I took Dr. Nettles for Baptist History at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was dreadful, it should have been called Calvinism indoctrination. Every class session emphasized Calvinism and how it is foundational to Baptist History as a whole and to the Southern Baptist Convention.

When I first started investigating New Calvinism a couple of years ago I was wondering if I was becoming some kind of a conspiracy theorists. Could all of the connections be true? Then I pulled a thread on Founders after learning about Founders here at TWW. Dr Stan Reeves is the Founders webmaster. He also founded Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, AL. That church is listed on the TGC and 9Marks church directories. He is one of two elders at the church, and has close ties with 9Marks (the church's website has links to 9Marks articles). He is also one of the leaders and speakers for the Auburn University Christian Faculty Network. He is surprisingly public with his personal information: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/ (I've always been trained to not put so much personally identifiable information on the web). His personal philosophy link highlights his identity as a Christian Hedonist and his deep indebtedness to John Piper. The links among all these New-Calvinist ministries are very clear through "ministries" such as this. I wonder if the same thing is happening at other universities. In this case I just followed a very well laid out trail. I did not feel like looking into other universities – this one example gave me more info than I wanted to know. In any case, links like this make it easy to believe in the conspiracy.

Ken F wrote:

When I first started investigating New Calvinism a couple of years ago I was wondering if I was becoming some kind of a conspiracy theorists.

I also felt like that for a while, Ken … until the New Calvinists started giving us so much evidence to support the theories! Now that the reformers are pretty much in charge of the SBC, they have no reason to operate behind the curtain any longer. Theories are now reality.

“Maybe we should try to see if we can actually get along and show *grace* to one another?” (Dee)

Can two distinctly different soteriologies really co-exist in a single denomination? Is it possible to agree to disagree on God’s plan of salvation?! Are Southern Baptists of two distinct stripes supposed to get along to go along and make room under the big tent for diverse theologies? Some say that’s always been the case within SBC – Calvinists and non-Calvinists co-existing. But for the past 150 years, non-Calvinist belief and practice has been the default theology for millions of Southern Baptists. SBC mission programs and evangelism have been based on “whosoever will” preaching/teaching across the world, which placed God’s sovereignty in harmony with man’s free will. New Calvinism is intent on changing that. Can millions of Southern Baptists agree that Christ’s sacrifice is a limited atonement not intended for everybody? To do so would be to forfeit SBC’s identity and return to its Calvinist roots … after distancing itself from that theology for the past 150 years.

With a name like the “Founders Ministries” why would we not believe that they’d lead with humility?

It is hard to have a charitable and loving conversation with someone so convinced they are right that they posit the only good pastor is a Reformed pastor. Cannot they not see how arrogant that stance is? So what about the Christians in the 1500 years prior to Calvin? Were all those pastors sub-par? Come on!

What am I missing?? If you believe God chose those that are saved/are the ‘elect’ from before the creation of the universe, why would you do missions or evangelise? The elect have already been chosen. You just waste money and time. AND some “non-elect’ may believe they ‘accept Christ as their Lord and Savior’ only to horribly learn that they had been condemned before their birth, that they were NOT one of the elect. Ìt’s a terribly cruel, gigantic con game being played on them. . . if the ‘limited atonememt’ part of the TULIP is true.

Old-time Lutherans* teach that the role of the pastor is to preach the Law and the Gospel in its purity; and to teach so that people can understand these things fully and take them into their lives into the world, telling others of Christ

I never realized the beauty in this til recently, reading about the YRRs.

* No idea what the new hip happenin Lutherans expect of pastors. Not intending to find out, either.

‘Ken Ham is a known purveyor of such tactics. In his view, one must accepts 7/ 24 hour days of creation, a 6,000 year old earth, and world-wide flood in order to truly accept the doctrine of atonement’…… I was ‘saved’ at 13yo and was an active believer in my adult life. In my 50s, a woman joined our church who wanted us to embrace this belief as a necessary one for salvation. She organised a conference with top creationist speakers. So for the forty years before I learned of this, had I not been a believer at all? Her narrow-minded insistence innoculated me against such teaching – as did the guy who came along and said true christians had to be pro-Israel. Where does it end, you can’t be a christian if you have/don’t have a beard? Or wear long skirts and definitely saintly christian women don’t wear yoga pants???

Nancy2 wrote:

Oy! The “Founders” want ESS to be included in the BFM:

Of course. Tom Nettles wrote this article for the summer 2016 Founders Journal: http://founders.org/2016/08/13/god-and-the-holy-trinity/

Those who accept the doctrine of eternal generation should accept eternal submission. If not, they omit one of the chief means of expressing the order implied in that inter-personal, inner-trinitarian relationship consistent with the natural moral goodness of the submission of children to parents (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1,2).
…
As stated above the reality of eternal submission is both natural and voluntary, thus godlike and necessary.

ESS is a form of Ariansim.

I’d like to believe we could all just get along, put aside our differences….how divine.
Unfortunately, as long as the calvanistas extol the ,Calvinist pastor only position, as representing the true gospel, that’s likely to happen when pigs can fly.

If the elect are already chosen, and the rest of humanity is unelected, then what is the purpose of forcing all to believe as the elect do, when in Calvanist reality, it’s impossible for the unelect to achieve?

Nope, not going to accept Calvanism, not now or ever. Thank God I have accepted Jesus as savoir, or I’d be up the creek without a paddle.

Nancy2 wrote:

Oy! The “Founders” want ESS to be included in the BFM:
http://founders.org/2017/04/20/two-proposed-revisions-to-the-baptist-faith-and-message/

That’s not surprising. The Founders have been whittling away at the Baptist Faith & Message for years! They really scored big with the BFM2000 revision, thanks to Al Mohler on the revision committee – paving the way for New Calvinist belief and practice to come under the SBC umbrella.

In Russell Dilday’s analysis of BFM2000, he lists the following “troubling factors” in the 2000 revision:

1. The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture.

2. The diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer.

3. The trend toward creedalism.

4. The diminishing of the doctrine of autonomy and freedom of the local church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

5. The trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian experience.

6. The trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church tradition to a reformed evangelical identity.

7. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in marriage.

8. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church.

9. The “Pandora’s box” concern – a fear of repeated future revisions to include favorite opinions.

10. The trend toward including a catalogue of specific sins.

11. The false accusation of neo-orthodoxy.

12. Inconsistency.

http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/dildayfm2000.htm

Because of Dilday’s bold stand against the Calvinist Resurgence, he was fired as President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (they may have stated other reasons, but that was at the root of it). Yep, the grace boys disgracefully threw Dr. Dilday, a constructive conservative, under the bus. They are such a loving bunch (not).

Thanks Nancy2 for flagging the latest maneuvers by the Founders to strip Southern Baptist identity away from the masses. Besides inclusion of an ESS statement in a future BFM revision, they want to dilute this statement of faith even more by chopping any “whosoever will” clauses. Their latest proposal is to remove/rephrase the following: “Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.” They just don’t like preaching/teaching that God’s salvation plan is available to ALL people – to EVERYONE and ANYONE who repents and believes in Christ.

If Calvinism is correct in what it says about God, then we are all duty bound and required to believe it and adjust our thinking and lives accordingly.

If Calvinism is wrong in what it says about God, then we are all duty bound and required to reject it not only for ourselves but also for any whom we may be responsible for and/or influence. If Calvinism is wrong then we must not compromise in our complete rejection of any and all error from Calvinism just as we would not compromise should error come from any source.

I see this as a flaw in SBC history. The idea that we can all sit on the same pew and all ‘respect’ each other’s ideas about God is not so. Respecting alternative ideas about God is no more possible that it would be possible for slave owners and abolitionists to respect each other’s ideas about slavery. In some things there can be no compromise. We can respect each other as persons, but we cannot compromise on traditional, orthodox and historic beliefs about the person and nature of God. Not even to build a big denomination with lots of money and lots of projects.

okrapod wrote:

Respecting alternative ideas about God is no more possible that it would be possible for slave owners and abolitionists to respect each other’s ideas about slavery.

Interesting that you use that analogy. SBC Founders (the original ones) included Calvinist slave-holders prior to the Civil War. They believed that sovereign God was on their side during the War, until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. After the War, Southern Baptists began to distance themselves from that theology … and remained non-Calvinist in belief and practice, until the New Calvinist movement started dragging the denomination back to its “doctrinal inheritance” as Al Mohler likes to refer to it.

@ Mae:
Amen to that!

@ Scott Osattin:
Hi Scott,
are you now a minister?

I am not Baptist, but my grandmother was and she never spoke of Calvinism that I remember (she passed when I was thirteen and now I am old).

First time I heard of God predestining people to hell, I knew it was wrong, instinctively. I guess many people have that response when first encountering such teaching, as it doesn’t ‘fit’ what they knew of God growing up in their Churches.

Wonder what the Flounders would think of these guys and their concept of ‘church’? 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ubZfnKAN4

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
maybe the ‘alternative’ truth of the 6 thousand year old Earth is some kind of ‘loyalty’ test …. that if a person is ‘loyal’ enough to a group, they will believe ANYTHING they are taught from the ‘on high’ leadership, even if it insults their God-given intelligence and their God-given reasoning abilities and their God-given powers of observation …

it’s not about what is ‘true’ is it with the cult people?
it’s about who is ‘loyal’ enough to follow the ‘leader’ into …… well, they will do as they are told, I guess, even if they know it’s morally wrong and intellectually an insult to God’s gifts

The natural world reveals itself to human-kind. The cult people have ‘alternate’ agendas that are not kind to the truths about the natural world. And so, comes the ‘alternate’ teachings that line up with their political as well as cult agendas.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

In my opinion, this is NOT a minor issue… Telling people, especially young people that the physics has to be “wrong” when it IS VERY well proven is a BIG DEAL!

On the one hand, I don’t think it matters much whether one believes in a new or old earth because the Bible does not say it matters and neither does any church tradition until very recently. On the other hand, I think it matters a great deal if we are taught that we cannot believe what our senses are telling us. If we are told that god created the universe with the appearance of age, then how do we know it was not created yesterday, with all of our memories being created to give the appearance of age? Taken further, how can we believe that the existence of anything is real if god purposely creates illusion? It’s not a good move to teach people to deny evidence. So yes, it is a very big deal. But I suppose that I believe this because god predestined me to be this way – it’s not my fault.

@ Ken F:
Remember, my IFB, and Ken Ham for that manner, are not 5 pointers… so, not sure where that leaves you!

Christiane wrote:

I can vouch for the Dutch Reformed Church in Wyckoff NJ who oversee Eastern Christian Children’s Retreat where my son is a resident. They are beautiful Christian people and so far from anything the neo-Cal types represent in how they treat people.

Exactly, Christiane. There’s a world of difference between classical Calvinists and hateful NeoCalvinists.

@ Ken F:
It’s a convenient clause to say, it’s a mystery how God predetermined all, BUT not evil. Really?

God takes no pleasure in sin….in fact, he has supplied a means to escape the consequences of a fallen nature….a free gift of salvation, open to all.

Why God’s goodness, love, mercy, grace, fellowship with him, has been turned into a repulsive crap shoot of election, a maybe yes, a maybe no, but we’ll find out at death who is elect, is so against the character of God almighty.

Tyranny is my view of Calvinism, past in Geneva, presently in our churches.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Remember, my IFB, and Ken Ham for that manner, are not 5 pointers… so, not sure where that leaves you!

