I will SECOND your views on limited atonement!

II

Dennis DeYoung has far more to say than Kevin DeYoung; although some of this may apply to Kevin.

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto [どうもありがとうミスターロボット],
Mata au hi made [また会う日まで]
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto [どうもありがとうミスターロボット],
Himitsu wo shiri tai [秘密を知りたい]

You’re wondering who I am (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
Machine or mannequin (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
With parts made in Japan (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
I am the modren man

I’ve got a secret I’ve been hiding under my skin
My heart is human, my blood is boiling, my brain I.B.M.
So if you see me acting strangely, don’t be surprised
I’m just a man who needed someone, and somewhere to hide

To keep me alive, just keep me alive
Somewhere to hide, to keep me alive

I’m not a robot without emotions. I’m not what you see
I’ve come to help you with your problems, so we can be free
I’m not a hero, I’m not the saviour, forget what you know
I’m just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control

Beyond my control. We all need control
I need control. We all need control

I am the modren man (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
Who hides behind a mask (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
So no one else can see (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
My true identity

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, domo…domo
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, domo…domo
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,

Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto
For doing the jobs that nobody wants to
And thank you very much, Mr. Roboto
For helping me escape just when I needed to
Thank you, thank you, thank you
I want to thank you, please, thank you

The problem’s plain to see:
Too much technology
Machines to save our lives.
Machines dehumanize.

The time has come at last (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
To throw away this mask (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
Now everyone can see (secret secret I’ve got a secret)
My true identity…

I’m Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!

Here is my view illustrated:

The Parable of the Amyraldian

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistible!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I’m going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father’s election and the Spirit’s persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all. =drstevej

Very, very well said D’s! You ladies are amazing!

If God desires (yearns for, wants) all people to be saved as Scripture tells us, and yet does not provide a means to that end, then God must have an internal struggle (be at war) with Himself. Limited Atonement – and I will call it that, restricts and obstructs Jesus sacrificial death on the cross. It limits His love, mercy and grace. It also negates any kind of free and willing response on our part, because in effect, God is coercing people to be saved. And that’s where that erroneous concept of Irresistible Grace comes in.

God offers a way of salvation for all, but that offer must be accepted/received. The Scripture says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” A Limited Atonement contradicts God’s desire for all to be saved, and it changes the meaning of all in John 12:32 to some. Limited Atonement thwarts the purpose of God to offer a means of salvation for ALL people, which redefines the Gospel from Good News for all people, to Bad News for MANY people. Just think of it this way. No Calvinist if they are honest, can ever say to any child, “Jesus loves you and He died for you.” So they cannot even tell their own children the good news that God loves them and Jesus died for them. Perhaps this is why assuring people of God’s love is not a priority among Calvinists in their sermons. Remember, 9Marks of a healthy church that many Calvinist churches subscribe to totally ignores love.

Limited Atonement is a depressing and disconsolate teaching that cannot offer hope to the world. What is the Good News but to be able to tell anyone, anywhere that God loves them and Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins. Good News or Bad News? I’ll take the Good News any day!

I do not understand why people who believe in Limited Atonement would waste time, money, and energy on evangelization and missions!!

Also, if someone believes God has chosen only some to be saved, then why worry about and care for the poor or the sick or the hungry or the refugees (etc,etc,–you know, all those in the Matthew story of the separation of the sheep and the goats!!).

Either I’m of the elect or I’m not, but nothing I might do will make any difference, for all pain and suffering — including that from rape and the most horrendous abuse, even of the smallest children — is predetermined by God before the beginning of the universe and declares the incredible ‘Sovreignity of God.’ Such a theology is NOT the theology of ‘God is love.’

“He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins – and not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world.” I John 2:2 NLT

This is the verse that even Thom Rainer, the President of LifeWay, once told me kept him from being a so-called 5 point Calvinist.

The matter is very complex. It seems to me that both sides in this debate are aiming at abuses that can come from the other’s position.

Non-Calvinists are rightly concerned about the appearance of God as an unloving being who doesn’t care about everyone, but essentially set up a “play” that is acted out over eternity for his own enjoyment.

Calvinists are rightly concerned about making God hopelessly out of control of the universe and the future, and that He has no “plan.” Everything is up to the sovereignty of man. The plan of salvation essentially becomes controlled by man. The scriptures do support the idea that God is sovereign in all things, even to the point of not all humans even being exposed to the Gospel.

These are complicated matters.

I notice the recurrent idea of ‘it’s not my fault’ and ‘it’s not the other person’s fault’ if either of us believes or not. Perhaps they think that the atonement is limited, or perhaps that grace to believe is limited. But rather one thing they seem to say is that since not all believe then it is obvious, of one adheres to ‘not our fault’, that it must be God’s fault.

At the level of the potential response of the individual person considering the matter of what if anything is limited, there is an element to it of just one more excuse. That is, in saying that I am not the one who is limited by my own doing but rather God who limits by his sovereign will. Perhaps one more excuse that went to grad school but excuse none the less.

It's not even a theological argument. A Calvinist cannot show you anywhere in the Bible that Jesus died only for the elect. That right there will trump any Calvinist.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

 Why would God be willing to suffer?
 Why are people so keen to build theologies in which he doesn’t – what are they afraid of?
I don’t pretend to offer any simple answer to the first question. It’s more that I think this… pondering it can and should be a never-ending source of wonder.

Rhetorical question: Would it then be reasonable to assume from what you have said that you might have a simple answer to the second question? I have a simple answer to the second question, though of course it may not be correct. It is probably best to let the question hang there for any who would delve into their own thinking on this matter.

I say all this merely to emphasize the issue, not to start a tangential discussion.

@ Root 66:
AMEN…..thank you God for your great mercy!!

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

Yes, those are complicated ideas. However, the gospel ( good news ) is not complicated. God sent his son to save us. The Gospels clearly present God’s desire for us to come to salvation.

@ TomkeinOK:
No, definitely would not be a , “God is love”, creator. More like a hideous eternal tormentor.

<long comment>

Point 1 of 2: the D-Day analogy

Prior to the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Europe in 1944, the Allies planned Operation Bodyguard. This was a large and complex plan to deceive the Axis high command into thinking the D-day landings would be other than where they actually were, so that the crucial beaches would be less heavily defended. A lot of effort went into creating the impression of a major threat to Calais (among other places).

I think there is an analogy here with many of the enemy’s schemes to weaken or undermine the church. There’s a lot of noise and threat against some particular thing of value, distracting much of the church into throwing all of their efforts to defend that small patch of truth – when the real attack is elsewhere.

Point 2 of 2 – an example: the literal truth of scribsher

I’ve met clergyman who believe the devil has a strategy to attack the literal truth of scribsher, and that they must defend it. So they (and others) have made it a fundamental of the faith that one must believe a handful of specific old testament verses literally whilst, ironically, being unable to heal the sick or raise the dead… the point being that in “defending the truth [sic] of scripture” they’ve left the rest of scripture unguarded and it has become a laughing-stock.

Point 3 of 2: theology

I can’t help feel that often, when some particular unbiblical teaching starts to become popular, the aim behind it isn’t really to promote that particular teaching. It’s much bigger and more subtle: namely, to generate controversy and distracting contention, and get Christians trying to find definitive correct theologies where God hasn’t given them to us or required them of us. Maybe this is centuries old. Maybe if, instead of opposing Arianism with a better doctrine, the early church should’ve ruled that the whole mindset behind Arianism or any alternative was wrong, and that no speculation should be passed off as “teaching”.

</long comment>

P.S.

Point 2.1 of 2 – the literal truth of scribsher (II)

As an extension, much of the western church has become a magnet for people (especially young men, for some reason) who want easy, simple answer.

“Particular redemption is often considered a more favorable term, because the point of the doctrine is not to limit the mercy of God, but to make clear that Jesus did not die in the place of every sinner on the earth, but for his particular people.” (Kevin DeYoung)

As I look across the New Calvinist landscape, I see young reformers stealing churches by stealth and deception … congregational voices being silenced … authoritarian rule stripping the ministry of the Body of Christ from communities … female believers subordinated … the Gospel of Christ for ALL people not preached … Jesus’ name hardly mentioned … know-it-all arrogance reducing God’s Grace to an unrevisable set of doctrines about grace … leading folks to encounter Calvin, rather than having an encounter with the living Christ … etc., etc.

Why in the world, would Holy God particularly redeem this particular group of rebels?! They are delivering another gospel, which is not the Gospel at all. They are certainly on a mission, but not the Great Commission. And they are getting away with it!

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

As an extension, much of the western church has become a magnet for people (especially young men, for some reason) who want easy, simple answer.

Perhaps some of the young including the young men want a simple answer because they practice mostly simple thinking as a lifestyle. And perhaps some of the men. including the young want answers because our culture has tended to require it of the manly men that they have answers-to just about everything-more than we have required it of the women. And perhaps it has to be easy so that they can preach it to similar people of the uncomplicated sort who perhaps just mostly want to the ‘right’

And perhaps the fact that it sells well is added incentive. After all, who wants religion to be a chore.

Ken G wrote:

I don’t see where a third group was then created, the elect.

Well, someone needs to explain this to the neo-cals. They clearly believe, and state that there is such a group.

Dan wrote:

When one of my new testamant professors at Southern Seminary (back in the day when theological differences were still tolerated) was asked if he believed in election or free-will, his response was, “Yes.” Bottom line, both are supported in the biblical text and we dismiss the mystery of the paradox at our own peril.

Yes.

Moderate (4-point) Calvinists have operated within SBC life throughout the course of SBC history. They tend to get a rubber-stamp as pastors and members because they don’t accept the classical hyper-Calvinistic position of limited atonement. That is no-man’s land for the majority of Southern Baptists who hold to the “whosoever will” truth about the Gospel of Christ.

This “4-pointer” position has always seemed a paradox to me. Can “Unlimited Atonement” truly come alongside “Unconditional Election” in a reformed theology grid? I’m a hyper-non-Calvinist as TWW readers surely know by now, but agree with reformed icon R.C. Sproul when “he suggests there is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches. While he considers it possible for a person to believe four points without believing the fifth, he claims that a person who really understands the other four points must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism

You ain’t really a Calvinist, unless you buy into the whole mumbo-jumbo. Moderate Calvinists just don’t want to stick their neck out when it comes to limited atonement. But it’s an illogical compromising position to reformed theology which just doesn’t make sense. If you’re in the 4-pointer camp, just forsake the whole aberrant faith of Calvinism and come over to the light where there is just 1-point: his name is Jesus.

Dan wrote:

This deserves repeating.

(So I repeated it.)

@ Deb:
Well, Deb, I do that every day! 🙂

@ Max:
Truth.

Max wrote:

As I look across the New Calvinist landscape, I see young reformers stealing churches by stealth and deception … congregational voices being silenced … authoritarian rule stripping the ministry of the Body of Christ from communities … female believers subordinated … the Gospel of Christ for ALL people not preached … Jesus’ name hardly mentioned … know-it-all arrogance reducing God’s Grace to an unrevisable set of doctrines about grace … leading folks to encounter Calvin, rather than having an encounter with the living Christ … etc., etc.

What they are doing is called “quenching the spirit”.

@ Root 66:

So true. What else can we cling to then, “Jesus died for me.”
Our creator made the way of salvation simple in it’s directive. We don’t have to have a theology degree to grasp the love displayed at Calvary.
Not that God is simple but he sent Jesus to show us who He is. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Thank God, Jesus died for mine. Not only did he die, he rose from the dead. I don’t know the how’s of all this, but I believe.

Max wrote:

As I look across the New Calvinist landscape, I see young reformers stealing churches by stealth and deception … congregational voices being silenced … authoritarian rule stripping the ministry of the Body of Christ from communities … female believers subordinated … the Gospel of Christ for ALL people not preached … Jesus’ name hardly mentioned … know-it-all arrogance reducing God’s Grace to an unrevisable set of doctrines about grace … leading folks to encounter Calvin, rather than having an encounter with the living Christ … etc., etc.

