho! ho! ho!
Chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle!
Snicker snicker snicker snicker!
Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw!
Yuk! yuk! yuk! yuk!
Yuk! yuk! yuk! yuk!
Yuk! yuk! yuk! yuk!
…”
— Loudon Wainwright III, “Unrequited to the Nth Degree”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“I’M ELECT! I CAN ACT AS DEPRAVED AS I WANNA AND GOD STILL PUTS ME INTO HEAVEN! WIN-WIN!”

I’m pretty sure this would have been considered ‘non-elect’ behavior by old school Calvinists. It makes no sense.

Max wrote:

I realize that a Calvinist could come at you with Scripture to support their position on this

Here’s the thing, you can see where this is coming from. It’s not all out of context. It’s just that bible has multiple areas where two ideas are present and they may seem contradictory. You can come out with different ideas.

My (old school Calvinist) pastor is doing a thing on evil soon and I’m interested to hear what he says.

Lea wrote:

You can come out with different ideas.

But not if the Holy Spirit is leading you to truth. As has been noted often on this blog and elsewhere, Calvinists talks a LOT about ‘God’, infrequently about Christ, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit.

okrapod wrote:

So what difference does it make what terminology they use since the three are the one God.

Orthodox Christians believe in a Trinity of one God in three persons, with equal power and authority. New Calvinists, in their Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, have diminished Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Christ, Himself, said the the Father would send the Holy Spirit to lead believers into all truth. Yet, New Calvinists have largely cut the Spirit out of the equation when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Instead of revelation by the Spirit, they prefer the teachings and traditions of men … and have put Calvin on the throne in that regard.

Max wrote:

But not if the Holy Spirit is leading you to truth.

None of us know for sure that we have the whole truth. I think I’m with paul, For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Christiane wrote:

but ‘why’? maybe the need to feel superior? or ‘chosen’?
but that doesn’t even begin to explain the glee over someone else in trouble ???
I can’t sort it out in my head.

I think many of them are mentally ill.

Ken F wrote:

The inconsistent language of the confessions regarding free will make this a difficult topic to tackle. I’ll use the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) to show why I think Calvinism teaches that some (= all of the elect) people are saved against their will.

You quoted some apt portions of the WCF, but left out, I think, the one most appertaining to the question of free will concerning choosing God for salvation. You quoted this part of 10:1 – “renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ.” But you left out what follows: “yet so, *as they come most freely*, being made willing by His grace.” The Scr. references include Ps 110:3, John 6:37, and Rom 6:16-18.

We may not completely understand it, but there is an element of choice. That’s why I don’t think “kicking and screaming” is an accurate way of putting it.

“I once saw John MacArthur explain the doctrines of grace in detail. When asked how God decides whom to save he smugly answered, ‘Mystery.'”

What else could he have said? We can’t possibly know the answer.

JeffB wrote:

“I once saw John MacArthur explain the doctrines of grace in detail. When asked how God decides whom to save he smugly answered, ‘Mystery.’”

What else could he have said? We can’t possibly know the answer.

seems God gave the choice of whether to turn towards Him or not to turn towards Him to humankind, although He certainly calls people to Him but allows them that choice

when people deny that God has given mankind ‘choice’, they enter into a very unusual can of worms …. very convoluted ‘reasoning’

Max wrote:

To view God this way, while also preaching truth about God in other areas, is to cast a shadow on a pastor’s entire ministry. There are things that God cannot do (yep, I said that); He cannot use His sovereignty for evil.

I’ve heard it said that the basic difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam emphasizes the Omnipotent Soveriegnity of God and Christianity emphasizes the loving nature of God.

“To view God this way” results in a God who is OMNIPOTENT but NOT Benevolent.
A God of Raw POWER and POWER alone.

Max wrote:

Lea wrote:
None of us know for sure that we have the whole truth.
Amen! But try telling that to a New Calvinist!

Who KNOW they DO have the whole truth —
They have Calvin’s Institutes!
God All Figured Out!

@ ZechZav:
I think this comes down to “Who do you believe — God or Calvin’s Institutes?”

Muff Potter wrote:

I’ve come to the same conclusion since the turn of the century. Prior to that I would have never dared to think differently than what I was taught by others

I was first confronted with this thought when I read “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” by Jeff VanVonderen. That realization shook my foundations. I’m glad I learned about it – it was one of the first big blows to free me from what I was taught in my youth.

ZechZav wrote:

If God tells us to go and preach the gospel to all creation when he has already decreed who will be saved, how can it be a sincere offer to the non-elect? Surely the offer of eternal life, salvation and forgiveness of sins is an offer in bad faith, knowing that they are programmed to reject it.

Wouldn’t you know it? They have a great answer for that question as well. They say it’s fair because no one knows who the elect are, so preaching the gospel to everyone is not really lying. More double-speak. And since the non-elect are going to reject it anyway, it even further justifies their eternal torment for rejecting a gospel that god never gave them the will to believe.