I guess it leaves them as semi-Pelagians.

As I’ve wrote before, my son goes to church with some of the Baptist Seminary students in Fort Worth, TX. He said some of them are sort of screwy. He came to visit me this weekend and showed me a book that one of his seminary students had asked him to read. It was by John Piper. I about lost it. I told him some of the background of Piper. He said he wasn’t going to get pulled into that mess. But anything that he read in Piper’s book that he didn’t agree with he was going to check out in the Bible. If he has any questions, he knows also to ask me. I warned him also about reading about Driscoll, Mahaney and their co-horts. My son is also beginning to question things about the Baptist church he goes to in Fort Worth. The more you ask and study, the more you find out.

dee wrote:

I also believe that there are quite a few people attending Reformed churches who do not believe in the Calvinist doctrine of election. I know because I have met some.

Just like Max points out that most SBC attenders don’t know SBC theology, I am sure the same is true in Reformed circles. The gracious Calvinists are gracious because of who they are in spite of The Doctrines of Grace. In this case ignorance really is bliss.

My own dear grandmother was a Presbyterian, as were cousins, aunts, uncles. We attended one another’s churches, no big deal. As my nana would explain, some of us are Presbyterians, some of us, aren’t. No lectures scoffing,
We were all, believers,’ nuff said.

Trouble is, it’s not like that anymore. Stealthy Church takeovers ( supposedly for our own good), mixed with the odious hubris of being THE elect, has stamped upon me the need of becoming, a protester.

@ dee:
@ dee:
I can share that my son was born with trisomy-21 and also with some difficult medical problems also, among them, a severe seizure disorder. He does not speak but has learned some ‘signing’.

One of God’s gifts to my son is that he is able to walk. One day, I watched him get up and walk to a shelf. He chose a musical toy and carried it over to a stretcher-bound resident and very, very gently, laid the toy into his hands. The staff tell me that my son will frequently show kindness in this way.

To witness this made me a very, very proud mother indeed, as I prize ‘kindness’ above all ‘signs’ of God’s presence in the life of any human person in whom the image of God is seen 🙂

If they believe their doctrine is the best interpretation of Scripture and then also believe in Scriptural innerrancy due to their doctrine, isn’t that circular logic?

Ken F wrote:

But I thought you were daughters of Satin.

I am their spiritual sister. Thus, my screen name is a fabric: Velour.

Rather than ESS, I propose this to be considered by the SBC for inclusion in it’s BF&M:

““And how, indeed, hath He any greater than Himself Who is one with the Father in Godhead? Where there is unity, there is no dissimilarity, whereas between greater and less there is a distinction. The teaching, therefore, of the instance from Scripture before us, with regard to the Father and the Son, is that neither is the Father greater, nor hath the Son any that is above Him, inasmuch as in Father and Son there is no difference of Godhead parting them, but one majesty.”
(St. Ambrose 340-397 A.D., a Father of the Church, and a Doctor of the Church)

I think Ambrose has more cred than Grudem anyday.

Velour wrote:

n my opinion, they aren’t known for being the sharpest tools in the shed.

If only they would stay in the shed.

@ Muff Potter:
wise words

you may also find this to be a good reflection on the issue:

“methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conservor of all things, who made them what they are”
(Gaudium et Spes, a pastoral letter)

@KenF, the problem is not just that they stopped with Augustine. The problem is that they cherry-picked Augustine. His ecclesiology and sacramental theology are thoroughly Catholic. So, they dismissed those parts. They twisted and misrepresented his soteriology, too.

@ Muff Potter:
You are correct…
but isn’t it “fun” to think that you have the inside way to absolute truth!

dee wrote:

Mae wrote:

It is repulsive to promote hopelessness. Damned before birth, dammed during life, damned for eternity. Woo hoo, what a god!

I have asked a few Calvinists how it makes them feel to know that no matter what they do, their kid could be one of the damned.

The calvinists have come up with a solution. Their kids must be elect since they were sent to live with their parents who are elect. Cognitive dissonance.

Yes, I’ve heard that one, too! I always wonder what they’ll think if one of their kids rebels and jettisons his or her faith. It happens!

@ dee:

(*winky face*)

Great minds think alike.

Ken F wrote:

@ Velour:
What about burlap? I’ll ask my wife what she thinks is best for me.

Ken F., You are on a roll!

Ken F wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I think Ambrose has more cred than Grudem anyday.

The next reformation will be a return to the early church, sans Augustine.

I WISH there was more connection among Protestant people to the early Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church. Gosh, I would settle for there just being more connection with the Creeds, but I realize that there is much that divides the denominations even on those most basic Christian creeds.

About Augustine, he wrote over many years and went through much change ….. on his journey from heresy to orthodoxy, he was a student of St. Ambrose who was at that time the Bishop of Milan. So perhaps Ambrose helped Augustine in formative ways.

I do believe Augustine’s writings are ‘cherry-picked’, as CGCrasher has indicated. Unfortunately, because his writings are so extensive and span a long, long time in his development, it is easy to pick from where he was in error rather than from the times of his more orthodox arrival ….. even then, taken out of context, Augustine’s writing can be manipulated.

Ken F wrote:

I am their spiritual sister. Thus, my screen name is a fabric: Velour.
I could take naugahyde, but it’s too hard to spell.

I am Kevlar!!!

@ Nancy2:
I forgot to add Kevlar.

@ Nancy2:
black burlap made a great background for my old, falling-apart bulletin boards in the inner city. I measured, went to the fabric store, got it for very little and staple-gunned it up: what a beautiful background!!!

burlap is highly under-rated 🙂

dee wrote:

The calvinists have come up with a solution. Their kids must be elect since they were sent to live with their parents who are elect.

Hereditary Aristocracy by Divine Right.

Applying the Ressegue Regression, how do the parents KNOW that they are really The Elect? Because Calvin wrote that God can send “false Election” to the Reprobate making them THINK and Believe that they are Elect.

Max wrote:

Now that the reformers are pretty much in charge of the SBC, they have no reason to operate behind the curtain any longer. Theories are now reality.

The New Order has begun. Heil und Seig.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
🙂

let’s see:
okay, I’ll grant you Clement of Rome, so ‘check’

but then there’s
Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, both studied under St. John the Evangelist

and don’t forget all of those early Greek Fathers:
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste, Gregory of Nyssa), Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus …..

I guess the ‘Latin’ Fathers are too what is that word ‘Romish’?
but what about the wonderful Desert Fathers?

I say let people read and decide for themselves, at least as many of the Fathers as can be found prior to the first Schism with the Orthodox, when the Church was ‘one’.

Gosh, reading Chrysostom alone is worth the effort….. wow!

dee wrote:

I need to do some more reading on this point.

Bruce Gourley’s book “Diverging Loyalties: Baptists in Middle Georgia During the Civil War” is a good read regarding the role Calvinism played among early Southern Baptists, who viewed the Civil War as God’s providential hand guiding the Southern cause. https://www.amazon.com/Diverging-Loyalties-Baptists-Middle-Georgia/dp/0881462586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495920848&sr=8-1&keywords=Diverging+Loyalties%3A+Baptists+in+Middle+Georgia+During+the+Civil+War

It took Southern Baptists 150 years to corporately repent of the sin of slavery in a racial reconciliation resolution at their national meeting in 1995. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention

SBC has a checkered past in a lot of ways … and they are still moving the checkers around!

okrapod wrote:

If Calvinism is correct in what it says about God, then we are all duty bound and required to believe it and adjust our thinking and lives accordingly.

If Calvinism is wrong in what it says about God, then we are all duty bound and required to reject it not only for ourselves but also for any whom we may be responsible for and/or influence.

If, as a non-Calvinist, I am wrong for believing and proclaiming that everyone is within reach of God’s salvation through the Cross of Christ, then I will stand guilty before the throne for loving everyone too much. But if a Calvinist is wrong …

Christiane wrote:

but I realize that there is much that divides the denominations even on those most basic Christian creeds.

That is quite true. Also, there is a stream of thought that it is the very idea of the councils and creeds and fathers and early theologians that ‘misdirected’ Christianity as compared to the church in the first century. I don’t see any bridge between those divergent ideas.

okrapod wrote:

That is quite true. Also, there is a stream of thought that it is the very idea of the councils and creeds and fathers and early theologians that ‘misdirected’ Christianity as compared to the church in the first century. I don’t see any bridge between those divergent ideas.

but still these same people ‘accept’ the work of the Councils in identifying and affirming the canon of the New Testament ….. that acceptance is strange indeed

Max wrote:

believing and proclaiming that everyone is within reach of God’s salvation through the Cross of Christ

How could this possibly be wrong?

@ Max:
twist is the key word

JYJames wrote:

Max wrote:

believing and proclaiming that everyone is within reach of God’s salvation through the Cross of Christ

How could this possibly be wrong?

I don’t think it IS wrong. For a very long time, the Church has explored this great hope. Here is one expression of it:

“”If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of His Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).

Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death. But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, he will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope.

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this Paschal Mystery.”
(Gaudium et Spes, a pastoral letter)

Max wrote:

If, as a non-Calvinist, I am wrong for believing and proclaiming that everyone is within reach of God’s salvation through the Cross of Christ, then I will stand guilty before the throne for loving everyone too much. But if a Calvinist is wrong …

That is a very interesting question. I was raised to believe that universalism is heresy. But now I am not so convinced. It seems that many in the early church were at least hopeful universalists – hoping for the eventual salvation of everyone. The word to look up is apokatastasis. Gregory of Nyssa apparently believed in it, which means it is something that we should probably not discard without thinking through it. Here’s an interesting article that touches on the subject: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/08/28/salvation-for-everyone/. From what I think I’m learning, hopeful universalists believe that God’s presence (which will be bliss for people who want it and hell for those who don’t) will eventually result in everyone freely choosing God’s love – even if it takes a very long time. In that case, there is hope for everyone. I’m still trying to understand this – haven’t made up my mind one way or another yet.

@ Velour:
My wife suggested spandex because it is revealing (hides nothing) and is very difficult to work with. But I think the visual image would be too much. Cheesecloth might also be good.

Ken F wrote:

This article is interesting:

It is interesting! Thanks.

Here is a comment that follows the article, posted by Max – TWW Max? Compelling explanation!
“These young “pastors” spread New Calvinism within SBC by one of two pathways: (1) takeover an existing traditional work, or (2) plant a new church. The former approach is a harder row to hoe in that the pastoral candidate finds it necessary to lie to search committees regarding their theological persuasion. Once the pew becomes savvy to pastoral intent, weeping and gnashing of teeth leads to a split … leaving the young pastor with a church to which he can recruit like-minded followers. The other approach (church planting) is a much easier journey for a young man fresh out of seminary. He may have to start in a store-front somewhere, but he can launch his reformed agenda relatively unhindered, enlist some 20-30 year old “elders”, and get to it. While the takeover artist passes the offering plate, the church planter is blessed by parent church financial support and/or NAMB funds to keep the lights on. Both of these techniques to Calvinize SBC are spreading like wildfire across the SBC landscape. Long-time Southern Baptists, like the decent people in the mill town you note, lament the loss of their church … good people who love the Lord and offer what they have to Him … folks who have come to a saving knowledge of Christ on the other side of a sinner’s prayer.

I wonder daily when God will stop this rebellion.