Like their predecessors in everything but name, the Marxist-Leninists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-ARytZKgQ

Mae wrote:

@ TomkeinOK:
No, definitely would not be a , “God is love”, creator. More like a hideous eternal tormentor.

“A God who is Omnipotent but NOT Benevolent.”
— JMJ from Christian Monist (describing the road Islam took)

dee wrote:

1.There is no need to apologize because God has already forgiven the elect. So, ignore the hurt you caused. God must have willed it.

2. You can treat people like human detritus because your actions do not determine whether or not someone becomes a Christian.

3. All the children of people like De Young must be saved because they try so hard to present perfect doctrine, unlike the losers out there.

Features, not Bugs.

They have a perfect get out of jail free card. They are not responsible for anything.

“IN’SHAL’LAH… AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”

Some years ago, a writer contact of mine moved to Louisville and tried to hook up with a local church. One he tried in sounds Neo-Cal in retrospect; he reported the above attitudes, i.e. the same attitudes associated today with Extreme Islam. Passivity, fatalism, determinism, no brake on the leaders’ greed and pride (“God Wills It!”), and the perfect excuse machine (“Not My Fault! God’s Will!”). All that was missing was the beheading knives and suicide bombers.

We cannot understand these complex teachings of scripture on this side of eternity. We have to trust the Creator of the universe…His ways we cannot fathom. To the Calvinists…I say…follow JESUS not John Calvin!!!! Ask a Calvinists….what person in the new testament wrote most passionately about election? Answer…. apostle Paul. Who was the greatest evangelist in the new testament? Bingo! Apostle Paul!!

elastigirl wrote:

so, it seems to me that to view the bible as a definitive answer book is to merely pretend you can solve what appears to be the queen mutha of all algebraic equations.
you have to either leave out variables that are clearly there, or else invent your own rules so it all fits together as true.

In the words of the very first YRR I ever knew, “God meant for me to know everything about Him!”

You notice he did not say “us” or “people” or anything else that conveyed anyone else but him. So being “Elect” also means getting all the knows and the stuff and the things and then you can just pretend that everyone else is unregenerate, dumb, left out, and going to hell).

And they are quite proud of that. It takes a special person to be unashamed about being fine with everyone else is going to hell.

I saw this article the other day at Stuff Christian Culture Loves: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtfulpastor/2015/02/16/the-seduction-of-young-men-and-destruction-of-compassion-by-the-neo-calvinist-church-planting-movement/

It has this fantastic paragraph:I have summed it up this way: The clean, slim, beautiful, fertile, straight, economically comfortable and white population love the idea of total depravity because the relative ease of their lives can only mean one thing: they are God’s favorites. However, if anything “bad” happens, they can rest assured that the totally sovereign God knew about this ahead of time so they don’t have to waste energy wondering if their God might actually cruel, punitive, capricious, or helpless. Nope. God’s just in charge. Evil can’t be explained, so don’t bother to question it.

The writer is a Methodist Minister.

@ dee:
Yep, they probably pray for the Deebs every day. (if you know what I mean)

Completely agree with the Deebs!

@ Max:
Your rhetoric rather casually offends those worldwide Reformed denominations who adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, Three Forms of Unity.

@ Lowlandseer:
I attempted to qualify my comment in terms of “Hyper” Calvinism and “New” Calvinism. Classical Calvinism is more civil in its discourse and more respectful of non-Calvinist belief and practice than the neo-brethren and their hyper friends who are on a mission to restore the “gospel” that they believe 80% of the church which has lost.

Mae wrote:

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

Yes, those are complicated ideas. However, the gospel ( good news ) is not complicated. God sent his son to save us. The Gospels clearly present God’s desire for us to come to salvation.

Mae:

The Gospel is not complicated. We agree.

The complications come because we cannot understand why a God who desires all people to come to know him, would impart the Gospel in such a limited and obscure way.

In Jesus’ day, Israel was a backwater. Not the center of the world. The Gospel was hardly understood initially, let along communicated to much of the world.

And for hundreds of years, the spread of the Gospel was limited due to the ability of humans to travel long distances, the lack of broadcasting, the lack of mass printing, language abilities, hostilities etc.

When we think of issues related to “predestination” we often are thinking of two people in the same culture who have available access to the Gospel. One is predestined. One is not. And we rightfully question that.

But over the years, unbelievers have asked me if God wanted all to be saved, why would He allow so many to die without hearing? China alone, for example, was not open to the West for centuries, and millions dies without hearing.

I have always mentioned the Christian’s duty to evangelize etc. But even with robust evangelism, it is impossible to deny that millions perished without ever having the chance to hear, and would still have perished despite everything Christians in those generations could have done.

These are complicated questions to me. I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer.

One has to go through a lot of theological gyrations to escape: “Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Of course DeYoung’s spin on this passage, as noted above, is: “In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”

God’s will? I seem to remember that the first evangelists preached that the Lord was not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). But, then along come the New Calvinists, with their “God has two wills” argument. They are always twisting, always debating … May God help us, debating is not preaching the Gospel!

Beakerj wrote:

This paradox has eaten my faith like an acid.

I can hear what you are saying, but I also think that however one understand the issue one is still left to deal with doubt. If it is all up to God (election) then how does one ever know where one actually stands with God for sure? If it all up to me (free will) then how will I ever know whether I have done the right thing, willed correctly or sufficiently, and whether my salvation varies from day to day depending on whether I actually believe enough that day then how can I even sleep at night with that cloud over my head? And if somebody throws works in the pot, as in faith without works and all that, then there is the question of whether I did enough and well enough and with the right motivation.

This does not seem resolvable based on what we know; that is doubt and uncertainty are bound to be an issue either way, more so for some people apparently than for others. Some religious manipulators play on that insecurity to control people. Some people think this is more of a psychological issue than a theological issue.

What can I say? I personally am more apt to doubt myself than I am to doubt God, and without something more that just the idea that I have faith at least some of the time and more or less and comes and goes experientially-then I personally might have to go on meds.

These are just my thoughts. All God’s Children got thoughts.

elastigirl wrote:

getting back to algebra, seems to me the constants are that God is good, God is just, and God is love. why is that not enough?

Because humans have to define who is in the IN group and who is in the OUT group. Once the OUT group is defined, then rules and regulations can be put in place so that the IN group can lord it over them.

dee wrote:

3. All the children of people like De Young must be saved because they try so hard to present perfect doctrine, unlike the losers out there.

I’d like to have a chat with DeYoung about his children. I’m sure he loves them. I want to ask him, “How would you feel if you knew that one of your children would be spending eternity wreathed in flame because he/she wasn’t chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world?”

And that’s the question I’d ask any of these Calvinistas. But this is why I’m outside the household of faith–I’d also ask the “whosoever will” crowd how they would feel if someone they knew was burning for eternity because they didn’t get Jesus “just right.” I decided a long time ago I’d rather not go to a heaven if there was a possibility someone was suffering forever because they didn’t get it “just right.”

I don’t know God’s plans for eternity–how could I? But it just stabs me in the heart to think that just because someone didn’t hold the right idea of Jesus in their head when they died that they’re lost forever. I just can’t live with that.

dee wrote:

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:
PS, if you claim that I am lurching towards universalism, I shall heartily protest. I believe hell is necessary precisely because Hitler lived and died.

And if you study all of history, Hitler was far from the worst.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

These people cannot handle mystery. Everything has to fit neatly into their theological grid, even if that means doing violence to the actual words of Scripture.

Because CALVIN alone had God All Figured Out.

Root 66 wrote:

dee wrote:
Not only that but he blatantly misquotes Scripture:John 10:11 DeYoung appears to be rewriting Scripture to support his doctrinal bent.

Dee,
That’s the only way he could make the round peg fit into the square hole!

Long-ago Cartoon of someone hammering a square peg into a round hole screaming “YOU’LL FIT! YOU’LL FIT! YOU’LL FIT!”

dee wrote:

They have asked him to be *senior pastor.* Do they know how little time he will have for them? He has accepted a faculty appt at RTS as well. he will continue to blog, continue to be a chief dog at TGC, write books, gives paid speeches all over kingdom come, etc. I believe he now has 7 kids .

Rev Kev is busy at 9Marx, too.

okrapod wrote:

That is, in saying that I am not the one who is limited by my own doing but rather God who limits by his sovereign will.

Just a while ago I was pondering this notion of Limited Atonement. Jesus pleading over Jerusalem came to mind. “I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood but you would not.” (Taking that from memory here.) The notion of L.A. has Jesus saying: “I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood but *I* will not.” Yes, the Atonement is limited but my question is: By whom? By God or by us?

Deb wrote:

I’ll bet Kevin’s wife is busier than he is. Surprised she hasn’t written her own CRAZY BUSY book yet.
Maybe it’s in the works…

Nah. She prolly don’t have the spare time.

Question ……….. How do all of these YRR big wigs know for certain that they themselves are among the predestined elect???

At present there are 22 comments on DeYoung’s article. 21 are thoughtful and took people, Calvinist and not, some of their valuable time to write. 1 took almost no time or thought to equate opponents of Calvin with “trolls”. But you know what took no time or thought whatsoever? DeYoung’s replies. As usual, he’s AWOL. Crazy busy and all that. But not too busy to come up with his English Slandered Version of John 10:11. Next thing we know, Joe Carter will be warning us against broken goats, and DeYoung will chime in.

Deb wrote:

Yep, he’s CRAZY BUSY!!!

He’s just trying to keep up with Mohler. Since Al has a bigger stack of books, DeYoung decided to be busier. He definitely has the crazy part right. Stretching Scripture to make it fit your theological grid will drive you loony-tune after a while … totally depraved. Before you know it, you will be talking out of your mind to children about being busy all the time.

@ Jeannette Altes:

Jeanette:

Understood. That’s why it’s complicated.

@ Beakerj:
This Patheos article by the Methodist pastor addresses some of the sociological issues I have been musing on. Of course there are variations, in much of the Middle East I understand there is immense unemployment among the present generation of young men and fear of “Westerization.” (Which primarily means greater gender equality.) Plus, everywhere a general sense that the previous generation of fathers were weak in not wholeheartedly maintaining gender hierarchies, and therefore have nothing to teach younger men. Which leads to finding gurus who will be the father with all the answers. I’ve seen it in the more conservative religious orders in the Catholic Church (e.g. Opus Dei) as well.

scott hendrixson wrote:

Dennis DeYoung has far more to say than Kevin DeYoung; although some of this may apply to Kevin.

Highly relevant. Per Wikipedia, “Between stints with Styx, [Dennis] DeYoung, a devout Roman Catholic, joined a touring revival of the stage musical Jesus Christ Superstar in 1993. He appeared in about 200 performances across North America as Pontius Pilate.”

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

I hear you. A few things I’ve decided ( for me ) are just by faith. (Hebrews 11 )

Burwell wrote:

Could it not also be true that CCC is trying to raise its standing within both the PCA as well as the broader American Reformed community?

Well, the good people at CCC better get ready! Here comes a steady stream of New Calvinist who’s who to fill the pulpit for the crazy busy DeYoung who will be away most of the time. Before you know it, CCC will be known as another ground-zero for New Calvinism, not their grandpa’s “Old” Calvinism.

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

Speaking of Hitler, there was a guy who preached a sermon recently and said that most modern people think that Hitler and a couple of other really bad people (maybe Trump for the Trump haters) go to Hell. But no one else is going there.

I couldn’t even send the worst of the worst to such a place (eternal conscious torture by fire), my conscience would not allow it.
What’s more, I would not create and maintain a monument to the hatred and cruelty of the devil in the first place.

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

Speaking of Hitler, there was a guy who preached a sermon recently and said that most modern people think that Hitler and a couple of other really bad people (maybe Trump for the Trump haters) go to Hell. But no one else is going there.

Bah. I’ll tell you who’s going to hell. Stupid people like everybody here, who’s always criticising richfaithful men of god and hates everyone.

You’re all rubbish.

Up yours,
Roger Bombast

I have a comment in customs. Surprised it’s taken this long for that to happen, given all of the stupidness at this site. Well, I don’t care – at least I’m</em “saved”, as if anybody cares what that means.