ZechZav wrote:

If God tells us to go and preach the gospel to all creation when he has already decreed who will be saved, how can it be a sincere offer to the non-elect?

Exactly. And that is the primary concern I have with the Calvinization of a once-great Southern Baptist Convention. For over 150 years, SBC has carried a denominational gifting of evangelism around the world – preaching a Gospel of Christ which can save ALL people … whosoever will may come. That message and mission will change under New Calvinist leadership going forward. An “evangelism” aimed at harvesting the elect is different than reaching the lost in Jesus’ name. There is no passion for lost souls in reformed theology, since their determinist God has already predestined who will be saved and who will be damned. I wonder if these folks actually sit down and reason through their theology by comparing it with the whole of Scripture, rather than cherry-picked verses? Those who have are now non-Calvinists.

Ken F wrote:

They say it’s fair because no one knows who the elect are, so preaching the gospel to everyone is not really lying. More double-speak.

Well, I’ve been monitoring New Calvinist sermon podcasts in my area and I have yet to hear them preach the Gospel that Jesus saves, calling sinners to repentance and faith in Christ by pointing to His sacrifice for them on the Cross. They prefer teaching to preaching and teach what they hear New Calvinist celebrities saying, rather than delivering a “Thus saith the Lord” message to their congregations.

Max wrote:

mot wrote:

This New Calvinism is pure insanity IMO.

Yes, the tenets of reformed theology will drive you crazy after a while. New Calvinists are not in their right spiritual minds.

Wonder if they will ever come to their senses?

From the post: “Those who are part of Wilkin’s tribe are full of all kinds of rules and regulations since we are are supposedly free.”

Free to create more rules? Like how the Talmud was added to the Torah? And now the Gospel has morphed into multiple denominations?

JYJames wrote:

Seven years ago from the NYT; http://nyti.ms/2klHArV

Thanks for the link, JY. The final sentence says it all: “New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.”

There definitely is no shortage of arrogance (and depravity!) in New Calvinist ranks! While Driscoll has faded a bit from the scene since that article was written, his legacy lives on in the ministries of a multitude of Driscollites.

Max wrote:

mot wrote:

Wonder if they will ever come to their senses?

Some are, Praise the Lord! They are finding new freedom in Christ! Free from aberrant teachings, free from authoritarian rule over their spiritual lives, free from patriarchal abuses, free to use their spiritual gifts regardless of gender.

That is fantastic news, Max!

Guest wrote:

Eric Davis’s selfish, thuggy, heartless, self important, know nothing misogyny is the reason I have not been to church since I was fifteen and find atheist men a million times more loving, respectful, and compassionate towards women and little girls.

Because they’re not compelled to always be proving to their peers “How Righteous I Am”?

Christiane wrote:

I’ve always been amused at people who are YEC, and yet hold to robber-baron capitalism, which is actually a kind of Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’

Mostly because they’re personally benefiting from that kind of Social Darwinism.

When Darwin hit the big time, some more-Darwinist-than-Darwin fanboys were there to pick up his ideas and run with them. Social Darwinism was applying Darwin’s ideas (which were limited to physical biology) to social interactions; not surprisingly, those who advocated these always placed themselves as the ones on top. Social Darwinism shook down into three main types:

* Yuppieism (robber-baron capitalism) — the original, cited for justification by various Captains of Induatry who would have made Ayn Rand proud. Competition for Survival of the Fittest is between individuals; winners on top, losers best to Die and Reduce the Surplus Population.
* Communism — where the competing organisms are social classes and economic systems in a Hegelian either-or Dialectic. Of which Communism is the Natural Fittest to Survive and Absorb/Destroy the others — ask any Communist.
* Naziism — where the competing organisms are Races, of which the superior-evolved Master Race (guess who) not only crowds out but actively wipes out all the Subhuman others. (If it weren’t for the example of the NSDAP acting on this to its logical conclusion, Eugenics and Master Race Theory would still be respectable mainstream science.)

Aside: “Survival of the Fittest” does not mean the More Fit wipe out the Less Fit in some form of Natural Genocide. Darwin meant it in the context of relative reproductive success over time. (Just like Quiverfull and The 200-Year Plan, the “more fit” are those which are able to outbreed the others. The rationale behind Quiverfull is pure original Darwinism.)

@ Hannah:

I am sorry you’ve been injured and are recovering.

I wanted to share with you that this makes you vulnerable to undue influence from others.

What you’ve shared…isn’t a true understanding of The Gospel. Perhaps you should go to some more mainstream sources and churches.

Check out Steve Hassan’s blog on the internet, his book, and other important work about undue influence. He’s also on youtube.

What were you like before your injury? Were you searching? Lonely?

Be careful.

Praying for recovery.

Velour

I quickly googled Steve Hassan
Exactly what do you believe about What I shared makes them or I involved in a cult?
That’s quite a harsh judgement.

What exactly is incorrect?