Posted by: Max | Nov 04, 2014 at 09:23 PM

Ken F wrote:

My wife suggested spandex because it is revealing (hides nothing) and is very difficult to work with. But I think the visual image would be too much. Cheesecloth might also be good.

Chainmail???

Ken F wrote:

It seems that many in the early church were at least hopeful universalists – hoping for the eventual salvation of everyone.

They were hoping that everyone would come to the knowledge of Christ, repent, and accept Him as Savior. Peter taught “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Universalists believe that all humankind will eventually be saved, as opposed to hoping they will be. But it all boils out to an individual choice (contrary to Calvinist teaching) to accept or reject Christ. O.C.S. Wallace, a Southern Baptist in the early 20th century put it this way “Salvation comes to the soul that comes to salvation. Forgiving Savior and penitent sinner meet.” Belief and repentance are essential … whosoever will may come.

“The Founders Say We Need Calvinist Pastors. I Say We Just Need Loving, Christian Pastors”

So, if Burleson is the rare (seemingly super-rare) exception to the rule (Calvinism), don’t you think he’d say that part of loving someone would be encouraging them (to some degree or another) to see the world through his lense of Calvinism (albeit somewhat tamer)?

I ask this fully aware of the difference between his ideology and that of the Founders – in particular he’s not forcing it down anyone’s throat and can fully accept a differing view, but still wonder if he would see the title of this post as a mutually exclusive supposition?

Most of the readers comments regarding posts on this topic of Calvinism ultimately seem (to me) to put *anyone* who holds to this doctrine (not just the neo guys) as unloving, yet Burleson (a Calvinist) always seems to get a pass because he’s not forcing it on anyone. Seems like it’s encroaching on a double standard to me. He’s a good guy even though his theology is badly flawed?

Divorce Minister wrote:

With a name like the “Founders Ministries” why would we not believe that they’d lead with humility?
It is hard to have a charitable and loving conversation with someone so convinced they are right that they posit the only good pastor is a Reformed pastor. Cannot they not see how arrogant that stance is? So what about the Christians in the 1500 years prior to Calvin? Were all those pastors sub-par? Come on!

These kind of Calvinists would not call it “arrogance.” Rather, they would say something to this effect: That truth when it is spoken is offensive. Hence, it is your pride that is offended by the truth. Because, after all, these Calvinists are the only purveyors of the truth.

Nancy2 wrote:

Oy! The “Founders” want ESS to be included in the BFM:
http://founders.org/2017/04/20/two-proposed-revisions-to-the-baptist-faith-and-message/

Not surprising at all, Nancy2. Sexism is alive and well in New Calvinist ranks. Perhaps in that *new* BFM they can tell women that they need to *learn and know their place.* Which means sit down, shut up and listen to the men.

@ Ken F:
From your link: “Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free.”

Thanks for sharing!

Ken F wrote:

I suppose I was predestined to reject Calvinism.

Me too, Ken. 😉

Ken F wrote:

@ Velour:
My wife suggested spandex because it is revealing (hides nothing) and is very difficult to work with. But I think the visual image would be too much. Cheesecloth might also be good.

LOL.

Mae wrote:

@ Ken F:
It is repulsive to promote hopelessness. Damned before birth, dammed during life, damned for eternity. Woo hoo, what a god!

How is this the Good News that Jesus preached?

Christiane wrote:

you want to know the quality of a person’s ‘theology’? Examine the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives as evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ.

Precisely, Christiane.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

dee wrote:
The calvinists have come up with a solution. Their kids must be elect since they were sent to live with their parents who are elect.
Hereditary Aristocracy by Divine Right.
Applying the Ressegue Regression, how do the parents KNOW that they are really The Elect? Because Calvin wrote that God can send “false Election” to the Reprobate making them THINK and Believe that they are Elect.

Exactly, HUG. This was one of the very disturbing conclusions I arrived at while attending a Calvinist church. How could I really know if I was one of the elect? What’s even more disturbing is that in such a paradigm, God is the actual deceiver. I believe that such a deceiver wouldn’t be God, but a false god.

Darlene wrote:

Ken F wrote:
@ Velour:
What about burlap? I’ll ask my wife what she thinks is best for me.
Tweed is nice as well.

But we must reserve Tartan for Nick from Scotland!

Darlene wrote:

How is this the Good News that Jesus preached?

I would be good news for the elect. But that pesky evanescent grace means the good news is bad news.

ishy wrote:

I think any attempt to absolutely define ourselves by a human-developed theology framework is not what God intended. That includes saying both “I am Calvinist” AND “I am Arminian”.
For one thing, Paul told us not to do that in 1 Corinthians 3. I think Paul meant both being overly dedicated to a teacher or their theology. Personally, I would apply that to denominations, too, but since it’s so hard to find a decent church nowadays, I say choose people that love over whether or not you go with a denomination. But I think overall it is very unwise to dedicate ourselves to any framework.
Also, I think it’s just human nature to try to make human formulas and frameworks fit the Bible, instead of the other way around. My guess is that everybody gets it wrong in big ways and God will probably have a lot to say to those who pushed a framework upon people like it was His gospel. And we all know that many people make formulas and frameworks and write books and speak and heavily sell on social media because they want to make money from them. Sadly, many Christians accept that as normal and encourage it without much thought.
One huge problem I see in church history is the reduction of a belief down to “this” or “that”

Well said.

ishy wrote:

Also, I think it’s just human nature to try to make human formulas and frameworks fit the Bible, instead of the other way around. My guess is that everybody gets it wrong in big ways and God will probably have a lot to say to those who pushed a framework upon people like it was His gospel.

Yes.

But I am a tad more radical in why I think that is so. I think that we, like the old Eden story said, want to be like God. We want to be the one to ‘know’ about ‘good’ and ‘evil’. The tempter who wanted to exalt his own throne about the throne of God tempts us also to exalt ourselves above what God has enabled us to do, and so we make up our own ideas and reasons and explanations and then develop enforcement processes to make other people believe us and obey us. Similar to the Pharisees of old it seems.

That mess won’t get past the judgment. We will not ‘know’ until we ‘see Him as He is’ and the ‘know as we are also known’ and when we try to usurp that procedure, seize power now and for ourselves, we are following the wrong path. We ”know’ what has been revealed; we do not ‘know’ some weird idea we had one morning with our morning coffee. Or late some night before some exam. Or much less in some flash of ‘insight’ just when we realized how important ‘we’ are to God.

Velour wrote:

I think you should re-read this thread. People here have distinguished between classical Calvinists who are loving and respectful versus the rabid, intractable, hateful NeoCalvinists.

Thanks, I surely did. Been reading here for the past five or six years with approx. the same on Wade’s site. My beef is not with Wade whom I respect – I would be closer to his theology than I would be with Roger Olson.

There seems to be a certain level of intellectual dishonesty when you guys say Wade is a “good pastor” even though he holds to a very “disgusting/distasteful/unbiblical/unorthodox” (tons of other negative modifiers from the majority of commenters here over the years) view of salvation.

Again, I say that knowing the difference between his ideology and those of the neo-calvanistic camp, which I was part of many years ago.

JYJames wrote:

repentance requires fruit, i.e., not cheap grace

Amen! True repentance is birthed from a godly sorrow over sin that results in a changed life (2 Cor 7:10). Lord, do we need an outbreak of that sort of sorrow in the 21st century church!

Cheap grace … Dietrich Bonhoffer referred to it this way “Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves … Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance … Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system … Grace without price; grace without cost!” That’s the sort of “grace” being served up in New Calvinism.

@ kin:
I think some of the Wartburgers are defending good ministers, without defending their theology. Pastors with good hearts come in all theological flavors. Some of them even come around to a correct view of God’s plan of salvation after a while.

As a 60+ year non-Calvinist Southern Baptist, I have worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists. I have found them to be civil in their discourse and respectful of mainline non-Calvinist SBC belief and practice. While I may not agree with their theology, I have respected these “Old” Calvinists as being good people who have done good things. Now, this “New” Calvinism is a totally different beast … the YRR army is militant, mean-spirited, aggressive, arrogant, and unloving. There is not much good that one can point to.

While both “Old” and “New” Calvinists have a wrong view of God’s plan of salvation, in my humble but accurate opinion, they are as different as night and day in their ministries. I’ll leave it to God to determine if good men (in character and deed) who preach wrong theology will tip the balance as dead-wrong at the end of the day.

Max wrote:

True repentance is birthed from a godly sorrow over sin that results in a changed life (2 Cor 7:10).

And by His Grace, He does change our lives when repentance is sincere. Ever grateful – praise Him. Compelling testimonies bear witness: George Müller, for example.

Dave A A wrote:

Riunte

Riunite!

Christiane wrote:

‘a correct view’ need not be something theologically spoken in doctrine;
it can simply be expressed when a minister of the people of Our Lord stands up for those who are being persecuted and becomes persecuted himself as a result but still he stands

Action trumps words.

Max wrote:

I think some of the Wartburgers are defending good ministers, without defending their theology.

Sure, but at the same time these particular discussions literally trash much of their theology. Makes genuine respect to fly out the window, imo.

You said: “Now, this “New” Calvinism is a totally different beast … the YRR army is militant, mean-spirited, aggressive, arrogant, and unloving. There is not much good that one can point to. ”

Yes, obviously many of them can be, but I still have friends in those circles who would not fit the description of your last sentence.

kin wrote:

You said: “Now, this “New” Calvinism is a totally different beast … the YRR army is militant, mean-spirited, aggressive, arrogant, and unloving. There is not much good that one can point to. ”

Yes, obviously many of them can be, but I still have friends in those circles who would not fit the description of your last sentence.

when they see the destructive behavior among their kind,
what do they do? (head-in-sand, ‘look away’, or other forms of tacit approval?)
or do they stand up for the victims of abuse?????

in the neo-Cal world, who is witnessing for standing up against what has happened to victims, what is happening now to victims, and what may happen to victims as a result of certain neo-Cal ‘values’???? Is there even ONE person who say’s ‘this is wrong’? And if that person did stand up, against ‘authority’, what is the universal neo-Cal response to breaking the code?

?

Christiane wrote:

‘the weight of evidence’ ….. I would ask for ‘sources’, yes

I have re-read my comment several times and I do not see that I said ‘the weight of evidence.’ I used the word ‘evidence’ about one topic and the word ‘weight’ about a different topic, all of which I will be glad to discuss when the ODP is up and functioning.

I tried here, but no way could I make it a reasonable length so I have deleted it. When we get the chance I will be glad to show you where I am coming from on both topics.

.

IMO there has to be both concern for individuals and also sound doctrine.

Are you loving one another if you do nothing for the ‘other’ who needs help? Of course not.

Are you loving God with all your heart, soul and mind if you teach error concerning God? I think not.

We need both.

And of course, YRR icon John Piper is probably the most visible living disciple of Edwards.

Jim G.

Darlene wrote:

Exactly, HUG. This was one of the very disturbing conclusions I arrived at while attending a Calvinist church. How could I really know if I was one of the elect? What’s even more disturbing is that in such a paradigm, God is the actual deceiver. I believe that such a deceiver wouldn’t be God, but a false god.

Such doctrine exists to cause more pain and suffering, instead of the peace we are brought by the message of Christ Jesus. Furthermore, the whole point of the New Covenant is not to be exclusionary, but to be open so that all may have a chance to receive salvation. Paul specifically wrote against exclusionary Christianity based on religious background, ancestry etc… Jesus himself embraced all who reached out to him and rebuked those who rejected him. Not once did he ever reject a person on the grounds that they were not “elect” or for their refusal to believe in an “elect”.