You’re all rubbish.

Up Yours,

Roger Bombast

@ Mae:

That seems a little snarky.

Ann wrote:

We attended Reeder’s church and he was so arrogant! When I shook his hand and mentioned my former (PCA) church in Charlottesville, he said, “Oh, well I am much better than Skip (Ryan)”-who was the pastor in Charlottesville.

Arrogance seems to come with the territory for these guys. Brother Reeder needs to read C.J. Mahaney’s book on humility (sarcasm).

I have to wonder, reading the comments, how many are opposed to the theological implications of reformed theology SIMPLY due to many commenters’ apparent antipathy towards Piper, Mohler, Duncan, Sproul, Dever, MacArthur – and on that basis deciding they don’t hold to the classic Calvinist stance.
It’s like a knee jerk reaction; if John Piper says it I hate – regardless of what it is.
_____

You should know that men who don’t hold to that position, such as Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines and many others, have deep respect for those who do; often great friends. There simply is not a great bitter divide among the Conservative Evangelicals over this issue.

One of the comments talked about checking your moral compass and then deciding. I would say, read the Scriptures and then decide. BY the way; good luck. It’s a tough nut to crack; not sure it is crackable this side of heaven.

Root 66 wrote:

I find it extremely disturbing that in DeYoung’s excerpt, he mentions the Canons of Dort, Ursinus and the Heidelburg Catechism–yet doesn’t cite a passage of Scripture to support the principle of Limited Atonement. Were this such a great “biblical” truth, wouldn’t it stand to reason that he would quote Bible verses to support it instead of the teachings of men?

Well….it works something like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Except in this case, it’s more like the 20 Degrees of Limited Atonement. They deduce, and deduce, and deduce till at some point they arrive at their conclusion. But it is arrived at with much deflection, hand-wringing and word salad.

okrapod wrote:

Well, I don’t see that offending somebody or not offending somebody has a direct correlation with whether what one says is or is not true.

I completely agree. But it does not make me popular in the Southern Bible Belt culture.

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

These are complicated questions to me. I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer.

Grace perhaps?

Brent wrote:

I have to wonder, reading the comments, how many are opposed to the theological implications of reformed theology SIMPLY due to many commenters’ apparent antipathy towards Piper, Mohler, Duncan, Sproul, Dever, MacArthur – and on that basis deciding they don’t hold to the classic Calvinist stance.
It’s like a knee jerk reaction; if John Piper says it I hate – regardless of what it is.

My opposition is due to all the research I’ve done over the last few years. But I have to admit, that as I’ve read all their various writings, I have developed a bit of a knee-jerk reaction because the good things they write are nearly always seasoned with toxicity. My knee-jerk reaction was a learned response from actually reading their writings. I used to have great respect for John MacArthur, for example. One can only read so much of their bad stuff without lumping all their writings together. I’ve read so much of their bad stuff that I seem to have passed the event horizon and now have no possibility of ever re-gaining respect for their teachings.

Beakerj wrote:

Mae wrote:
Shauna wrote:
A Calvinist cannot show you anywhere in the Bible that Jesus died only for the elect. That right there will trump any Calvinist…..

The “world” needed a savior, not the elect.

It doesn’t exist in the thoughts & theology of the earliest generations of Christians after Jesus & then the Disciples died. First hint is in about 500AD which is almost totally ignored until about 1500 AD. If it was there in the thought of Jesus then the first Christians would have followed it.

Oh no, no, no, no, no! You must understand that the church went off the rails immediately after the last apostle died. AND…….it took Calvin to make it all right again.

Darlene wrote:

Well many Calvinists would say you believe what you do because you don’t want to submit to a Sovereign God. Instead, you want to submit to a god made in your image, one that placates your feelings.

Instead of the god made in CALVIN’s image.

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

(maybe Trump for the Trump haters)

You forgot Obama (for the Obama haters) 😉

Darlene wrote:

He may want us to live in obedience to Him but sure isn’t gonna force us to obey. Because in this instance, God is treating us as humans who have a choice and He permits us to make that choice.

The Israelites, God’s chosen people …….. how many times did the nation of Israel disobey God? Did God make them disobey? Is He a two-faced monster? Did God force Israel to make the golden calf? Did Gid make Moses strike the rock with his rod, after he had told him not to do so? Did God make King David go after Bathsheba? In the book of Ezekiel, did God make the Israelites rebel so that He could remove the shekinah cloud of glory from the temple?
I don’t think so. There is a long list of events recorded in the Bible that debunk some of the YRR “theology”.

Darlene wrote:

If God tricks some folks into thinking they are one of the elect when they’re actually one of the reprobates, even allowing them to have the same experience of saving faith and God’s grace as the elect have, then how does any Calvinist know for sure that God isn’t fooling them.

Several years ago in private correspondence, Martha from Ireland wrote that this was fallout from the Reformation Wars and Calvinistic iconoclasm breaking/burning/sweeping away all the folk religion that had accumulated between AD 33 and that point, leaving only “naked Faith” and Sola Scriptura. And that when the dust had settled and all that was left was SCRPTURE, the only protection was to make a magickal fetish of that SCRIPTURE and wave it around against the demons and devils.

Muff Potter wrote:

What’s more, I would not create and maintain a monument to the hatred and cruelty of the devil in the first place.

Maybe the Damnatio Memoriae of Annihalationism instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

roebuck wrote:

I think the Calvinists are WRONG WRONG WRONG. In my reading of the Bible, it seems very clear to me that the whole point of God’s creation of humanity is exactly free will. That includes the option of rejecting his plan.

Whenever I encounter a New Calvinist, they seem to prattle off more modern authors than Bible. They also talk an awful lot about what men get to be in charge of everybody else.

I don’t agree with classical Calvinism, but I do think there were some good reasons they rejected Calvin’s authoritarian philosophy. I also think there was a good reason most Baptists don’t depend on Spurgeon.

But I do believe that whatever you talk about the most is where your heart is. And if it’s modern authors and being king of the hill, it’s probably not God.

Mae wrote:

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

I hear you. A few things I’ve decided ( for me ) are just by faith. (Hebrews 11 )

I totally get that, and appreciate it.

Am just extremely reserved about stuff I don’t know or believe because it’s clearly set forth.

Beakerj wrote:

Dan wrote:
Yes.” Bottom line, both are supported in the biblical text and we dismiss the mystery of the paradox at our own peril.
The problem with pushing the paradox or the mystery is basically people like me. Would never occur to me that God would want me unless he was clear about it. So does he want me to be saved? Well maybe.It says so. But it also says something else. So how do you know? You don’t. So how do you trust completely? You don’t. What happens when life gets very hard? God’s character goes totally out of focus because this paradox leaves room for God to be creating people in order to reject them.
This paradox has eaten my faith like an acid.

Excellent perspective, Beakerj. While I believe it is true that there is a place for mystery and paradox, I also think there are some definitive things that we can state about God and salvation. Otherwise everything about our faith is ambiguous. Did Jesus die for all of humankind or only the elect? I don’t think we should address this particular subject with paradox. Either Jesus did or He didn’t and I think it’s quite plain from the Scriptures what the answer is.

elastigirl wrote:

a black hole of an intellectual exercise that has sucked resources not spent on relieving human suffering?

My sentiments too. As if the long litany of human suffering since the fall is not enough, a further penalty had to be levied. You’re right on the money elastigirl, it’s grotesque…

Max wrote:

Total depravity to the reformed mind really means total inability … unable to exercise a choice in the matter at hand – God already did that for them.

And it’s all tied up in a neat little theological package with a bow on top called Monergism, Irresistible Grace & Regeneration precedes faith.

As someone who considers himself both Calvinist and Arminian at the same time, here is what I believe about limited atonement:

1. If Jesus died for you, then you are saved. That is because His death paid for your sin. It would be unjust for God to exact a penalty twice for the same offense.

2. Everyone who confesses Jesus with their mouth and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead will be saved.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

The text cannot be more plain. The motivation in sending Christ was “For God so loved the world”, and the purpose of Jesus being sent was “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish…”. It is for God’s love of the world that He died, and it is the believers who receive the benefit.

It doesn’t really matter whether God foresaw or predestined since from my view those distinctions don’t actually exist outside the four dimensions of our material universe, or, as the Bible puts it “A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day” – in other words, time is not a constraint on God.

Dew wrote:

They try to rope Luther in. I’m not a Lutheran but sympathetic and certainly not Missouri Synod but my view is the MS try very hard to stick to original confessional Lutheranism and they are not neo-Calvinists.

Read Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will and you’ll see that he and Calvin were kissin’ cousins so to speak on the issue of predestination and free will.

okrapod wrote:

If it is all up to God (election) then how does one ever know where one actually stands with God for sure? If it all up to me (free will) then how will I ever know whether I have done the right thing, willed correctly or sufficiently, and whether my salvation varies from day to day depending on whether I actually believe enough that day then how can I even sleep at night with that cloud over my head? And if somebody throws works in the pot, as in faith without works and all that, then there is the question of whether I did enough and well enough and with the right motivation.

It has been said that there are only 2 religions in the world: DOING and DONE. Our salvation depends on an event in history… the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a finished work that is DONE… by Jesus on our behalf. Our part is just to believe God’s statements about our need and the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. If we “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” then we are saved. We don’t analyze how well we believe (that falls in the DOING camp), rather we only analyze whether the object of our belief is valid and true.

@ TomkeinOK:

The reason someone who believes in limited atonement evangelizes is not to save people – God will do that with or without our help because He loves you that much. He can create witnesses from stones if no one steps up.

No, the reason someone who believes in limited atonement would evangelize is because she has been invited to be part of the means of God’s salvation of another soul and to have the unimaginable honor of joining Him in His work.

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/03/musings-about-universalism-part-8-my.html

roebuck, I don’t see how God perfectly foreseeing every event that would ever occur as a consequence of His creating the universe, and then choosing to create the universe anyway, could be anything but predestination.

I also don’t see how this could possibly contradict free will. Free will means I make my own choices. Whether someone else could predict my choice so perfectly that I had no possibility of deviating from it hardly changes the fact that I’m the one doing the choosing.

hoodaticus wrote:

roebuck, I don’t see how God perfectly foreseeing every event that would ever occur as a consequence of His creating the universe, and then choosing to create the universe anyway, could be anything but predestination.

I also don’t see how this could possibly contradict free will. Free will means I make my own choices. Whether someone else could predict my choice so perfectly that I had no possibility of deviating from it hardly changes the fact that I’m the one doing the choosing.

You are very confused between forseeing and determining. Meditate on that for a while.

In any case, God is NOT ‘someone else’. He is God, and who knows how it looks from eternity. Why do you think God created humankind?

@ roebuck:

Roebuck, respectfully, I am not confused, and I have mediated on this now for decades. I refuse to see a distinction between two human concepts of predestination and prescience when the effect of both is the same. Ad hominem is not a counterargument. To convince me that predestination and perfect foresight are not the same thing I will need to see how they would play out differently, since I cannot find any difference between the two concepts in how they would affect anything at all. If there is no discernible difference then I submit they are the same thing.

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

roebuck wrote:

hoodaticus wrote:
I refuse to see a distinction between two human concepts of predestination and prescience when the effect of both is the same.
OK.
I did not employ ad hominem, btw. I think you’re wrong, you think I’m wrong – that’s all.

The reason I say your reply was ad hominem was because the only counterargument you offered was a claim of my own confusion.

hoodaticus wrote:

Universalism is wrong when it makes the claim that everyone will be saved (though that would be wonderful!)

That’s what I used to think. Unexpectedly, I found that Universalism has been a hope of Christians for a very long time. Some very influential and “orthodox” church fathers hoped for it. In fact, how can anyone who claims to be a Christian not hope the for the salvation of all. Will God ultimately save all? I don’t think any of us can say for sure. But I would not be too quick to condemn universalism. There might be some truth in it.

hoodaticus wrote:

No, the reason someone who believes in limited atonement would evangelize is because she has been invited to be part of the means of God’s salvation of another soul and to have the unimaginable honor of joining Him in His work.

While at the same time lying to the non-elect. The good news is bad news to the non-elect. Whenever the good news starts sounding like bad news, it’s time to ask some hard questions.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

hoodaticus wrote:
No, the reason someone who believes in limited atonement would evangelize is because she has been invited to be part of the means of God’s salvation of another soul and to have the unimaginable honor of joining Him in His work.
While at the same time lying to the non-elect. The good news is bad news to the non-elect. Whenever the good news starts sounding like bad news, it’s time to ask some hard questions.

I’m confused as to who is lying. God when He said anyone who believes will be saved, or the Calvinist who repeats it?

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Will God ultimately save all? I don’t think any of us can say for sure. But I would not be too quick to condemn universalism. There might be some truth in it.

Agree!

elastigirl wrote:

does religion foster such things? i tend to think the Abrahamic religions do.
very disappointing.

If you think Abrahamic religions foster the existence out groups, you should try Hinduism sometime.

hoodaticus wrote:

As someone who considers himself both Calvinist and Arminian at the same time, here is what I believe about limited atonement:

1. If Jesus died for you, then you are saved. That is because His death paid for your sin. It would be unjust for God to exact a penalty twice for the same offense.

I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, so I think we pretty much end up with similar conclusions at the end. But I do challenge the assumption that salvation is about being saved from a penalty. The Bible does not describe our salvation as having a penalty paid for us. Think in terms of taking your kids on a hike in the mountains. You tell them to never leave the trail, not to wander past any guardrails, and everything else you can think of to keep them safe while enjoying the beauty of the mountains. If one of them disobeys, crosses a guardrail, and falls over the side, I don’t think your first response would be getting into a hot rage for how your honor and glory were violated. Nor do I think you would be focusing on anyone paying any penalties for your child’s disobedience. Nor would you be tempted to walk away and let your child suffer the due consequences of disobedience. No, I think you would pull every resource at your disposal to effect a rescue. This is the type of language the Bible uses to describe our salvation. It’s not about balancing legal books, it’s about saving lives. Just my two cents.

hoodaticus wrote:

I’m confused as to who is lying. God when He said anyone who believes will be saved, or the Calvinist who repeats it?

It appears to me that it would be the Calvinists. If they believe in limited atonement, they cannot honestly tell everyone that the invitation is for all. To be honest, they would have to say that God only saves some, that there is nothing anyone can do to change God’s mind, and therefore the invitation does not really apply to all.

Bottom line: if your conception of Calvinism is such that free will does not exist then you definitely should not believe in your conception of Calvinism because then God is the only sinner in the universe, which is unthinkable evil. Arminianism would be healthier for you.

Same goes with Arminianism: if your conception of Arminianism is that God can send someone He loves and died for to Hell, then your conception of Arminianism is evil because that surely isn’t love. Calvinism would be healthier for you.

And if both of these are a problem then perhaps a third way is called for, or just the simple trust and faith and love for Jesus and each other which is all that we need anyway.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

To be honest, they would have to say that God only saves some

Arminians also say that God only saves some. In fact, they completely agree with Calvinist on who those people: the believers.

I don’t see how one can be a liar and not the other.

hoodaticus wrote:

I don’t see how one can be a liar and not the other.

That’s one of many reasons why I am neither. Right now Eastern Orthodox theology is making the most sense to me. It makes me an odd fit in my SBC church.

@ hoodaticus:

i vote for this 3rd way.

i imagine there’s no money in it, though.

elastigirl wrote:

@ hoodaticus:
i vote for this 3rd way.
i imagine there’s no money in it, though.

So many dangerous women here, thinking for yourselves! No wonder you’re so reviled by those promoting a snowflake masculinity codenamed complementarianism xD

@ hoodaticus:

Hoodaticus

You are a brave soul and you have a great username. I hope the following clarifies my stance.

I don’t know what I believe any more, but I always picture Gabe Kaplan from “Welcome Back Kotter” when I hear the name Calvin, although I’m sure that wasn’t his first name. I picture Calvinism being spread by Gabe Kaplan dressed as a viking carrying an artist’s palette as my grasp of period dress is a little off. Then I imagine a theology called “Barbarinoism” which leads to Scientology via “Grease” and “Electric Cowboy”. When I think f Scientology it brings me back to …..

elastigirl wrote:

i vote for this 3rd way.
i imagine there’s no money in it, though.

No money in it would be just fine . . .

@ Bridget:

indeed! talk about draining the swamp…

@ hoodaticus:
What is the end game and root of Calvinism? What is the Why?

What is the end game and root of Arminianism? What is the Why?

For the 3rd way you mention, the Why and What seem to be restored fellowship with God and fellow person under the guidance of God, offered as a choice within the framework of free will; which goes right back to where the trouble began, in the Garden, and before that, where human beings began, created in the image of God for fellowship.

a third way is called for, or just the simple trust and faith and love for Jesus and each other

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

It appears to me that it would be the Calvinists. If they believe in limited atonement, they cannot honestly tell everyone that the invitation is for all. To be honest, they would have to say that God only saves some, that there is nothing anyone can do to change God’s mind, and therefore the invitation does not really apply to all.

I agree. This is one of my main problems with Calvinism. If God tells us to preach the gospel to all creation and God desires that all men should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, John 3:16 etc) then he must sincerely desire that. If, on the other hand, he tells us to preach the gospel to someone when God has no actual intention of saving them, it is an offer given in bad faith.

I had this discussion with my former Calvinist (Gospel Coalition) pastor and asked him how he squared his view with the fact that God is faithful to his word. He said something like “I admit I don’t know but God is sovereign and can do as he pleases”. The pastor effectively used God’s SOVEREIGNTY to cancel his FAITHFULNESS, his JUSTICE, his LOVE and his other attributes. W

This is the first time I have commented here but have been reading for a few years. Calvinism has weighed on me on and off for many years and I would even say caused me to be in a state of depression for a period of time. I try to avoid dwelling on the subject because I don’t want to be “back there” again. During a difficult time in my life, one morning before church, I asked God to show me that day something that I needed, and He did. The following verse, for me, settled the issue of limited atonement. (I know this was brought out in one of the videos above, but this verse has helped me so much, I wanted to emphasize it again)

(1 Peter 2:1)
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord WHO BOUGHT THEM – bringing swift destruction on themselves.

These false prophets and false teachers are obviously not believers, and it is not even remotely implied that they ever will be, but it says that the Lord bought (even) them.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And if you study all of history, Hitler was far from the worst.

Looking beyond the Voldemort character as the epitome of evil and you’ll find Dolores Umbridge.

Darlene wrote:

Just don’t let Roger Bombast be the one to beat you to it. I don’t much care for that man’s abrupt and discourteous disposition.

Bah. That’s because you’re rubbish.

In fact you’re all rubbish.

Up Yours,
Roger Bombast

Darlene wrote:

Oh no, no, no, no, no! You must understand that the church went off the rails immediately after the last apostle died. AND…….it took Calvin to make it all right again.

Quite so. God’s biggest mistake was removing his own Person from the church and replacing himself with a slightly extended version of the written code that didn’t work the first time. He thought all we needed was a few extra rules. He’s obviously a slow learner. Though perhaps he’s not slow as some count slowness… who knows.

Anyway, that’s five comments in a row now – albeit partly because of time zones – so I’ll stop.

@ Dorothy:
Hi Dorothy…..am glad to read the Holy SPirit brought you comfort and peace.

There are more things than just Calvinism and Arminianism.

I was born and raised in a semi-calvinist group called the southern baptists-long ago. They had their own applications of things influenced by calvinism. When as a pre-teen I wanted to make a public profession of faith and be baptized my parents objected, the idea being that one had to be able to say how one knew that, I supposed at the time, God wanted them. This was most obvious in one favorite invitational song which said ‘pass me not oh gentle savior, hear my humble cry, while on others thou art calling, do not pass me by’. The message being that you might get ‘passed by’.

Years later I raised my children free will baptist. In application I found more differences than merely ideas about free will as related to salvation.

Somewhere along the line I ran across the idea that salvation is both ‘done’ and also ‘doing’. ‘Done’ in the sense that the perfect sacrifice has been offered as propitiation and there is nothing lacking in the sufficiency of that sacrifice. ‘Doing’ in that salvation is not limited to a legal pardon from the just condemnation for human rebellion against God (sin) but is also about being saved from continuing in sins, and that the consummation of salvation is being saved eventually from the presence of sin including any personal tendency to sin making one able to exist in the presence of and utterly holy God himself eternally.

Only years later did I realize that this idea is the conflation of the concepts of justification and sanctification as basically two aspects of the same thing which can be called salvation. Thus, I think that salvation is all three: done, doing and will be done.

And I am long since ‘done’ with being either calvinist or arminian, though some ideas from many sources actually overlap in most theologies.

I see problems with John 3:16. No, seriously I really do.

First is what does the word ‘world’ mean, and does it mean the totality of all creation in which we have a problem in that did Jesus die for jaguars and oak trees. There is that in scripture that mentions the redemption of all creation, but of course neither jaguars nor oak trees ‘believe’ in the usual biblical sense. That is a complex issue and I am not going there-just mentioned that in passing.

What ever ‘world’ means, there is the question of ‘that’ and ‘that’. It looks like ‘that’ in this verse is linked to intent and purpose. God loved whatever world means ‘and the intention arising from that resulted in’ he sent his son. The second ‘that’ is problematic. ‘That whoever believes’ implies the possibility/ expectation that ‘whoever’ would believe. But ‘whoever’, however, is an inclusive term, or it can be, but ‘believes’ is a limiting term since it is clear in the rest of scripture that not everyone believes and Jesus did not expect that everyone would believe.

Does 3:16 say that God loved everybody and thus he sent his Son that some would be will be saved?

It seems to be the reality some two thousand years later that God did love, did send, and some are saved. But was that the totality of the original intent of God?

It depends on how you read 3:16. I think that we see what we look for, and we look for not only what we know to look for but also what we want to see, and thus people end up seeing things differently.

I have not ruled out the possibility that just as the choosing of Israel was a step in the process of God’s dealings with humanity perhaps also the salvation of some who believe is a step toward yet more plans that God has for the redemption of ‘the world-all of creation’ and the restoration of all things. Such that only that which is ultimately irredeemable, and that would be those who have every opportunity and knowledge and freedom to choose God but deliberately refuse to do so would be allowed to choose eternal separation from God, which those who choose God would consider hellish but which those who ultimately continue to defy God would consider a welcome relief from God himself. And yes I got part of that speculation from Lewis.

Speculation is not something on which to build theology. But for those who do research in the sciences and who push back the unknown (aka the mysteries) then speculation has its uses but must submit to evidence when evidence becomes available.

This is a very interesting article by R.T. Kendall who discusses what he Lloyd-Jones and even Calvin believed about Limited Atonement- you my be surprised by the conclusions he comes to.

Calvin and Calvinism

(For those who covet what I perceive to be a sound theology!)

Those who have followed my ministry for very long will likely know three things about me: (1) I am a Calvinist, (2) my coming to this way of thinking immediately followed my baptism of the Holy Spirit on 31st October 1955 – an event to which I have referred countless times and (3) I do not make an issue of this when I preach. These things said, I have recently felt an urge to write about such lately in some tweets in which I have spoken against the traditional reformed teaching of limited atonement. I have also mentioned that my mentor Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was very uneasy with this teaching and admitted to me, “I only preached it once – when dealing with Romans 5:18 – and I remember being in great difficulty then”.

Why is this important? First, for one’s own assurance of salvation. If Jesus died only for the elect, no person alive can honestly say, “Jesus died for me”. There is simply no way a person can know infallibly that Christ died for him or her if Jesus died for a limited number of people but not all. Those who “conclude” that Jesus died for them because of they see the fruit of sanctification in their lives are the most presumptuous of all! They are basing the assurance of their salvation on their good works – a horrible thing to do, said John Calvin. The truth is, the only way anybody can assuredly say, “Jesus died for me” is if Jesus died for every single person, as taught by verses such as 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and Hebrews 2:9.