Christiane wrote:

some things are beyond ‘words’ and we need to understand this if we are to recognize one another in this world as ‘Christ’ followers in the manner of how we treat one another, yes

BINGO. All the theologians, all the preachers, all the kings men, all the church councils, and the endless array of doctrinal ideologies cannot alter one electron of this core truth.

okrapod wrote:

In other words, is it correct to assume that neo-cal and abusive necessarily go hand in hand? I am not talking about doctrine, I am talking about abusing people (or not). I think their doctrine is wrong, but I have not heard any accusations against this local group regarding abuses.
These would be the people that I recently characterized as being the poor man’s country club for the comparatively affluent, but they are definitely neo-cal; Mohler shows up occasionally for example.

I personally think nearly all megachurches come with abuses, in order to support the idea that they should have that many people. I used to live in a suburban city with 5 megachurches, and they all had huge issues that they tried real hard not to acknowledge. And a lot of people that I met from those churches had no visible signs of being Christians or non-Christians 6 days a week, but they’d turn into ugly, vicious monsters the moment you said you didn’t like their church or their pastor. One abuse I’ve found at nearly all of them is that they usually cater nearly all their resources to one demographic, usually nuclear families with two parents and more than one child. Then they treat anyone not in that demographic like they are doing something wrong. And if those people get upset, the ones who do fit the demographic tell them they are not trusting God enough and should suck it up. Unfortunately, I’ve seen it happen over and over and over.

As for your direct question, even Baptist churches that weren’t Calvinist have been subject to abrupt takeovers, so I wouldn’t trust equilibrium would remain true for a Calvinist Baptist church. It would be a lot easier for someone power-hungry to jump in there and change things than it would for a non-Calvinist church, especially one that might start directing a lot of money to TGC and Lifeway. And with all the New Calvinist resources Lifeway is producing, it’s likely that they would have to go outside the SBC to get non-Calvinista education materials.

Sam wrote:

Jesus himself embraced all who reached out to him and rebuked those who rejected him. Not once did he ever reject a person on the grounds that they were not “elect” or for their refusal to believe in an “elect”.

Which is exactly why you won’t find New Calvinists camped out in the Gospels! They prefer to twist what Paul is saying, rather than to listen carefully to what Jesus is trying to say to them. They refuse to accept any teaching (even if it is from Jesus!) that would cast doubt on the tenets of reformed theology which they cling to as “truth” … all along ignoring ‘the’ Truth (Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life). There is nothing wrong with a New Calvinist that could not be fixed by flushing the teachings of men and immersing themselves in the Gospels for a few months.

Muff Potter wrote:

Christiane wrote:

some things are beyond ‘words’ and we need to understand this if we are to recognize one another in this world as ‘Christ’ followers in the manner of how we treat one another, yes

BINGO. All the theologians, all the preachers, all the kings men, all the church councils, and the endless array of doctrinal ideologies cannot alter one electron of this core truth.

We have relied too much on our ‘tribal labels’. I think the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates Christ’s teaching of we may better recognize true witnesses of the God Who Is Love.

” Love not just those of your own tribe,
your own class, family or people,
but those who are different,
those who are strangers,

who are strange to your ways,
who come from different cultural and religious traditions,
who seem odd,
those you do not understand.

Love as the Samaritan loved the man he found
beaten up by robbers,
somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.”

(Jean Vanier, The Body Broken)
http://www.msgr.ca/msgr/body_broken%2004.htm

Max wrote:

Which is exactly why you won’t find New Calvinists camped out in the Gospels! They prefer to twist what Paul is saying, rather than to listen carefully to what Jesus is trying to say to them. They refuse to accept any teaching (even if it is from Jesus!) …

Talking about Paul: 1 Timothy 6:3-4 (NIV courtesy Bible Gateway.com) “These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”

Misrepresenting this takes a lot of twisting!

kin wrote:

Yes, obviously many of them can be, but I still have friends in those circles who would not fit the description of your last sentence.

I personally think the reason for this is most people in any particular religion don’t dive very deeply into what their religion actually teaches. If they are nice people they will be nice irrespective of what their religion teaches. Likewise for mean people. However, some religions are much more prone to meanness based on what they actually teach. For example, I am certainly no expert on Islam, but I’ve not yet personally met anyone who has read more about it and discussed it with actual Muslims more than I have. I have met many very decent and honorable Muslims (I’ve attended Friday prayers with them in their mosques). But they are like that in spite of what the Quran and the Hadith actually teach concerning us infidels. There is no way to say that Islam did/does not teach violence both by doctrine and the historical record of early Islamic leaders. But this teaching is not what the nice Muslims follow. I think Calvinism has similarities. The nice Calvinists are nice in spite of what Calvin actually taught and practiced. The YRR’s are more like what people call the Islamists. But that is just my hunch.

Darlene wrote:

You (generic you) cannot know for certain because that god is playing games with you.

It’s right out of Calvin’s Institutes: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html

yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
…
Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them.
…
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

Ken F wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Tweed is nice as well.

My wife agrees with you.

the sheep lend their wool and it is dyed using green plants and brown peat and other colors from the nature, and spun into threads to be woven on a loom using the old patterns … what a beautiful and natural fabric comes from this process!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdWZX6JFxqk

@kin:

You caved to the temptation above in my post with letting my finger insert the “l” into the word “Founders”. Could have been more respectful.

@ Gram3:

I understand and agree for the most part, but far too often it seems there is a rancid flavor that condemns everyone in those circles, imo.

Saying Wade is a good pastor but has destructive/terrible theology (in particular his view of salvation…not some peripheral issue like how old the earth is)is like saying your doc is a good physician because he has excellent bedside manners and is humble, but ignorantly administers toxic harmful poison when he treats certain life-threatning ailments.

I may be missing something like I was when I’ve raised a concern about how people were referring to Piper years ago. It took a lot of reading and digesting comments here – in particular yours – to wake me up to what I see clearly now.

Ken F wrote:

I personally think the reason for this is most people in any particular religion don’t dive very deeply into what their religion actually teaches. If they are nice people they will be nice irrespective of what their religion teaches. Likewise for mean people. However, some religions are much more prone to meanness based on what they actually teach.

I agree with you in how this applies to Islam, but I don’t see how it applies to the people I am referring to since “nice” is far too inadequate to describe who they are. They are in love with Christ. Their lives have been transformed by the knowledge of Him. They love people more than they love their own comfort.

They may not see issues of abuse that I see, but they most certainly do love Jesus and their lives are proof.

kin wrote:

I agree with you in how this applies to Islam, but I don’t see how it applies to the people I am referring to since “nice” is far too inadequate to describe who they are. They are in love with Christ. Their lives have been transformed by the knowledge of Him. They love people more than they love their own comfort.

It perfectly applies to them. Calvin was ruthless with people whom he deemed heretics. And Calvin’s Geneva was not such a great place to live for people who were not deemed heretics because of how harshly he exercised church discipline. The people you describe are the way they are in spite of what Calvin taught and practiced, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

From what I can see in the quote from the “founders”, in 1982 a group of men came together, with inner motives to which I am not privy. To treat them the way I’d like them to treat me, I cannot be quick to think the worst about their motives. So: they felt they had seen a need in the Body of Christ and set themselves to do something to address that need as they perceived it.

Fine. Just as long as they’re not among those who reject or criticise blogs like this one for doing exactly that.

@ Ken F:

Sorry, looks like I got hung up on the word ‘nice’ and missed your point. I agree they ought to spend more time getting necessary perspective, but I have seen a lot of change over the years from what they held when they started on their journey in Christ. That’s always been encouraging to me, especially when change has been so difficult in organized groups we’ve been part of over the years.

One thing I have always appreciated about them is how they have handled people who have been part of their group but have chosen to move on for whatever reason. That speaks volumes to me.

You have a gift of researching – I’d like to see you correspond with Tom Wright and ask him why he supposedly missed the boat and holds to elements of PSA in the cross when no evidence in early church writings suggest it. 🙂

I just can’t see any way to justify certain theological beliefs based solely on the fact that some people who participate in churches who hold those beliefs seem to be good/nice/caring people and some people who preach those beliefs have excellent personal and rhetorical skills.

I have seen people with the best intentions disregard what is known about their or their child’s disease and turn to alternatives which are little more than superstition. They had the best intentions but the worst results.

I have seen people lie down on the table for a surgeon who was technically and personally a living illustration of what one would want in a surgeon because he was so personally impressive, and then seen the medical authorities move against his abuses and lower the beam on him and the hospital which let him get away with some stuff. And all the while his patients loved and trusted him. Right on.

The New Covenant is Jesus. Love God and love fellow man is a summation of the law (Jesus said so) but the law is not the New Covenant; Jesus himself is the New Covenant. We need to be extremely cautious not to evaluate Truth (as in I am the Truth) by whether it seems ‘nice’ at the moment, or evaluate people’s beliefs as to whether the people themselves seem to be ‘nice’ people.

It is not loving to excuse and tolerate errors (bad medicine or bad surgeons or bad theology) just because of ‘nice’. Nice people get hurt that way.

@ okrapod:

The vocabulary words for today include: ‘mighty’ and ‘were’.

This debate here on Calvanism vs free will is far from new! If you stand back, a significant amount of human conflict has been around “theology” … using the word in its broadest sence…
The longer I live, especially as a practicing scientist/engineer/educator, the more I see both advancement of knowledge as well as the limits…. (human knowledge)
When it comes to supernatural issues, i really see human limits. For example, if one starts with the premise that G$d is beyound time, and not constrained by time (a typical attribute of G$d taught by most branches of Judism/Chrsitainity/Islam), we just profoundly limited ourselfs to being able to understand “foreknowledge” ….
. you can not understand what i just wrote without the concept of time…. you need what “comes before” to understand what each word in a sentance is trying to say. A “jumble of words” means nothing. All of our human comunication, mathematical proofs, scientific experiments, etc., need time to make sence of it. We all speak of “growing up” and becoming “mature”… i could go on and on….. So, is it any wonder that free will vs Calvanism/predistination/determinism/ is such a controversial subject? And, I have my doubts about anyone that thinks they understand it, and even worse, demand that their way is the correct way….

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

When it comes to supernatural issues, I really see human limits … So, is it any wonder that free will vs Calvanism/predistination/determinism/ is such a controversial subject? And, I have my doubts about anyone that thinks they understand it, and even worse, demand that their way is the correct way …

Scripture speaks much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture speaks much about man’s free will. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To attempt to put the mind of God into a neat theological box, is to stand in arrogance before Him.

“The role of the pastor is to embody the gospel. And of course to get it embodied, which you can only do with individuals, not in the abstract.” (Eugene H. Peterson)

This was the opening quote in this post. Another Peterson quote from the same link is appropriate for this discussion:

“Religion is a very scary thing, because a pastor is in a position of power. And if you use that power badly, you ruin people’s lives, and you ruin your own life.”

Christiane wrote:

in the neo-Cal world, who is witnessing for standing up against what has happened to victims, what is happening now to victims, and what may happen to victims as a result of certain neo-Cal ‘values’???? Is there even ONE person who say’s ‘this is wrong’? And if that person did stand up, against ‘authority’, what is the universal neo-Cal response to breaking the code?