Second, for evangelism. If Jesus died only for the elect, no evangelist can say to people, “Jesus died for you”. The evangelist can merely say, “Christ died for sinners” – but never “you”. The only way a person can be transparently honest and say, “Jesus died for you” is if Christ died indiscriminately (Calvin’s word) for all men and women.

Third, that people might know John Calvin’s own teaching on this matter. If you ask, “Who cares?”, I would answer: there are a lot of people who would be more attracted to the doctrines of grace if they knew they did not have to embrace limited atonement in the package. It is a pity that limited atonement was ever conceived when the plain, natural, unbiased, unprejudiced and obvious reading of the New Testament is that Jesus died for everyone. Those who reply that Jesus died only for the “church” or for the “sheep” would never have thought to argue this were it not for a need to be defensive for the teaching of limited atonement.

What my experience of 31st October 1955 showed me that very same day was that it was a work of the Spirit. This means that what happened to me cannot be worked up or hastened by the flesh. That – to me – also meant predestination and election. Perhaps you would not come to that conclusion, but I did, even though I had not read a single word of any Calvinist in my whole life (being brought up a Nazarene). This led to my reading Romans 9:11-18 without being defensive but just accepting those exceedingly plain words. And yet there was no hint of limited atonement in these verses – only God’s sovereign choice of Jacob and His elect people.

When I discovered for myself that John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement I was both thrilled and sobered. It was a thoughtful process – a story in itself – that led to my being convinced that Calvin really believed this. And yet when Dr. Lloyd-Jones read my Oxford DPhil thesis he chided me for not quoting Calvin more than I did. I remember it as though it were yesterday. He phoned me on a Monday morning. “I was not able to preach this weekend so, having read your thesis, you got me to reading Calvin. I have discovered many statements of Calvin that you did not use”. He started in with one statement after another. I replied, “I know about those”. “But why didn’t you use them?” “It is because the Oxford rules limited me to a maximum of 100,000 words and I had to leave them out”. “This is a pity. You can prove your case to the hilt”, he said. Then he proceeded to quote more, either from Calvin’s Institutes or his commentaries.

Many of my quotations from Calvin in my Oxford thesis are in the footnotes. I knew that my examiners would read the footnotes as carefully as they read the main text and these examiners are the ones who awarded me my doctorate. But most people don’t read the footnotes. I also wish I had somehow been able to put more of Calvin’s many statements in my thesis, as Dr. Lloyd-Jones discovered. My only regret now is that I did not put all of Calvin’s statements in the main text. But I have never been so clear about anything in my life as I am about Calvin’s view of the atonement of Christ – and, for that matter, the Apostle Paul’s view!*

*For those who want to read further see my Calvin and English Calvinism to 1648 (Oxford University Press, since republished by Pater Noster). Now out of print. We have a limited number available.

Here are my recent tweets again in case you missed any…

RT Kendall

Limited atonement is the theory that Jesus died on the cross for the elect alone – not everybody.

The five points of Calvinism are easily understood by TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, and Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints.

When I say I am a four and a half point Calvinist people think it is a joke. It is not a joke; I don’t accept limited atonement.

I got my teaching on the atonement from John Calvin himself – not from the Synod of Dort (origin of TULIP).

Calvin taught that Jesus died indiscriminately for all people.

Calvin taught that although Jesus died for all people, He made intercession for the elect only. That is four and a half point Calvinism.
TULIP Calvinists cannot say Jesus died for you or even Jesus died for me; they can only say Jesus died for sinners.

I can say Jesus died for me, Jesus died for you. Why important? It makes a complete difference in evangelism and one’s personal assurance of salvation.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones told me how he struggled having to defend limited atonement.
“I only did it once – my exposition of Romans 5:18; I was in real difficulty.”

Mrs. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said to me, łI have never believed in limited atonement and never will. The Doctor sat there and smiled.

The limited atonement people make a big deal of Jesus dying for many (Isa.53:12; Rom.5:19): the many being the elect but not all. Calvin: many means all.

@ ANDREW KENNY:

Jesus died for only the few, and only the few are saved.

Jesus died for all, but only the few are saved.

With all due respect to the use of conjunctions, how is that any different in practical application?

It seems to me that TULIP survives or perishes as a totality and not in bits and pieces. Regardless of the extent of the atonement if irresistible grace is not dispensed to the many but only to the few, then what does it matter for whom Christ died?

@ Deb:
I wouldn’t give Calvin too much of a break. The church has wrestled with his philosophy for over 500 years, failing to reach common agreement on his teachings. His followers still proudly declare “I am of Calvin”, twisting and confusing the Scriptures as a lost world dies in darkness.

John Piper is a 7-Point Calvinist! Yep, the Pope of New Calvinism has to have more points than anybody else, you know. So he has added a couple more petals to his personal TULIP:

(6) Double Predestination. “Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person, so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual.”

(7) Best-Of-All-Possible Worlds. “God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world.”

You can read all about it at: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

I keep telling you folks that Hyper-Calvinism drives folks crazy after a while. Consider the above.

Just:

Tell me the story of Jesus,
Write on my heart every Word;
Tell me the story most precious,
Sweetest that ever was heard.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

okrapod wrote:
There are more things than just Calvinism and Arminianism.
what?!?!?!?

This article covers some different perspectives: https://bellatorchristi.com/2014/07/07/do-thomists-and-molinists-hold-better-alternatives-than-calvinists-and-arminians-in-understanding-the-balance-between-sovereignty-and-freedom/

I’ll admit I see some interesting points in both.

dee wrote:

We have heard from a number of people who said that the doctrines inherent in Calvinism led to depression for them.

I’ve known folks who escaped from the snares of Hyper-Calvinism who experienced despair and negativism, and profound feelings of hopelessness. Symptoms of depression of this sort is a form of mental illness, the product of a confused mind. Who is the author of confusion?

To those who may be struggling with this – who are beat up and confused from extreme Calvinistic indoctrination – get alone with your Bible, read the words in red, and pray for power to overcome. Jesus will help you.

@ dee:

Well, yes, I did know that much. I assume you knew they are not just a fruit, but a berry in particular?

@ Max:

Have never read Calvin’s Institutes. Why would I? (just being a lowly sheep, having no knowledge of greek/hebrew) Have read a fair amount of books on Calvinism. ( pro/con ) Most leave me feeling discouraged/depressed.

What lifts my soul, spirit in dark times, is not reading books, but reading the Gospels. Being reminded of who Jesus was, what he did, his sermons, interactions with people etc. That fills my heart and soul with the comfort of Jesus loving, even me.

I will never have the intellectual acumen to know how the stars were hung in space, what eternity is, how time fits into eternity, how God fits into time. Too much to humanly understand.

Yet, I take comfort God sent JEsus, to represent himself to the world. Jesus I understand, Jesus I love. God knows our limitations in understanding almighty God, so he sent Jesus. Such a comfort to rest in.

Mae wrote:

Have never read Calvin’s Institutes.

Nor have I, though I did download them from a website once and import them into Pages to do a word-count.

Around 600,000, in case anyone was wondering.

The Bible itself has more, but it took centuries. The new testament has considerably less.

okrapod wrote:

Jesus died for only the few, and only the few are saved/ Jesus died for all, but only the few are saved.

The Bible teaches that only a few will be saved (ex, “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” Matt 7:13). Thus, the net result is the same, but in the second instance, no one can stand before the Lord and accuse Him of not offering a way of salvation.

Returning to the previous question of the OP, DeYoung is writing to defend the extra-Biblical idea of particular redemption, which he posits as orthodox theology. In doing so, he is not arguing for or against the exclusive nature inherent in salvation, which is that not all will be saved; rather, he is arguing about the scope and application of that salvation, which is the thought that Jesus died only for those who were/are/will be saved.

In my opinion, the idea of particular redemption is a theological exercise in ‘rescuing’ God from an apparent, but in reality non-existent, conundrum and thereby preserving His nature as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, the conundrum being that if Jesus died for the sins of the world then why isn’t the whole world saved? Either God isn’t powerful enough to save everyone (thus non-omnipotent) or He does not love the world (thus non-omnibenevolent). If we say that Jesus’s blood is efficacious only for the elect, we avoid such difficulties, unless we are like Driscoll/Westboro Baptist and plainly state that God hates sinners.

Furthermore, the notion of particular redemption is predicated on there being no such thing as free will (i.e., libertarian free will). Thus the notion of total depravity, which in Reformed parlance means that human will is now in bondage and we humans are no longer moral free agents but are slaves to our evil desires and impulses.

@ Deb:

yep, the extent of the atonement was not an issue in his day. The Canons of Dordt does address it in response to the The Five Articles of the Remonstrants (Holland, 1610).

drstevej wrote:

@ Mae:
Calvin never directly addresses the issue of Limited Atonement in the Institutes. Surprise you?

If he didn’t come up with it, then who did?
Some “More Calvinist than Calvin” type a generation or two later?

Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

@ elastigirl:
It is also an exercise in intellectual arrogance….. As was summarized above… do you believe in free will? do you believe in predestination? Yes and Yes. Can we really understand this, no…. it is supernatural, and we are, for the most part, natural beings..

AKA Paradoxes exist. Deal with it.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

hoodaticus wrote:
As someone who considers himself both Calvinist and Arminian at the same time, here is what I believe about limited atonement:
1. If Jesus died for you, then you are saved. That is because His death paid for your sin. It would be unjust for God to exact a penalty twice for the same offense.
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, so I think we pretty much end up with similar conclusions at the end. But I do challenge the assumption that salvation is about being saved from a penalty. The Bible does not describe our salvation as having a penalty paid for us. Think in terms of taking your kids on a hike in the mountains. You tell them to never leave the trail, not to wander past any guardrails, and everything else you can think of to keep them safe while enjoying the beauty of the mountains. If one of them disobeys, crosses a guardrail, and falls over the side, I don’t think your first response would be getting into a hot rage for how your honor and glory were violated. Nor do I think you would be focusing on anyone paying any penalties for your child’s disobedience. Nor would you be tempted to walk away and let your child suffer the due consequences of disobedience. No, I think you would pull every resource at your disposal to effect a rescue. This is the type of language the Bible uses to describe our salvation. It’s not about balancing legal books, it’s about saving lives. Just my two cents.

Yes!

We are constantly told that we cannot understand God. We are constantly focusing on mystery and ‘Gods decisions’ as in ‘God sends people to hell or God saves’, etc.

I think a big part of this boils down to the ingrained concept that “man centered” anything is sin. You hear it all the time,’ you think you can save yourself’, blah, blah.

My view is that God IS human centered. I don’t think God “sends” anyone to paradise or to separation from Him. I believe humans make that choice. Over and over we see provision for Rescue. We even see it in the OT even for non Jews. Jews who were supposed to be His light of the world but failed over and over.

God is human centered because He chose to manifest Himself as a lowly nobody to walk among other lowly nobodies to show what being the light in the world was like. Then he conquered death which is the consequence of all sin. That is human centered to me. (God is not distant)

There is no way to take human volition out of the picture as far as I can tell. We spend a lot of time blaming God but little time blaming our own choices.

Frankly, I don’t think Jesus changed the expectations we see communicated best in Micah 6:8. I do think we cling to the “believe” and have faith part and tend to ignore the repent part. (That is easier to do in Calvinism) After all, little kids on the playground instinctively know what’s not “fair”. Where does that come from? And taking that instinct and applying it to others as justice. Do unto others.,..all the one another’s, etc.

I believe God is perfect Mercy and Justice but I don’t believe Jesus’ message and subsequent conquering death lets us off any justice hooks before or after we choose to believe. I don’t believe in hell but I do believe in separation from God. And I don’t feel guilty for not wanting to spend eternity on the redeemed earth with types like unrepentant and unpunished on earth Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, ISIS beheaders, etc. I think they made their choice to do heinous evils to fellow humans. God did not choose for them.

There is a passage in Revelation 6 that startles me. I have no dogmatic interpretation on such apocalyptic writing but the principle of Justice is in there:

“When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

I think God put all this cosmos around us into motion and gave humans dominion. Throughout that time He kept providing rescue for humans horrible choices. Even to the point of walking among us as both lowly human and Divine and then conquering death (sin) with the resurrection. A blatant message of rescue. But we have to decide. I don’t think the cross/resurrection was so we could choose to do evil to one another and be rewarded anyway,

My view is that Universalism is another form of determinism. It’s nice to think that way but it presupposes the evil human changed their mind. Not God. (My SIL’s father was a Universalist Methodist pastor and we had these discussions every Thanksgiving. He declared that ‘every knee would bow’ meant that God would change people in the end. Frankly that is determinism to me albeit the “choosing” happens in the end and not before the “foundation” of the world.)

The Jews were not saved because they were Jews. In the OT God even laments that few followed Him.

So, from my perspective God is not the one that “sends” or “chooses” people. He certainly has intervened and can make His presence known. He can woo a young Soviet girl who mused about his existence upon studying a snowflake or from an episode of Star Trek (Ht: Dee) I have heard a former Muslim from Afghanistan speak of his dreams about Isa. (Moved me more than anything!) Whitaker Chambers, a rabid atheist, could not dismiss the concept of God from studying the ear of his new born daughter. So, I don’t discount anything. But in the end, we make the choice to ignore it all, seek more information and decide how we live among each other.

The bottom line for me is that Yahweh is human centered in all respects. He is not a glory seeking narcissist the Calvinists describe…..although He often made a big deal out of proving His might and power to Pagan barbarians in the OT. In a more subtle way, He proved His divinity in the NT with more compassionate miracles. And while He provides the rescue, I have to accept not only the rescue but the conditions –which is changing my mind and turning to a new direction. Easier said than done, of course. But, still, in the end a human centered decision.

Hoodaticus: I have been enjoying your comments along with Ken F’s who has done a yeomans work on studying these things.

Mae wrote:

Have never read Calvin’s Institutes.

Forty years ago in an electrical engineering class we went through fifteen pages of equations to model a fairly simple circuit. While it may be a worthwhile exercise to help the understanding of a lowly engineering student I had little interest in using it as a tool. There were so many assumptions along the way and real world issues such as noise that I had little confidence it would accurately describe behavior in the real world.

While this analogy may not work for others it is useful for me to visualize the flaws of systematic thinking, John Adams quote also comes to mind “Ideology is a systematic way of being wrong with confidence”.

For those Trekies I can relate the episode “A Piece of the Action”. Kirk and Spock are explaining the rules to the fictitious game of fizbin, at some point Kirk interjects the rule “except on Wednesdays”. For the last fifty years (has it been that long?) I have voiced “except on Wednesdays” when someone goes on an overly complicated diatribe.

@ okrapod:
The center of a potato IS starchy filler.
Most of the nutrients in a potato are near the surface, under the skin.
Which is why you don’t peel a potato if you can avoid it. (As far as I can tell, the custom of peeling potatoes comes from using Russet potatoes, the most easily available in bulk and the cheapest. Russets have thick, dense skins that (except for baking) need to be peeled. Until I was in my twenties, I didn’t know other types of potato existed.)

I used to use frozen hash browns; now I use white or red potatoes and chop/slice them myself (skin on). Pan-fry/sautee with chopped sweet onion in olive oil with some seasonings and you have a great side dish. Or a main dish if you brown some meat (ground beef or chopped sausage) and pan-fry it all together. (What used to be called “Poor Man’s Dinner” during the Great Depression.) Lots better than the frozen hash browns, and doesn’t take much more time or effort.

Max wrote:

John Piper is a 7-Point Calvinist! Yep, the Pope of New Calvinism has to have more points than anybody else, you know.

Because 6-Point Calvinists are more Calvinist than 5-Poiint Calvinists, and get to burn them for Heresy.

And 7-Point Calvinists get to do the same to 6-Point Calvinists.

“Can You Top This?” meets “Me, NOT Thee” in a specifically-Calvinist form of One-Upmanship.

I fully expect to see 8-Point Calvinism, then 9-Point, then 10-Point, etc. All to one-up the others and PROVE that I am Elect.

ishy wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
okrapod wrote:
There are more things than just Calvinism and Arminianism.
what?!?!?!?
This article covers some different perspectives: https://bellatorchristi.com/2014/07/07/do-thomists-and-molinists-hold-better-alternatives-than-calvinists-and-arminians-in-understanding-the-balance-between-sovereignty-and-freedom/
I’ll admit I see some interesting points in both.

I was going to mention the Thomists and Molinists!! Thanks for beating me to it!! I know Calvinists see everything in strictly Protestant terms, but the Thomist-Molinist controversy was a pretty big deal. As you know, the pope resolved it by telling both sides to stop anathematizing each other. It’s a big fat mystery, he said (in so many words), so it’s perfectly legitimate to hold either view.

@ Lydia:

Really good to hear from you again. Time was when you were here right much, and Gram3 was sharing her insider knowledge, when some who barely comment now used to write more often and when a really wide diversity of people spoke up. I really benefitted from all that. Maybe that will rise from the ashes for the benefit of all of us.

@ Mary27:
Mary, that is so encouraging. Thank you.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Jealous. My mom would not have potatoes in the house. Said they had no real nutritional value. I could not wait for church potlucks which always had a ton of potato choices; salad, au gratin, cheesy potato casseroles, even potatos in the green beans! yum, yum, yum. But kids always had to go last so I would hope and pray it wasn’t all gone.

Darlene wrote:

It doesn’t exist in the thoughts & theology of the earliest generations of Christians after Jesus & then the Disciples died. First hint is in about 500AD which is almost totally ignored until about 1500 AD. If it was there in the thought of Jesus then the first Christians would have followed it.

Oh no, no, no, no, no! You must understand that the church went off the rails immediately after the last apostle died. AND…….it took Calvin to make it all right again.

And Joseph Smith…
And Charles Taze Russell…
And Sun Myung-Moon…
And Mo David…
And Jim Jones…
ALL of the above make the same claim, that “the church went off the rails immediately… AND it took Our Anointed Founder to restore the Original New Testament Church”.

@ refugee:
Thanks. Sorry my comment was a novella. But, who can resist analyzing the concept of limited atonement? 🙂

Root 66 wrote:

I see no compassion at all in the concept of limited atonement if the majority of all the people who have ever lived had absolutely no chance at salvation whatsoever in the first place. I’m hard-pressed to see how that’s “Good News” for anybody.

Amen. I nearly lost my faith over this.

I still struggle to read the bible at all because those teachings, “based on scripture” are still in my head.

@Headless Unicorn Guy:

File this under “Things I Would Never Have known Were It Not for My Nerdy Kids”: Did you know that Frederick the Great was largely responsible for bringing the potato to Western Europe? It’s been a few years, so I’m fuzzy on the details, but Frederick apparently tried to introduce potatoes to his countrymen. (He was really big on agricultural innovations.)

At first the Prussian peasant farmers were resistant to the knobbly little tubers. Potatoes didn’t look like anything they’d ever grown before. But then along came the Seven Years War. Large armies would camp near the peasants’ farms. To keep from starving, the armies would requisition all the peasants’ grain. Apparently this was SOP. The high mucky-mucks didn’t need to provide army rations if the soldiers could simply steal the peasants’ grain.

Of course, this meant the peasants would starve instead. Oh well…we need armies more than peasants, right? Very short-sighted reasoning, but there you are.

Well, those wily peasants quickly figured out a way around this. They started planting potatoes. The potatoes grew underground, so the soldiers didn’t even know they were there. (Bear in mind that potatoes were completely unfamiliar to most Europeans at this time.)

The potatoes were even more nutritious than grain, so the peasants thrived.

And this was the beginning of the Popularity of the Peruvian Potato all over the known world. 😀

@ Lydia:

My DIL makes some sort of whipped potatoes in which there is cream cheese and light seasoning, and I pig out on the delicacy every holiday.

refugee wrote:

I don’t quite get this “antinomianism” thing connected to hyper-calvinism. In our former hyper-cal church, it was the direct opposite. The progression seemed to be toward more and more legalism.

I think that is a function of “Old” vs. “New” Calvinism. Hyper (classical) Calvinists tend to restrain the flesh via rules and regulations. On the other hand, the some of the new reformers are taking liberties with their Christian liberties. Consider potty-mouth Mark Driscoll and his band of YRR-Driscollites within New Calvinism. Whew – they were a law unto themselves! Talking about a bunch of flesh-babies!!

@ refugee:

Are you saying that there is some church which practices liturgy replete with confession and absolution but which also believes in total depravity? That seems really odd to me. I don’t want to intrude but if that is typical of some denomination I would like to know the name of the denomination.

refugee wrote:

Did he not teach that some are created *on purpose* so that they may be destroyed in the end?

And let me clarify that this teaching was not emphasized in our former church. It sort of hovered in the background, took awhile (more than a decade) to sink in, but when it finally did, I was horrified.

And it does seem to say that in the scripture. “vessels made for destruction”

How can I love a god who creates people for the dedicated purpose of destroying them?

I can fear a god like that, but I cannot bring myself to love such a one.

Lydia wrote:

My view is that Universalism is another form of determinism.

Enjoyed your “novella” and glad to see you back. I think you nailed it. I don’t understand the theology that cannot except our free choice.

@ refugee:
I hope I don’t make a mess of this. But, like you I had a ton of questions about it. The best place it is highlighted is in 1 John. Sin is lawlessness (anomian)

There are 2 different approaches to it I can see. One approach is some believe Jesus obeys FOR us in the new covenant so we are exempt from being lawless and our sinning, as believers, is the normal.

Another approach is the sin sniffing approach because of total depravity even after salvation much like the Puritans who are very popular with the Neo Cals. They could not go on to live in victory over death because they were stuck in total depravity. A legal approach to sin and salvation.

A lot of it originates with the dualism of original sin concept but plays out differently with different sects/denominations. I also think we tend to describe anything as sin and that is a bigger problem which leads to lots of misunderstandings.

we tend to forget that Jesus said, be perfect like your Heavenly Father is perfect. Perfect in the Greek meaning mature, completed.

Both views tend to take human volition out of the equation, IMO.

@ Max:
Thank you, Max, that does help to clear it up.

@ Lydia:
Ah. That helps to put things into perspective. Our former church greatly admired the Puritans and their teachings, and it makes sense that the sin-sniffing, increasingly joyless, totally depraved sinners’ approach is the one that I am familiar with.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
@ elastigirl:
It is also an exercise in intellectual arrogance….. As was summarized above… do you believe in free will? do you believe in predestination? Yes and Yes. Can we really understand this, no…. it is supernatural, and we are, for the most part, natural beings..
AKA Paradoxes exist. Deal with it.
I always found it ironical that Calvinists insist so strongly on God’s Sovereignty yet also insist, at the same time, that they have Him all figured out.

Yes!
And if God is sovereign,( which I believe), why can’t he also create free will? Who are they to say it can’t be so?

@ okrapod:

Stop! It’s too delightful sounding. It’s funny how such things from childhood become ingrained. I never buy potatoes for home use but feel positively wicked when I partake in other places. My mom was the same with corn (for fattening pigs, she mused). So every summer I visit my cousin who puts up “peaches and cream’ corn from a local farmer and I partake as if there is no price to pay from the buttery delight since it’s only once a year.

Mae wrote:

And if God is sovereign,( which I believe), why can’t he also create free will? Who are they to say it can’t be so?

I have asked that question of many a Calvinist and never gotten an answer except “He can’t”. I have gotten “You misunderstand sovereignty” or a launch into a repeat of what they just said or even “You must not be Elect since you don’t accept it” and a whole lot of quoting of Piper et al on topics which don’t really answer the question, but never any sort of supported reasoning for the inability of the coexistence of both free will and sovereignty. It’s always seemed to me that God would be able to do that if He were truly sovereign. So I think this is one of the things that says to me that their framework defines their views more than anything.

dee wrote:

I think there are a couple of things we need to consider as Christians.

1. I do not believe in judging whether or not someone is saved. I leave that in the hands of God who is at a much higher pay grade in these matter.

2. Are we so sure that all of those who have never heard the word of God will definitely perish? CS Lewis approached the answer to this question by stating “There will be surprises in heaven.”