I stood up to abuses at my former NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite gulag. The price I paid, as many of you know, was to be excommunicated and shunned.

Your point to Kin is accurate.

@ Kin:
Hi KIN,
you may find this link helpful to comprehend the ‘divide’ in how Jesus Christ is viewed and ‘why’ that new teaching about ‘Jesus’ was fashioned by the neo-Cals:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/09/is-it-new-yes-is-it-orthodox-no/

okrapod wrote:

More than that, if the Logos became material and existed in time, and if the Logos was/is God, then how could it be said that God did not, at least in that sense, exist in time. And if God did exist in time in the incarnate Logos (and grow in favor with God and man) then how could God retroactively make that never have happened, as would have to be the case if one were to say that God could not exist in time as well as outside time.

Try thinking it all through (like Calvin’s Institutes) and “MY BRAIN HURTS!”

I think Chesteron once wrote that “The myths/stories are told by the 99% of the villagers who are sane. The Theology is written by the 1% who are insane.”

Max wrote:

Scripture speaks much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture speaks much about man’s free will. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To attempt to put the mind of God into a neat theological box, is to stand in arrogance before Him.

Theology Perfectly Parsed, God All Figured Out.

“SEE HOW CLEVER I AM?”
— attitude I’ve run into far too often among wanna-be writers

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

From what I can see in the quote from the “founders”, in 1982 a group of men came together, with inner motives to which I am not privy. To treat them the way I’d like them to treat me, I cannot be quick to think the worst about their motives. So: they felt they had seen a need in the Body of Christ and set themselves to do something to address that need as they perceived it.

Fine. Just as long as they’re not among those who reject or criticise blogs like this one for doing exactly that.

But there can be Only One True Way.

Ken F wrote:

It perfectly applies to them. Calvin was ruthless with people whom he deemed heretics. And Calvin’s Geneva was not such a great place to live for people who were not deemed heretics because of how harshly he exercised church discipline.

Again, there can be only One True Way.

The people you describe are the way they are in spite of what Calvin taught and practiced, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

I remember hearing the same point about Islam in the Christians-vs-Muslims rhetoric after 9/11.

Darlene wrote:

Yep, that stream of thought teaches that the church fell off the rails after all the Apostles died and it took the Reformation to make things right again.

Why stop at the Reformation? According to Joseph Smith (Mormons), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mo David (COGs), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Sun Myung Moon (Moonies), Jim Jones (People’s Temple/Jonestown), et al, it took Our Founder God’s Special Messenger to make things right again.

Unless, of course, one holds to the Trail of Blood proposition. In that case, there were Baptists waaay back in the First Century and they survived throughout the centuries to be known today as the Landmark Baptists.

Because “Apostolic Succession” sounds too Romish.

(Actually, this is an old old shtick. Claim Divine Right by tracing your bloodline back to the gods.)

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Not only that, but evanescent grace presents a god that messes with our minds and hearts so that we end up being confused and discombobulated.

This ‘god’ is the opposite of the revealed God in the Person of Jesus Christ to whom the Gospels witness, this:

” St. Matthew 9:36 “When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless …”

I ask ‘WHY?’ is it so important to people to have a ‘god’ who has not compassion?

It’s not ‘biblical’, is it? It’s not in tune with the great witnesses to Our Lord: the Holy Gospels.
In creating a vicious god who torments and plays with people, what is it that these ‘theologians’ hope to gain???? They deny who Christ is. They diminish Him. They focus on their own male ‘superiority’.

The angels wept ….

Ken F wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I ask ‘WHY?’ is it so important to people to have a ‘god’ who has not compassion?

Because it’s harder to control people through compassion?

could be …. I’ve thought this, too, expresses a related concept:

““You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Anne Lamott)

@ Ken F:
when I figure out how to do this, I will let you know; but here is a story about that kind of love that is so hard for us and how God helped someone:
“http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/CorrieTenBoom.htm

Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

so not a contradiction, just limits..

This is very good.

We were travelling out of state at church time yesterday. There was no CotN in that town so we stopped at the biggest SBC.

Wow. Heartbreaking. It started with two contemporary songs that did not tip toe through the TULIP but wallowed in it. There was no melody to discern, rather a windchime patternless tone repetition. Then there were two clearly LDS songs. Then another melodyless sort of chant. By this time the people were like abandoned infants who have given up all hope of comfort and love: eyes closed, hugging themselves, and swaying either side to side or front to back. The chorus was repeated endlessly. We sat and just watched. Only I would guess 1 in 20 were singing. Then a very Oprah like “help us to love ourselves” prayer. Then 40 minutes of…….nothing but business management aphorisms. Ended with a song written by a gay man telling the Lord he needs to “feel you inside me.” We left and all of us thought it was like a car dealership that sold all the inventory for scrap, but is striving mightily to convince the town to come weekly, tithe, and keep this dealership going. But with no cars to sell, why would anyone come?

The name of Jesus was used twice at the end of prayers. Otherwise He did not exist.

If that is what the SBC has become, all I can say is where is the paint? Somebody needs to write Ichabod over the door.

Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

So, there are limits in our understanding of the supernatural.. and these theologians, pushing extremes of their theology, are just operating in a “bubble” and should be ignored..

Yes!

__

Sine Qua Non :”The Proverbial Religious Theological Chicken Vs. the Egg Debate, Perhaps?”

hmmm…

Q. When does the Christian life begin?

With regeneration?

Or

With faith?

(You decide…)

huh?

A Reformed Theologian (Calvinist) would say to his congregation that, regeneration must precede faith; Whereas, an Evangelical Theologian (of various ‘chosen’ flavors…) would say to his congregation that, faith must precede regeneration.

With that understand, and amassed good academics books on the history of theology, and you should be well on your way to understanding the distinctions between the two, right?

What?

However, the adroit nagging question still begs an answer, proverbial chicken or de egg?

Round and Round we go, let eternity take its toll?

Roughly 150,000 mortals die each day across this vast globe, and we are arguing about religious semantics?

(You gots ta be kidding!)

The christian church is in such a sorry state of affairs, huh?

I suppose dat ‘go into all the world’…, with this ‘theological’ argument, doesn’t really get much traction in heaven.

[Snicker]

RE-arranging da proverbial deck chairs yet again, huh?

Skreeeetch.

KRunch!

The Revelations of Apostle John’s book: “11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

Q. And What Of The Great Commission?

(Matthew 28:16-20)

14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The church is playing with the pencils, and ‘true’ gospel has become a beggars dream?

(sadface)

The other shoe?

The religion-less beggar knows much that the average pastoral type can only guess upon; and yet who draws up the codes for religious ordinances and 501(c)3 religious practices?

Let death take a holiday?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-AVEZd0ToTY

Jesus, I will need You more… (tears)

ATB

Sopy

🙂

—

ishy wrote:

I used to live in a suburban city with 5 megachurches, and they all had huge issues that they tried real hard not to acknowledge. And a lot of people that I met from those churches had no visible signs of being Christians or non-Christians 6 days a week, but they’d turn into ugly, vicious monsters the moment you said you didn’t like their church or their pastor. One abuse I’ve found at nearly all of them is that they usually cater nearly all their resources to one demographic, usually nuclear families with two parents and more than one child. Then they treat anyone not in that demographic like they are doing something wrong. And if those people get upset, the ones who do fit the demographic tell them they are not trusting God enough and should suck it up.

Catering to a demographic:
As a Letterman Show Page, Elna Baker seated the audience in three groups: The Beautiful People in rows 1-3, Average in middle rows, and “fat people, elderly people with a visible illness, people who looked like they might be disruptive, and goths…, the nosebleed seats. I’d seen Letterman a few years earlier. I was near the front of the line and somehow ended up in the nosebleeds. I remember being confused by it. The day I was trained, I put it together.” [She was fat then, lost weight & hired as a Page – from This American Life.]

JYJames wrote:

ishy wrote:
But I think overall it is very unwise to dedicate ourselves to any framework.
Like putting God in a box? A God too small?

Honestly, I think the Calvinistas and Founders want to make themselves gods and ignore the God of heavens entirely. That’s pretty much what they admit with the ESS theology — that men have the authority of God on earth.

But yes, by putting ourselves in a box, we put God in a box. Though I think it’s mainly from pride and not wanting to admit that even with the Bible, human brains just aren’t capable of understanding everything we think we do.

Max wrote:

spiritual power accompanies his faithfulness.

Golden nugget of truth here. You nailed it, Max. Thanks again for putting cogently into words our common experience in His Kingdom. Ever grateful for the TWW community.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Aaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!

It’s amazing that anyone takes him seriously anymore. Maybe their mental defenses have just been worn down so badly that they can no longer see the inconsistencies.

ishy wrote:

want to make themselves gods

Without trying to offend anyone here, sometimes I’ve wondered if the pyramid structure of the pastor running the church could be idolatry-adjacent, even unintentionally.

@ JYJames:
Speaking of spiritual power …

JY, I don’t know what it’s like in your area … but in my neck of the woods, church folks don’t pray much any more. Indeed, throughout much of the SBC kingdom, Wednesday night prayer meetings have been canceled for lack of interest. If God’s people don’t pray, they won’t have enough spiritual power to blow the dust off a peanut. And we wonder why the enemy is having his way in our churches?!

Max wrote:

but in my neck of the woods, church folks don’t pray much any more.

What’s the point? Everything has already been ordained, even not praying.

Max wrote:

Wednesday night prayer meetings have been canceled for lack of interest

Leonard Ravenhill addressed this years ago, saying, “Why is there is a Minister of Music and no Minister of Prayer?”

Ravenhill: ” … a man who kneels before God will stand before men. A man who is intimate with God will never be intimidated by men.”

Ken F wrote:

there is no way to move or influence that god

Like the Baptist pastor who came to our house, after we had all, including him, witnessed a miracle. He sat on our couch in our living room and explained it away as impossible because that ended with the Apostles. The pastor hopped and skipped through Biblical texts to “prove”, “It just ain’t so.”

Christiane wrote:

@ Kin:
Hi KIN,
you may find this link helpful to comprehend the ‘divide’ in how Jesus Christ is viewed and ‘why’ that new teaching about ‘Jesus’ was fashioned by the neo-Cals:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/09/is-it-new-yes-is-it-orthodox-no/

Thanks! I’ve been keeping up on it, but did not read that one before today.

JYJames wrote:

Leonard Ravenhill addressed this years ago,

I cut my teeth as a young Christian on Ravenhill’s sermons and books. If only we had preachers like him in the 21st century church!

Some of my favorite Ravenhill quotes:
“If weak in prayer, we are weak everywhere.”
“The reason we don’t have revival is because we are willing to live without it!”
“Are the things you are living for worth Christ dying for?” (on his tombstone)

Ken F wrote:

Max wrote:

but in my neck of the woods, church folks don’t pray much any more.

What’s the point? Everything has already been ordained, even not praying.

“In’shal’lah…”

Ken F wrote:

But if one believes the reformed creeds relating to God ordaining everything, then the only reason to pray is dry obedience because there is no way to move or influence that god.

Going through the motions because you’ve been ordered to, nothing more.

“The hard, drab, grey, joyless path of Salvation.”
— James Michener, Hawaii

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/healthy-churches-in-a-confusing-culture-a-conversation-with-9marks-erlc-tickets-33676214464?_ga=2.100849793.1615459440.1494015911-1137191255.1486158607

At first, I thought this was a spoof. Too bad it’s not.

brian wrote:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/healthy-churches-in-a-confusing-culture-a-conversation-with-9marks-erlc-tickets-33676214464?_ga=2.100849793.1615459440.1494015911-1137191255.1486158607

At first, I thought this was a spoof. Too bad it’s not.

SBC’s New Calvinists have used “side-bar” meetings like this at SBC national meetings in recent years do attract the YRR crowd. While they are there, the YRRs cast votes for SBC officers and resolutions which appeal to them and the reformed cause.

@ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
well, if there is little time to pray, but there is great need for your prayer to be before the Lord, remember that WHEN you pray, the prayer goes into ‘eternity’ and becomes timeless in its presence before the Lord

that’s why people light candles sometimes when they pray …. the candle symbolizes that even when you have left the Church and gone on to work,
that prayer you said is still before God, even a the candle’s flame continues after you light it

Prayer unites the temporal and the eternal. That it is powerful goes without saying; that it brings peace is known to many.

It’s not the ‘time’ spent praying. It’s the condition of the heart that matters …. ‘sursum corda’ lift up your hearts to the Lord

Too tired or sick to pray? Ask for others to help you. They will do this because this help is what our faith is all about: we bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the Royal Law of Christ.

Know this: even if you can’t pray, the Holy Spirit searches your heart and intervenes: ” the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words” (Romans, Chapt 8)

Prayer is not a ‘should’, or a ‘must’;
it’s like breathing ….. it’s happens, even if you are not conscious of it ….. lean into it and rest

kin wrote:

Saying Wade is a good pastor but has destructive/terrible theology (in particular his view of salvation…not some peripheral issue like how old the earth is)is like saying your doc is a good physician because he has excellent bedside manners and is humble, but ignorantly administers toxic harmful poison when he treats certain life-threatning ailments.

Interesting comment. It raises the question or thought whether Wade would become an excellent or outstanding pastor and not just a good pastor if he didn’t adhere to a destructive/terrible theology (in particular his view of salvation). It is kind of like the difference between a B+ grade and an A+ grade. In other words, does his theology in some way hamper his effectiveness or ability as a pastor?

Law Prof wrote:

I say we need pastors who are NOT fulfilling completely made-up CEO/motivational speaker/standing in the spotlight each Sunday/face of the church/”I am the brand”/fundraiser roles.

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! I’m having trouble locating those particular pastor qualifications in Scripture, yet there are a good number of those characters in American pulpits! How could that be?!

Law Prof wrote:

We need pastors who are humble servants who step aside and let all those with teaching gifts teach, none of them under the white hot spotlight, none of them presuming to be anything other than just another part of a Body with Jesus as the head.

Do you reckon 21st century “Christians” would go to a church like that? Perhaps the problem lies as much with the pew as with the pulpit. Just maybe church folks don’t want pastors like that. Give us a King! So, God gives them what they want and sends leanness to their souls.

Law Prof wrote:

There are probably a lot of pastors at any given fellowship, but you won’t likely see them up on a stage

Amen! I’ve known several of them during my 60+ year journey through church.

Ken G wrote:

In other words, does his theology in some way hamper his (Wade’s) effectiveness or ability as a pastor?

NO, not by St. Ambrose’s standards, which were written a thousand years before Calvin ever drew breath:
“”“For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.

And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.

For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?

Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.

Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”

St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
a Father and Doctor of the Church

Max wrote:

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
not a whole lotta prayin’ goin’ on

Then, God will not make American great again.

81% of white Evangelicals voted otherwise last November.

And the Groupthink threshold is somewhere around 80%.

Christiane wrote:

Prayer is not a ‘should’, or a ‘must’;
it’s like breathing ….. it’s happens, even if you are not conscious of it ….. lean into it and rest

AMEN. And don’t let anyone try and tell you otherwise.

okrapod wrote:

Personally I think we have a lot more important issues right now than agitation over theories of the atonement.

Hi OKRAPOD,
what issues would you prefer to focus on?

okrapod wrote:

Personally I think we have a lot more important issues right now than agitation over theories of the atonement.

It depends on whether or not theology is important. And if it is important, at what point do the details become unimportant? For example, I think it’s important for us to know whether or not God exists and whether or not he is for or against us. Also, whether or not he expects us to do or avoid certain things. Whether or not someone believes certain atonement theories is probably a detail that does not matter much, unless it causes them to have a view of God that justifies mistreating others. People across ages and cultures have done a pretty good job of causing harm in the name of their god. Among other reasons why theology might be important, how it impacts the way we treat others certainly is important. Another reason it is important is if it drive us toward or away from faith.

Gram3 wrote:

81% of white Evangelicals voted otherwise last November.

Don’t know where that statistic comes from, but I do not believe it is possible to verify any part of it. For starters, what does “evangelical” mean?

Isolated statistics can be very misleading. For one, they are gathered by exit polls which may or may not be accurate (depends on sample size, sample selection, etc.). Also, an isolated statistic does not say much about the reasons behind it. This is an interesting article that attempts some analysis: https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/myths-debunked-why-did-white-evangelical-christians-vote-trump.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

What was the miracle?

A prominent non-English-speaking business woman found she had cancer with only 2 months to 1 year to live.

An English-only-speaking prayer lady with the gift of evangelism practiced her gift daily but admitted her Baptist pastor said gifts ended with the Apostles, and he never sanctioned her gift.

One day the prayer lady said she had to go see the business woman but she needed transportation.

“The business woman doesn’t understand English,” we told her.

“No matter, I must see her TODAY”,” the prayer lady said.

“Alrighty,” we responded and brought the prayer lady to the business woman. The prayer lady witnessed to the business woman in English – not about healing from cancer – but introducing her to Jesus. The two spoke in their two different languages. Later we realized the Holy Spirit had been talking. We also gave the businesswoman a Bible in her language.

In two months to the day, the business woman died. In the interim, she sent for a Christian pastor to come from her home country and do her funeral. The funeral was completely in the other language (no English), with many others from her community hearing the Gospel for the first time – as she was well-known. The pastor preached on Psalm 23: “This prominent businesswoman, your friend and relative, took Jesus as her Shepherd and now she is with Him. You can be too,” he said. You could have heard a pin drop. They were all shocked that she had changed her religion.

Then the prayer lady died, and the above story was shared at her funeral. Her family said that she had also spoken to them at times with a word from God, but they never listened, and now it was too late. They had thought her Holy Spirit connection with God was a bit off.

Her Baptist pastor declared that theologically, the Bible proved that gifts and miracles had ceased. He refuted the work of the Holy Spirit in her life, upholding the correctness of his theology.

kKen F wrote:

Isolated statistics can be very misleading.

S
Any kind of statistics can be very misleading. In this particular case, I suspect this was a designer statistic which is a two word abbreviation for a three letter word, and if the results had gone the other way, the evangelical vote statistic might magically have gone the other way, too, depending upon the Narrative required. I can think of some good reasons for this implausibly large number coming from both sides.

Naturally, all the evangelical Calvinists were elected to elect whosoever they elected their electors to elect.

@ William Smith:
Welcome aboard! I look forward to hearing your proof of slander.

Max wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
I say we need pastors who are NOT fulfilling completely made-up CEO/motivational speaker/standing in the spotlight each Sunday/face of the church/”I am the brand”/fundraiser roles.
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! I’m having trouble locating those particular pastor qualifications in Scripture, yet there are a good number of those characters in American pulpits! How could that be?!
Law Prof wrote:
We need pastors who are humble servants who step aside and let all those with teaching gifts teach, none of them under the white hot spotlight, none of them presuming to be anything other than just another part of a Body with Jesus as the head.
Do you reckon 21st century “Christians” would go to a church like that? Perhaps the problem lies as much with the pew as with the pulpit. Just maybe church folks don’t want pastors like that. Give us a King! So, God gives them what they want and sends leanness to their souls.
Law Prof wrote:
There are probably a lot of pastors at any given fellowship, but you won’t likely see them up on a stage
Amen! I’ve known several of them during my 60+ year journey through church.

You and I Max, we are two folks on the lee side of 50 holding hands here wondering what happened to a perfectly fine church. I used to be a SoBap myself, was baptized SoBap, taught Sunday School in a SoBap, VBS, the whole nine yards. Brother Dewey and Brother Ernie and Sister Nancy from 35 years ago at my church would be aghast at what’s happened.

@Ken F:

Dude – can’t thank you enough for the Wright link! Absolutely wonderful/helpful perspective I needed.

Too funny he presented it at “Calvin” college. 🙂

@ Law Prof:

To answer your questions: 1. “What?” is what I wrote. 2. No.

William Smith wrote:

The Baptists in America, including the Southern Baptists are historically Calvinistic (using “Calvinistic” in the sense of the 5 responses of the Synod of Dordt to the Remonstrants – I think that restricting Calvinism to the 5 Points is actually a truncated Calvinism).

William,

Are you making a distinction between mild-mannered classical Calvinists and the new hateful, rabid breed of intractable NeoCalvinists? Do you know the differences? Because they are quite significant. And it’s the NeoCalvinists that people are protesting.

@ William Smith:
Think what you will….doesn’t make your assessment accurate. Your opinion is just like all here, an opinion.

William Smith wrote:

The Baptists in America, including the Southern Baptists are historically Calvinistic

Not exactly. I was born and raised Southern Baptist back in pre-CR day, and there was a strain of calvinistic thinking there at that time. However, I raised by children Free Will Baptist, and there was not the strain of calvinistic thinking there as had been with the SBC folks. It goes back historically to Particular Baptists vs General Baptists (the terminology having to do with different doctrines of the atonement) and continues to this day in various degrees in various Baptist denoms-sometimes on a continuum like everything else of course.

Gram3 wrote:

kKen F wrote:

Isolated statistics can be very misleading.

S
Any kind of statistics can be very misleading. In this particular case, I suspect this was a designer statistic which is a two word abbreviation for a three letter word, and if the results had gone the other way, the evangelical vote statistic might magically have gone the other way, too, depending upon the Narrative required. I can think of some good reasons for this implausibly large number coming from both sides.

Naturally, all the evangelical Calvinists were elected to elect whosoever they elected their electors to elect.

Sources have to be considered these days. I would hesitate to trust any ‘statistic’ that did not come from a reputable source, yes, especially concerning ‘exit polls’. These days, it’s so bad that you can turn to Fox News for an hour and then to CNN for an hour, and you would think they were on different planets.

Sources are key.

Lea wrote:

William Smith wrote:
Slanderous
Everybody’s favorite word! *eyeroll*

Don’t forget : BITTER(TM)

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

I’m beginning to wonder which is cause and which is effect. I had been thinking that the abuses of Calvin’s Geneva were caused by his theology. But now I’m wondering if he was simply abusive to begin with, and his theology just reflects his abusive ideas. But there does seem to be a correlation – people who are abusive often who have a twisted view of God.

To the point the two mix and go synergistic on each other, justifying and amplifying each other so you don’t know where one ends and the other begins. One big circle, spinning ever faster.

Christiane wrote:

These days, it’s so bad that you can turn to Fox News for an hour and then to CNN for an hour, and you would think they were on different planets.

Reminds me of a few poetic lines;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools…. (Kipling)

You gotta love iambic pentameter, but who says twist-ed’ or twis-ted’ ? I always say twis’-ted or twist’-ed. It was preordained that I would not be an English major.