Let’s do the Socratic dialogue thing here.
What do you mean by ‘salvation’ and ‘heaven’?
Can you define your terms?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

If he didn’t come up with it, then who did?
Some “More Calvinist than Calvin” type a generation or two later?

Human logic of an earlier time.

Thersites wrote:

Calvin’s Institutes strikes me as Calvin building a computer model to predict God’s behavior. This is not to say there is no value in creating models to help our understanding but good grief, know the limitations.

Especially when the Gospels and Acts show God as doing the unexpected over and over.

Muff Potter wrote:

@ Deb:
I thought for sure they would have shaved their heads by now so they could be just like Mahaney and MacDonald. You know, the Conehead look.

“LET US CONSUME MASS QUANTITIES!”

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Max:
Your rhetoric rather casually offends those worldwide Reformed denominations who adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, Three Forms of Unity.

What is offensive as far as I am concerned is the teaching the Christ didn’t die for the sins of the whole world but only the elect.

@ refugee:

It’s so weird to me! Growing up, I heard mostly the conquering death/rescue view and even some light “ransom” positions. But not so much the legal/forensic teaching of PSA or even SA. But it became extremely popular in rather mainstream circles as far as I can tell over the last 30 years or so.

Baptists were a wily big tent lot. Okrapod remembers her early baptist years as semi Calvinist. A bit later than her, in the same city, I don’t recall anything even remotely deterministic at all. And we were in many different SBC churches due to my moms music ministry. I heard a lot of different preaching and debates when seminary friends and colleagues were over.

In fact, OSAS (once saved always saved) was widely debated but as a secondary issue not an Essential. It wasn’t thought you could “loose” your salvation but that you could choose to turn away from it. That is why I think so many Neo Cals make fun of the concept of rededications that were acceptable to many SBC churches years ago. People turned away from Christ then came back to Him.. Is that loosing salvation or turning away? My view is the salvation is always there and we choose to follow or not. I guess if it happens a lot, it can look suspicious, though.

Mae wrote:

Even so, I do believe God reveals himself to those who have not heard, but seek truth. I have no doubts about God having a means of grace for the disabled, children, etc.
God is good and God is just. I trust him to do right by all mankind.

I agree with your sentiment as well. And then there is that passage in the second chapter of Romans if one will seek to find and understand it, that addresses the topic of those people who have never heard the gospel.

I wonder – on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being most important) where would the Deebs rank this issue as far as being potentially harmful to those who love Jesus?

My personal opinion is that the terms Calvinism, Arminianism, free-will, etc. are unhelpful for discussions to be helpful and edifying. I’d ditch the word “church” too. Tons of baggage.

Also think that anyone who says they never were and never will believe _______, aren’t worth listening to (arrogance/pride). Diminished objectivity.

Johnny Piper strikes again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R80uRV2dcl4

Listen carefully near the 7:40 mark.

Sorry, should have said: 10 being most harmful

@ Beakerj:
@ Max:
As the linked article (by Christy Thomas) of Beakerj’s comment states: “The clean, slim, beautiful, fertile, straight, economically comfortable and white population: …they are God’s favorites.”

So, who needs a sinner’s prayer? It’s a wrap.

Jeannette Altes wrote:

There is far more mystery lurking just under the surface of the Bible than the churches of my experience were ever willing (able?) to see or teach … Therefore, there is and will always be far more I don’t understand than I do understand.

“At present we are looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!” (1 Cor 13:12)

Lydia wrote:

So, who is to say a mourners bench is wrong?

He who says a mourners bench is wrong is wrong and needs to go to a mourners bench to cry out to God with groanings that cannot be uttered.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
That is fascinating. Especially the part about a hidden crop and war. Yeah peasants!

Max wrote:

Jeannette Altes wrote:
There is far more mystery lurking just under the surface of the Bible than the churches of my experience were ever willing (able?) to see or teach … Therefore, there is and will always be far more I don’t understand than I do understand.
“At present we are looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!” (1 Cor 13:12)

Max, I love mystery and paradox, I really do. My faith teaches me to embrace these realities. But not EVERYTHING is mystery and paradox. There are some things within our Christian faith that are directives clearly spoken. There are some things God requires/expects of us. I think the goal is that we seek wisdom to know which things are mysteries and paradoxes and which are not.

As I said up thread regarding the subject of this post, i.e. Limited Atonement – Did Christ die for the sins of all of humankind, or only the elect? Did He make a way of salvation for all, or only a chosen few? So is it a mystery, a paradox that cannot be understood? Can we tell a person, ANY person, that Jesus died for them upon the cross of Calvary, making a way for salvation through His blood? Can we declare this definitively? Or is it an ambiguity that must be filed under the category of mystery?

Max wrote:

After leading folks over the years to understand the precious Gospel message and kneeling with them as they repented with a sinner’s prayer, I took offense to Mr. Platt’s words.

When I was a Baptist I never once saw any kneeling or repenting or praying any sinner’s prayer or anybody being one-on-one ‘led to Christ’ according to the terminology which I think I hear you saying. The IFB did it be we did not. We were expected to have reached an age where we ‘understood what we were doing’ and we were supposed to give a credible reason why we were making a profession of faith and why we wanted to be baptized in case anybody asked, which as far as I know nobody did.

May I say that the main message of Paul Washer seems to be what he sees as the lack of repenting etc, currently in churches. I am thinking that there have been distinct strains of Baptists all in the same denom-not just individuals or individual church differences but rather more than one current of thinking on certain issues. Probably my family chose a church that thought and practiced like they thought and that thinking was probably emphasized in the home. That is my best guess.

@ Max:

Precious!

However, I am amazed that any SBC church still has a VBS! So congrats on that, too. They sure are fond memories for me.

Max wrote:

Wartburgers, I will be signing off shortly to travel to my grandson’s graduation from Vacation Bible School. The VBS theme is “Christmas in July” about the story of Jesus’ birth. He will be on stage as one of the three wise men. I have already watched a video of a rehearsal in which he tried to drink the frankincense and was handling gold coins in the treasure chest. The little sinner is only 3-years old; pray for us, it could get interesting tonight.

Enjoy your grandson.

refugee wrote:

Root 66 wrote:
I see no compassion at all in the concept of limited atonement if the majority of all the people who have ever lived had absolutely no chance at salvation whatsoever in the first place. I’m hard-pressed to see how that’s “Good News” for anybody.

Amen. I nearly lost my faith over this.
I still struggle to read the bible at all because those teachings, “based on scripture” are still in my head.

Refugee,
So sorry to hear of your struggles, but God knows your hurts and He can bring peace and rest to you. It is truly heart-breaking to know that thousands, if not millions, of peoples’ precious faith is being shipwrecked by the arrogance and legalism of this “movement” (hyper-Calvinism; Reformed movement–whatever you want to call it!) Recovering from hurts like this can be extremely difficult, but like Max said earlier, reading the “words in red” will help bring Christ’s reality back into focus. Jesus was kind and loving to all except towards the religious “elect” of His day that thought they already had God all figured out! (Sound familiar? 🙂 )

One of my favorite passages that seems to refute this notion of the “elect” is found in II Corinthians 5:11-21, where Paul talks about that since God is in the business of reconciliation (I LOVE this term!), we should be, too. He also says that we should therefore “persuade men.” What would be the point of “persuading men” if they’re already elected from before the foundation of the world? That’s when I saw the “man-behind-the-curtain” and realized that the Neo-Cal/Hyper-Calvinist movement would come to nothing. Oh, and did I mention this same passage says that “Christ died for all?”

Jesus loved us enough to die for us, therefore He can’t think that we’re the worthless worms the Neo-Cals portray us to be. We matter to God–YOU matter to God. Praying that you keep the faith!

Lydia wrote:

He talked about the “mourners” bench he went to so signify he wanted to follow Christ. (This was a country church) He mourned for his sin, prayed and got up to follow Christ. He was positively jubilant recalling every detail 85 years later. We were moved and had tears of joy streaming down our faces! I cherish that recording. What a testimony.

You were lucky to record that! It’s definitely a piece of family history to cherish.

But it does bring up an interesting point. What about those who have attended church but don’t have the “experience”.

Throughout this comment thread there has been a lot of good testimony – to use the term.

However, I’m sure there’s also a lot of folks whose experience is a bit like this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsys9hYFewc

I guess it’s possible that some of us aren’t chosen?

@ Deb:
Amazing spot-well done! Nothing passes you by!

@ Deb:
Amazing spot-well done! Nothing passes you by!
@ okrapod:Thanks

Mae wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
@ elastigirl:
It is also an exercise in intellectual arrogance….. As was summarized above… do you believe in free will? do you believe in predestination? Yes and Yes. Can we really understand this, no…. it is supernatural, and we are, for the most part, natural beings..
AKA Paradoxes exist. Deal with it.
I always found it ironical that Calvinists insist so strongly on God’s Sovereignty yet also insist, at the same time, that they have Him all figured out.

Yes!
And if God is sovereign,( which I believe), why can’t he also create free will? Who are they to say it can’t be so?

Eggzackly!!!

Lydia wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
That is fascinating. Especially the part about a hidden crop and war. Yeah peasants!

I liked that part too! I think that’s why it has stuck with me all this time.

BTW I can relate to what your mom said about starches. My mom allowed potatoes — she even made pretty good potato salad — but she was always warning us off of starches in general. What was it about moms of that generation? I mean, these are carbohydrates we are talking about, and they’re kind of nutritionally essential. Not that we should overdo them, but they’re not evil or poisonous either. Very strange!!

Darlene wrote:

Mae wrote:

Even so, I do believe God reveals himself to those who have not heard, but seek truth. I have no doubts about God having a means of grace for the disabled, children, etc.
God is good and God is just. I trust him to do right by all mankind.

I agree with your sentiment as well. And then there is that passage in the second chapter of Romans if one will seek to find and understand it, that addresses the topic of those people who have never heard the gospel.

Amen! As my friend Edwin Tait (graduate of Duke Divinity School) once put it, God is not going to totally write people off just because Western missionaries are too lazy or a-skeered to bring the Gospel to them.

Salvation is through Christ alone, but that doesn’t mean that all the saved have heard of Christ during their earthly lives. Some may respond to His Grace without explicitly knowing Him by Name. Moreover, I have a theory (strictly speculative) that He comes to every person before death and gives them one last chance to choose for or against Him. This isn’t defined doctrine by any means, but it accords with my Molinist sympathies, so I’m partial to it as peemissible speculation. As Jesus said to Saint Faustina, “the final hour abounds in mercy.”

Jeannette Altes wrote:

@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:
I think the answer lies, perhaps (in part), in what Paul wrote in Romans 2…
“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them ) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
Romans 2:12‭-‬16 NKJV
I was taught that we will all be judged according to the light we have, not the light we do not have. After all, as Abraham asked the Lord (with effect), “Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?””
Genesis 18:25 NKJV
To condemn eternally those who have never ‘heard the Gospel preached” would be unjust. God is just. Jesus even went and preached to those who died in the flood…which would serve no purpose if they were not allowed to act on what they heard. (See 1 Peter 3:18-19)
For me, the question is, “Can I trust the God who is Love, and was personified by Jesus, to be just to all, even if I can’t fully understand all the mechanics of it. I am not a Universalist, though I understand the attraction, because Universalism runs into the same free will problem that limited atonement does. Even those that Jesus preached to who had already died still had the choice to tell him no. If all are saved, then some would be saved against their will. No. I belueve everyone will be given the opportunity, one on one with Jesus, to accept or reject on their own.
My currents thought, subject to modification over time.

Jeanette, your words above have caused me to respond: Wisdom, let us attend! Thank for stating what you believe so clearly.

Darlene wrote:

okrapod wrote:
That is, in saying that I am not the one who is limited by my own doing but rather God who limits by his sovereign will.
Just a while ago I was pondering this notion of Limited Atonement. Jesus pleading over Jerusalem came to mind. “I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood but you would not.” (Taking that from memory here.) The notion of L.A. has Jesus saying: “I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood but *I* will not.” Yes, the Atonement is limited but my question is: By whom? By God or by us?