Oh well, but the knaves thing-quite right.

@ okrapod:
LOVED ‘If’ by Kipling – the nuns made us memorize it and quote it when we were in grade school (6th, I think). . . .

When I read about ‘patriarchy’ and about any government gathering that rules on women’s issues that is made up totally of men, I think of Kipling, this:
“So it comes that Man, the coward,
when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council,
dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience,
he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice –
which no woman understands.”

I think you might not be so alienated from poetry, OKRAPOD, if you can pull from Kipling to make sense and restore meaning to the chaos of our modern time. 🙂 So explore your latent talent and enjoy what you discover and share it …. why not?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
What? Are you a bit unhinged and delusional or just spoofing the type.
These days, assume a Dead Serious True Believer until proven otherwise.
Because a spoofer can’t push it as far as a True Believer.

That is starting to be so–there was a group back in my day with an appropriate to this conversation name that sung about truth being stranger than fiction: Bad Religion.

Muff Potter wrote:

I think that he (Calvin) was more than anything, a product of his times. Remember, in his day there was no such thing as The Rights of Man. You (generic you) were at the mercy (in autocratic terms) of kings, princes, magistrates, and their confederates in the clergy.

I’ve always felt that arguments from historicity were poor arguments. Who cares if that was the historical belief? That doesn’t mean someone had the right belief.

I especially find this a poor argument when referring to the Reformers. I think, if anything, they were more likely to be wrong on a number of things because they were totally opposing immediately previous beliefs. A lot was just feeling the way and understandable, but some things, like how Calvin ruled Geneva, seemed clearly wrong to me. I don’t think the early church was at all like the Reformers wanted church to be and I don’t think it was what many people want it now to be.

In the same way, who cares if Southern Baptists were Calvinist at their start? They were also proponents of enslaving other human beings, a belief that seems to be coming around again with the New Calvinists. Again, being historical doesn’t mean being right. It’s a terrible argument, and one that shouldn’t be used to justify anything.

The measurement should always be Christ, not history.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lea wrote:
William Smith wrote:
Slanderous
Everybody’s favorite word! *eyeroll*
Don’t forget : BITTER(TM)

You read my mind, H.U.G.

Muff Potter wrote:

ishy wrote:
The measurement should always be Christ, not history.
I’m in complete agreement. I never remotely implied that historicity should be a metric for the operation of the church universal in today’s world. I would also argue that the neo-cals and many present day arminian outfits to boot remain stuck in the 16th century, which was the overriding gist of my comment.
I thank God for The Enlightenment, its thinkers, and the continuing influence it has on Christianity. In my opinion, the church universal is still evolving.

Oh no, I was carrying on your argument, not refuting it, and addressing some of the other points in the thread.

William Smith wrote:

The Baptists in America, including the Southern Baptists are historically Calvinistic

There is no warrant for such a blanket statement which tends to mislead. There were non-Calvinistic Baptists which pre-dated the SBC in the America, including the South, and Dr. Nettles knows this. Lots of other people know that he knows this, too. In fact, every Southern Baptist historian knows this. No one has said that Dr. Nettles is not a good man. I assume that he is, but for some reason he is stuck on this groove.

ishy wrote:

In the same way, who cares if Southern Baptists were Calvinist at their start?

Were the Landmarkers Calvinist? I’m so confused on the timeline… 🙂

Muff Potter wrote:

I think that he (Calvin) was more than anything, a product of his times.

Based on your comments below, I don’t think you mean this as a way to excuse Calvin’s behavior. But it’s a very common excuse for Calvin that I hear from Calvinists. Jesus did not live in such nice times, yet he was not a product of his time. I think he expects us to rise above our times. I suppose one can argue that people should not follow Calvin precisely because he was no better than a product of his times.

William Smith wrote:

That statements are not slanderous but a response to the post.

What is your goal in interacting with people in the comments section of this blog? Are you hoping for civil dialogue? Hoping to learn? Hoping to change minds? You entered the conversation quite abruptly and rudely, which makes me wonder whether or not it is worthwhile to address your thought. And nearly everything you wrote is factually incorrect. Accusing all of us of slander and making false claims is not such a good way to enter a conversation. I’m wondering why you did it that way.

Muff Potter wrote:

I think that he (Calvin) was more than anything, a product of his times.

Yikes. I just used that in a comment I just wrote. Top downism got me again.

Gram3 wrote:

I think that it does not help the cause of Calvinism to highlight its historical connection to chattel slavery in the American South. Richard Furman and George Whitefield come to mind. There were so many, many others. Slavery is not inevitable within deterministic systems, but it surely fits well within them.

It’s becoming a habit now, but just like “The Gospel Coalition Machiavelli” is a frightening and enlightening web search, “The Gospel Coalition slavery” is another one. That one I had done previous to today when I saw one of their editors hinting that slavery might be supported by the Bible. Doug Wilson has also said that supporting marriage equality is worse than supporting slavery, and a few of the TGC people rushed to defend him.

I don’t know what the Founders’ views are on that, but they certainly don’t seem to be supporting those who oppose the New Calvinists.

Law Prof wrote:

You and I Max, we are two folks on the lee side of 50 holding hands here wondering what happened to a perfectly fine church.

LP, my father used to say 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?!”

Most Southern Baptists fall in the latter category. How did they get there? Certainly, apathy and complacency about the things of God over the years have played a role. But, when it comes to Calvinization of their denomination … some are uninformed, some are misinformed, and many more are just willingly ignorant.

Gram3 wrote:

I would really love to hear from Dr. Nettles or Dr. Haykin why they believe that the esteemed Calvinists in the American South defended chattel slavery and were so morally blind to it if Calvinism is the truest form of the Christian faith? Why did they send so many brave young men to their deaths to defend such a great moral evil and leave so many women widows and so many children orphans? The standard answer that “they were men of their times” is not an adequate response to those questions.

What we were taught by the slavery proponents was that the South was fighting for states’ rights, not slavery. We were told that slavery would have died a natural death anyhow, within a decade or two, after the invention of the cotton gin.

The other part of the argument, as I mentioned, was that in their view, slavery was actually benign. The civilized White Man was taking these uncivilized savages and teaching them about the bible and how to live in a civilized manner. Maybe not stated in those exact words, but that was the gist.

This is not my view; I am simply reporting teachings by Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins, among others.

@ Muff Potter (aka Hemp Twill):

Hemp Twill. LOL.

refugee wrote:

Oh, there was also a charge of plagiarism against him and co-author Steve Wilkins, and if I remember right, all blame went to Wilkins. It has become sort of a pattern with Wilson–he’s been charged more than once with plagiarism and has been able to fob it off on a co-author. Either he has a way of getting co-authors to take all responsibility (even when he should get at least some of the blame), or he’s a really rotten judge of people to co-author books with.

There are so many things wrong with Doug Wilson, and yet so many people still defend him. I don’t get it at all. I think he would just be a huge liability.

@ Velour:
I very much expect that the earlier Baptist Calvinists were much more polemic than the modern ones – it was the nature of the age, before the age of “niceness’ made strong conviction to be “unloving.” I think the modern proponents of Baptist Calvinism are not much different from the older ones.@ Max:
refugee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
I would really love to hear from Dr. Nettles or Dr. Haykin why they believe that the esteemed Calvinists in the American South defended chattel slavery and were so morally blind to it if Calvinism is the truest form of the Christian faith? Why did they send so many brave young men to their deaths to defend such a great moral evil and leave so many women widows and so many children orphans? The standard answer that “they were men of their times” is not an adequate response to those questions.
What we were taught by the slavery proponents was that the South was fighting for states’ rights, not slavery. We were told that slavery would have died a natural death anyhow, within a decade or two, after the invention of the cotton gin.
The other part of the argument, as I mentioned, was that in their view, slavery was actually benign. The civilized White Man was taking these uncivilized savages and teaching them about the bible and how to live in a civilized manner. Maybe not stated in those exact words, but that was the gist.

@ Max:
Calvinism and slavery go together? Only if the Scriptures and slavery go together. The end of slavery required the renunciation of Calvinism in order to go forward? What utter hooey.

refugee wrote:

Oh, there was also a charge of plagiarism against him and co-author Steve Wilkins, and if I remember right, all blame went to Wilkins.

Falling on his sword to protect The Great One.

refugee wrote:

What we were taught by the slavery proponents was that the South was fighting for states’ rights, not slavery.

Actually, both are true.
In the South, States’ Rights was so intertwined with their Peculiar Institution there was no way to separate the two. The Right to Animate Property WAS one of the main States’ Rights they were fighting for!

The North and South had developed two separate cultures clear back to Colonial times and American history between 1776 and 1861 was a long balancing act between the two to prevent the USA from splitting apart. NOBODY’S HANDS – NORTH OR SOUTH – WERE CLEAN ON THIS ONE!

Plus, before the Civil War the name “United States” was a COLLECTIVE plural noun: “The United States ARE…”. After, it became singular: “The United States IS…”. Before the war, regional and state identity – North AND South – were much more important than afterwards.

Gram3 wrote:

I think that it does not help the cause of Calvinism to highlight its historical connection to chattel slavery in the American South. Richard Furman and George Whitefield come to mind. There were so many, many others. Slavery is not inevitable within deterministic systems, but it surely fits well within them.

Slavery is even being defended to this day within Extreme Islam, using the identical Cosmic Justification of SCRIPTURE – Since slavery is spoken about and regulated and normal in the Holy Book, it must be commanded by God.

This leads to such things as blind people in Cameroon or Sudan being given seeing-eye SLAVES as a charitable gift because dogs are Unclean.

William Smith wrote:

Simple, because what was written was slanderous toward Dr. Nettles and the claims made were false.

Another Attack Dog coming out of the woodwork to Defend the Faith (and his ManaGAWD)?

William Smith wrote:

Simple, because what was written was slanderous toward Dr. Nettles and the claims made were false.

I don’t think you know the definition for slander. Please describe how he was slandered in this post.

ishy wrote:

“The Gospel Coalition slavery” is another one. That one I had done previous to today when I saw one of their editors hinting that slavery might be supported by the Bible. Doug Wilson has also said that supporting marriage equality is worse than supporting slavery

I haven’t looked into that one, but who can be surprised when they embrace people like Doug ‘slavery is awesome’ Wilson.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Before the war, regional and state identity – North AND South – were much more important than afterwards.

Indeed. After reading about the southern Baptist Calvinists I was trying to remember what happened with the Presbyterians and basically the southern ones split off. I don’t think any of that was about Calvinism.

refugee wrote:

but evidently the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south, not slaves held in Northern states (like Maryland?).

I believe this is true, and slavery was not officially outlawed in all states till the 13th amendment.

Also, I learned on one of those ‘track your ancestors’ shows that slavery was not outlawed on reservations until even later?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

When you hear “War of Northern Aggression

The only time I have ever heard that one is as a joke.

@ Lea:

Yes. I never heard it said seriously. But then, this resurgence of talk about both slavery and the civil war is more discussion of either than I heard for decades before this. I don’t know how this all got started, but it is odd that now this all comes up again.

Christiane wrote:

Patriarchal marriages are not Christian models for marriage, no.

But they’ll swear up and down that this is what the Bible “teaches”.

okrapod wrote:

I don’t know how this all got started

It’s because Dr. Nettles wants to assert that Calvinism is inseparable from SBC origins and apparently is also necessary to the health of the SBC, and some of us want to say that slavery is also inseparable from SBC origins which is something that Dr. Nettles also knows very well but is not quite so eager to acknowledge. I think that it is a curiously selective reading of the facts for a serious historian.

Gram3 wrote:

Yes, and that is how they sell the system to the male pewpeons.

But that’s just it–they want to rule all the other men, too. I guess they view it like Jesus’ ministry and their church takeovers–if you don’t talk about it, nobody will notice you are trying to take them over.

I think Mars Hill was one place where that power struggle started coming out. Of course, only some of the peons have talked about that.

And dee posted on Twitter about FBC Durham on an about Andy Davis taking over that church “confronted powerful deacons and committees” like he was a superhero battling evil villains”. If they think that giving absolute power to a pastor is going to stop other men from thinking they might be king, too–frankly, they’re idiots. Especially when they encourage their very young YRRs to be aggressive and militant while thinking of themselves as the smartest guy in the room.

Highlander might have said “There can be only one”, but only Jesus is that. None of them will be it.

ishy wrote:

they want to rule all the other men, too

The way they rule all the other men is to make all of the other men believe that they are the prophets, priests, and kings in their own homes. It is a ridiculous notion, but what is worse is that for men with tender consciences it is a heavy burden to bear. It is a horrible and abusive trap for men and for women, but in different ways.

It is part of the over-interpretation of the metaphor of Jesus as the Bridegroom of the Church such that what is true of Jesus is or can be true of a human husband.

Gram3 wrote:

It is part of the over-interpretation of the metaphor of Jesus as the Bridegroom of the Church such that what is true of Jesus is or can be true of a human husband.

They do make promises about becoming elders one day. And especially to the YRR–go to seminary, become a pastor, be in charge… At the rate they are turning out indoctrinated baby pastors, there’s bound to be a point where they start trying to kill each other for the positions in the larger churches (that pay better and make them famous).

Those men are the bride, not the Bridegroom, though. Never heard them talk about that part of the Bible.

Has anyone discussed this yet: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/u-turn-north-carolina-story-church-reform

When Davis finished his PhD in church history in 1998, he accepted the call as pastor of the historic First Baptist Church Durham, North Carolina. Scripture memory and meditation sustained him as he withstood a powerful faction of deacons and committee chairs. In 2001, his opponents tried to drive him away after he led the church to change the bylaws to reflect biblical roles of gender and authority.

It’s the story of a highly successful New-Calvinist church takeover.

ishy wrote:

And dee posted on Twitter about FBC Durham on an about Andy Davis taking over that church “confronted powerful deacons and committees” like he was a superhero battling evil villains”.

And yelling ‘repent’ at them because they dared to vote in a female deacon even though he told them not to! Clearly they’re all unregenerate because they 1. value a woman and 2. don’t do what they’re told. Which of those is the bigger sin, I wonder?

William Smith wrote:

Have you read Luther’s The Bondage of the Will?

Luther’s Bondage of the Will seems to be one area where Calvin and Luther agreed. They certainly did not agree on everything. Even today, Lutherans and Calvinists disagree in significant ways. To paint the picture as if Luther and Calvin were tightly connected theologically is very misleading.

Gram3 wrote:

Do you have an explanation for why such bright lights of Calvinism in the SBC supported chattel slavery? Why they were so morally blind when they were so bound to obey God’s law?

This is a very good point. That fact that the SBC Moved away from slavery is considered good, but the fact that it also moved away from Calvinism is considered bad. This is very inconsistent. Founders has no rationale to appeal to history unless they also want to also embrace their old fight for slavery. If the convention can change its mind on slavery then it can also change its mind on Calvinism. But that does not fit their agenda. No wonder they have to resort to misrepresenting the truth.

okrapod wrote:

If the seminaries where he taught let him also teach that old makes right because of tradition then things are a lot worse than just this one man’s ideas.

Seems to undermine the whole foundation of the reformation. SOLA TRADITION!

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Okay, I have chosen a fabric. Bamboo
@Bamboo
@Velour
@Muslin
@Hemp Twill
I believe taking the name of a fabric on this blog makes one an honorary sibling of the daughters of Satin.

And don’t forget our beloved green-eyed Kevlar (aka Nancy2), fearless leader of our official camp in Kentucky – Camp Backbone!

okrapod wrote:

I need to see who gave this man a PhD and in what but did not tip him off about this. Or if he knows good and well but just hopes that nobody notices.

As I said in a comment (top downism got me again so I did not see your comment before I wrote mine) I think they believe no one will notice, and that is usually a good bet. Ages ago we had to take logic in high school. Dr. Nettles and his peers are not kids, so I assume these guys at least took at least one course in undergrad. No excuses. They publish in journals with editors. No excuses. I think the real reason is that no one cares if there is sound reasoning or if there is sound exegesis. I think that the only thing that matters is that a certain number of words need to be written on a certain topic from a certain viewpoint by a certain date. As I have said so many times before, let me see the publishing and conference contracts, and a lot of questions would be answered about a lot of things.

ishy wrote:

Well, TGC is now openly using Machiavelli as a primary source for their articles and there was a slew of comments to the effect of “This article is SO BIBLICAL!” from their mindless followers.

Mindless is right.

I wondered if somebody just got out school, quoting Machiavelli. Do they do the classics/western civ stuff in seminary? It came off as they think they sound smart for quoting him, when what they actually sound is utterly without morals.

ishy wrote:

Well, TGC is now openly using Machiavelli as a primary source for their articles and there was a slew of comments to the effect of “This article is SO BIBLICAL!” from their mindless followers.

Worship of ‘the powerful leader’ seems to be a fixture of our modern time. It’s as though ‘great leader’ will be strong enough to cut through to that place where ‘we’ will again be ‘strong’ and dominant.

It’s an old play book. It has a terrible ending. Every time.

What did they do with the great Leader Who came who did have the right play book??? They crucified Him.

When will we ever learn???

ishy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
They publish in journals with editors. No excuses. I think the real reason is that no one cares if there is sound reasoning or if there is sound exegesis. I think that the only thing that matters is that a certain number of words need to be written on a certain topic from a certain viewpoint by a certain date. As I have said so many times before, let me see the publishing and conference contracts, and a lot of questions would be answered about a lot of things.
Well, TGC is now openly using Machiavelli as a primary source for their articles and there was a slew of comments to the effect of “This article is SO BIBLICAL!” from their mindless followers. They’ve all figured out they can pretty much write whatever they want and people will still follow them.

That is true of their followers, but those ranks are not greatly on the rise (if on the rise at all) and they are generally not influential people. TGC attracts a certain type, and they are not, in my experience, emotionally healthy types, but overgrown, underachieving, insecure boys with an absolute lust for power and massive daddy issues. I understand that’s a pretty harsh characterization and a stereotype, but that description has been true of every single male I have ever met who was involved with and who supported TGC-type groups. Not a single exception. Zero. This is anecdotal experience, but it’s powerful because it is echoed back by virtually everyone else I’ve known who has encountered such groups as an outsider or church member who was the subject of a takeover.

These are not rational, decent people, they do not have any ultimate objective truth which governs them short of the pronouncements of their leaders and the examples of tyrants whom they idolize such as Mr. Calvin. Ultimately, many of them adhere to the Bible only in the most nominal sense: things like telling the truth, acting with decency, treating others as they would like to be treated, being humble, kind, loving, these are absolute nonsense to them. Of course they say the right words, of course they call themselves and their actions everything good. Means nothing. Truth doesn’t matter to one willing to lie and obfuscate to effect a church takeover. Kindness doesn’t matter to one willing to manipulate you to secure the power they crave–and shun and destroy your relationships with friends and family if they cannot.

Ken F wrote:

To paint the picture as if Luther and Calvin were tightly connected theologically is very misleading.

Of course it is. Of course. But William Smith is most decidedly very misleading. And very ignorant.

@ Law Prof:
In the Catholic Church’s recent efforts to re-examine the contributions of Martin Luther, there has been no findings that he was connected up to the TULIP of Calvinist teachings, no.

Believe me, the Church would find it, if it were true, as the Church is very anti-TULIP. The only area where the Catholic Church intersects with Calvin is the belief that all that is good originates with God, but the connection breaks sharply where the Calvinists go off into claiming that God is the author of evil and people are pre-destined to hell from the moment they are created in their mother’s wombs ….. the Church abhors that extreme hyper-Calvinist teaching, yes.

Luther is being re-examined by the Catholic Church for his positive contributions to Christianity. I would not be surprised if, in time, Martin Luther was declared a ‘Doctor of the Church’ for those contributions.

Christiane wrote:

In the Catholic Church’s recent efforts to re-examine the contributions of Martin Luther, there has been no findings that he was connected up to the TULIP of Calvinist teachings, no.

It also looks like he did not believe in penal substitution in the way the Calvinists do. Luther was trained as a priest, Calvin was trained as a lawyer. That could make a difference.

@ William Smith:
I suspect you are no longer reading or responding here. That is unfortunate, because all you did was make some false accusations without defending them, and provided some misleading information. It leaves us thinking that you don’t know what you are talking about – you shot your credibility.

For those New-Calvinists who are reading this, here are some problems with your movement, in no particular order:
– The seminaries do not appear to be teaching critical thinking skills and alternative points of view. In the effort to not be liberal, they seem to have narrowed down the teaching to a very small subset of historical Christian thought. As a consequence, the pastors seem to bring this same theological narrowness to their congregations.
– Group think. YRRs do not seem to be encouraged to read non-YRR material or run in non-YRR circles. And when they do, it seems to be for the purpose of exposing/destroying other thought streams rather than evaluating them on their merits.
– The leaders (pastors, elders) seem to be snowflakes who cannot tolerate any kind of critical examination. People who ask pesky questions get disciplined or excommunicated, which keeps the closed system going.
– They use words like “heresy” (and “slander”) much too easily. They are calling things heresy that have been believed for 2000 years. Before rushing to such conclusions, a bit more humility and honest historical study is in order.

Forums like this exist because New-Calvinism does not give room for thinking people to think.

Muff Potter wrote:

Velour wrote:
Hemp Twill. LOL.
No reference whatsoever to my misspent Woodstock youth. Hemp fiber cloth and paper are durable, long-lasting, and are making a comeback after years of demonization by a well meaning and yet misguided federal policy. An old work crony of mine has an Ephemeris (used for maritime navigation) published in 1854 on hemp paper with an all hemp binding and spine. It shows none of the signs of deterioration other non-hemp works of the period are prone to.

Good to know, Muff.

Law Prof wrote:

Perhaps I’m underestimating them, but in my opinion, they’re pipsqueaks acting at the margins, odd little people incapable of attracting much of a following except among similarly-emotionally stunted people such as themselves. I don’t think, in light of the whole of Christendom, that they have very much influence at all.

They control the largest evangelical denomination, run the largest “Christian” media outlets (Christianity Today, TGC), and own the largest Christian brand (Lifeway) in the US which sold 3 million books last year (according to their annual report). They may act like pipsqueaks, but I think any argument that they aren’t influencing Christians is pretty weak.

Law Prof wrote:

they’re pipsqueaks acting at the margins, odd little people incapable of attracting much of a following except among similarly-emotionally stunted people such as themselves.

Like that odd little Austrian with the odd little mustache?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Has anyone published anything on this subject?

I am sure some kind of compare/contrast related to priest vs lawyer has been addressed, but I don’t know where to look.