Building upon what I said yesterday. Was Jesus grieving over Jerusalem because God had already damned (reprobated as the Reformed like to say) Jerusalem before the foundation of the world? Or, was Jesus grieving over Jerusalem because they, of their own accord and free will chose to reject Him as Messiah?

The Limited Atonement folks – and I’ll throw in Monergism as well – have a problem. Why would Jesus be grieving over a people whom God has chosen to damn before they even drew breath? And if these folks never had a chance at salvation from the get-go, then why even regard them as being able to receive Jesus as Messiah? How could they if God determined they never would?

@ Lydia:

Long time no see Lyds. I’ve missed your comments and views.

@ JYJames:
I thought it was a really good one, & showed up the lack of compassion in that movement nicely.

Jeannette Altes wrote:

Indeed. I think, to some extent, we are all prone to that behavior – ignore what we disagree with and jump up and down and wave the bits that bolster our view. I know I have been guilty of that at times.

I’m still guilty of it.
I own it and I am proud to be a free-thinker.
Let me be clear and define my terms. I adhere to the tenets of The Apostle’s Creed and especially its supernatural components. They are my axioms and non-negotiables. The rest of the stuff? I’m more than happy to negotiate and I pick and choose what I sign onto or don’t sign onto. Some of my views will earn me the stinging rebuke of my liberal and progressive brothers and sisters, and yet others will raise the hackles of conservatives to the point where I get declared heretic and apostate.

@ Beakerj:
Bingo.
Love God. – JC
Love others as self. – JC
When these are missing… it’s off the mark.

Muff Potter wrote:

Jeannette Altes wrote:

Indeed. I think, to some extent, we are all prone to that behavior – ignore what we disagree with and jump up and down and wave the bits that bolster our view. I know I have been guilty of that at times.

I’m still guilty of it.
I own it and I am proud to be a free-thinker.
Let me be clear and define my terms. I adhere to the tenets of The Apostle’s Creed and especially its supernatural components. They are my axioms and non-negotiables. The rest of the stuff? I’m more than happy to negotiate and I pick and choose what I sign onto or don’t sign onto. Some of my views will earn me the stinging rebuke of my liberal and progressive brothers and sisters, and yet others will raise the hackles of conservatives to the point where I get declared heretic and apostate.

Oh, I’m still guilty of it, too. Though I try not to get obnoxious with it. It helps to have good friends who are willing to call BS when they see it. 😉

As to the Apostle’s creed, yes. Me, as well. More and more, my instruction to myself is, ” keep it simple.”
I, also, find myself being remonstrated by both liberals and conservatives alike. I no longer fit into any specific camp that I’m aware of. I’m actually trying to move away from the whole ‘in a camp’ paradigm…with success varyin on any given day. 🙂

@ Jack:
Jack, I firmly believe WE choose.

Keep in mind the 97 year old was not describing an emotional experience out of no where. That was just not done that way. People were much more reserved. And men were VERY reserved about expressing emotion publicly.

The mourners bench signified that he had made a decision. He mourned over his sin and was prepared now to follow Christ. It was just a different way to communicate a decision. A sort of old fashioned way I had not heard of until him.

I don’t recall any overt emotionalism from any of my parents generation. Wearing your emotions outwardly was just not done.

Things are so different today, I often feel like an alien.

@ Darlene:

Great question!

Here is mine, why would Jesus’ first teaching to people be “repent and believe” if some “couldn’t” because He, as Yahweh, did not choose them before the Foundation of the world? He would know, right?

Wouldn’t that be a bait and switch manuever worthy of a con man?

Lydia wrote:

@ Darlene:
Great question!
Here is mine, why would Jesus’ first teaching to people be “repent and believe” if some “couldn’t” because He, as Yahweh, did not choose them before the Foundation of the world? He would know, right?
Wouldn’t that be a bait and switch manuever worthy of a con man?

It would be bait and switch in my eyes. And, why would a benevolent God present himself in such a manner? Feels more like the Wizard of Oz then Jesus, savior of all.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

If he didn’t come up with it, then who did?
Some “More Calvinist than Calvin” type a generation or two later?

IMHO The confessions that came after Calvin can just as easily cause problems.

Lydia wrote:

So, who is to say a mourners bench is wrong?

From your description, that was the custom and tradition of country churches like that.

Different churches/denoms have different customs and traditions.

A sinners prayer for someone who doesn’t have the words or a moving experience alone? It’s all human choice in responding to an incredible Savior.. My hunch is our Lord is pleased no matter the process.

The trouble starts when someone proclaims THEIR version of the process the Only True One.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Of course, this meant the peasants would starve instead. Oh well…we need armies more than peasants, right? Very short-sighted reasoning, but there you are.

And there was also the attitude of the Highborn that peasants would just breed back after a die-off, so So What?

Just wanted to drop this into the thread for people dismayed by the implications of TULIP.
Thomas Jay Oord wrote an amazing book titled, “The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence” Dr. Oord presents a strikingly different view of God that largely solves the problem of evil and God’s role. Highly recommended:
https://www.amazon.com/Uncontrolling-Love-God-Relational-Providence-ebook/dp/B01959VKI2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500071150&sr=8-1&keywords=uncontrolling+love+of+god

okrapod wrote:

When I was a Baptist I never once saw any kneeling or repenting or praying any sinner’s prayer or anybody being one-on-one ‘led to Christ’ according to the terminology which I think I hear you saying. The IFB did it be we did not.

So did Calvary Chapel, which dominated “non-denominational” church culture in my area.

Lydia wrote:

God is human centered because He chose to manifest Himself as a lowly nobody to walk among other lowly nobodies to show what being the light in the world was like. Then he conquered death which is the consequence of all sin. That is human centered to me. (God is not distant)

From what I am learning about Orthodoxy, you have a very orthodox perspective. I’ve been greatly blessed by seeing other ways of viewing God’s work and his relationship with humans.

Jeannette Altes wrote:

@ Brent:
No…I’m opposed to Reformed theology because, to me, it makes God into an untrustworthy monster. Doesn’t matter to me who does or doesn’t hold to it. I’ve rejected the theology on its own merits.

Me too, Jeanette.

okrapod wrote:

Thus, I think that salvation is all three: done, doing and will be done.

What you wrote struck me because it perfectly agrees with something I read recently in a book about Orthodoxy. Here is a short link that says pretty much what you did: http://antiochian.org/1123705533:

Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ. People cannot save themselves by their own good works. Salvation is “faith working through love.” It is an ongoing, lifelong process. Salvation is past tense in that, through the death and Resurrection of Christ, we have been saved. It is present tense, for we must also be being saved by our active participation through faith in our union with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is also future tense, for we must yet be saved at His glorious Second Coming.

I’ve been very much appreciating your thoughts on this thread. Very thought provoking.

roebuck wrote:

hoodaticus wrote:
If He decided before you were born, indeed before the foundations of the Earth were laid, that you will be saved or not saved, that is totally different. Conflating “foresaw” with “predestined” is wrong, IF you believe that God wanted humankind to have free will. If not, who cares?

Finally, Calvinism boils down to this: God decided who would be saved and who would be damned and there’s not a thing you (generic you) can do about it. All the books, conferences, preaching engagements, para-church ministries are pointless, because whether these things are done or not doesn’t matter. God already decided everyone’s fate.

My mother is unsaved and I regularly pray that she would trust Jesus, with Limited Atonement my prayers may never make a difference since she is not chosen. I have to believe that my mother can choose with God making her heart warm toward the gospel whether or not to accept Jesus.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

okrapod wrote:

Thus, I think that salvation is all three: done, doing and will be done.

What you wrote struck me because it perfectly agrees with something I read recently in a book about Orthodoxy. Here is a short link that says pretty much what you did: http://antiochian.org/1123705533:

Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ. People cannot save themselves by their own good works. Salvation is “faith working through love.” It is an ongoing, lifelong process. Salvation is past tense in that, through the death and Resurrection of Christ, we have been saved. It is present tense, for we must also be being saved by our active participation through faith in our union with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is also future tense, for we must yet be saved at His glorious Second Coming.

I’ve been very much appreciating your thoughts on this thread. Very thought provoking.

Catholics also believe that salvation is a process. 😀

dee wrote:

3. What about a child how grows into adulthood, having been beaten and raped by parents who used the name of Jesus as they abused them Now, the name of Jesus causes this adult severe PTSD. This person then commits suicide. (True story BTW)
Well, maybe in exception for her?
Are you 100% sure that there are no further exceptions, ever?

Dee, I love your list of exceptions. I’ll add some others that have been on my mind.

When I think about people like Vyckie Garrison, and the people in Homeschoolers Anonymous, and others who used to believe in an abusive portrayal of God who are now atheists, it’s unthinkable to me that they would end up in eternal torture if they die still rejecting Jesus. I believe that when they die, they will finally see that God is not the abusive monster they were taught he was. They will finally see that he is the source of all love and beauty and truth.

I agree with someone up-thread who said that universalism is a form of Calvinism. I’m originally from Boston, where the vast majority of Calvinist Congregational churches eventually became Unitarian Universalist or some variation thereof. There is a reason for this! The transition was easier than you’d think — it was just the switch to one form of determinism to another.

Both Calvinism and its illegitimate daughter, Universalism, deny free will. To deny free will is to deny human dignity. If we have no free will, we are puppets, not persons. Universalism sounds really kind and compassionate, but, just like Calvinism, it reduces human beings to automata.

God does not save us against our will. He loves us infinitely, but He will not force His love upon us. As CS Lewis famously put it, in the last analysis there are two kinds of people: those who say to Jesus “Thy Will be done” and those to whom Jesus says, sadly, “THY will be done.”

IMHO there is a Hell, and it is populated, but it is also self-chosen. And in a certain crazy sense, I think, the denizens of Hell are happier than they would be in Heaven. I mean, of course there’s no real happiness in Hell. But we’ve all known people who wallow in their own misery. When they finalize their decision to wallow in their own misery, at their deaths…then how could they ever be happy in Heaven?

Misery is not lessened by being self-chosen. But I suppose there can be a certain grim satisfaction in it. Or something.

Anyway, CS Lewis talks about this a lot in The Great Divorce. It’s a work of the imagination, not a theological treatise, but I find much of it very thought provoking and compelling.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

Yes, what does saved mean (sozo) and from what are we saved and to what are we saved? I tend to substitute “rescue” but if you study the word it can encompass healed, safety, etc. Not sure we even touch the surface. It’s one of those words like Gospel which has become meaningless if you ars around certain circles too long.

These questions started to perculate in the back burner of my brain during the mega church days. So much time, money and effort to attract people. Ok, saved to what, then? Entertainment, a social life? In Neo Calvinism, saved to what? Obeying a 30 year old “elder” ( do they even grasp how Mormon that is?)

I will add one more concept to your afterlife ideas. The concept of redeemed earth described in Revelation. (Some think God is going to destroy the earth. But what if He redeems it) An eternity living the way God mean it to be? I don’t know. it’s interesting to discuss and a bit exciting, actually. But I promise not to get emotional about it. 🙂

Off topic but late July 2014 Braxton passed his father’s words still echo in my soul

“No words. No sermon. No funny quotes. No answers. No note. Nothing but excruciating pain & the assurance that I’ll see him in Glory.”

I was sitting next to my father at my brother’s funeral and saw a single tear come down his cheek. It was the only time I can remember seeing my father cry when I was young. I just thought it was important to remember this young man, who struck me as a very kind regular 15-year-old kid. God keep our children safe.

Himalaya wrote:

@Beakerj wrote:

this paradox leaves room for God to be creating people in order to reject them.
This paradox has eaten my faith like an acid.

BeakerJ, there was a time about 5 years ago where I knew I could not be a Christian anymore until I found a different way to understand Romans 9 than the idea that God created vessels of wrath destined for destruction. It’s such a horrific idea, it’s hard to believe that Christians can believe this and still love God. I was sick over it. To me, if a Christian believes this about God, it creates an atmosphere that can foster abuse.

It was an intense relief to me to find out that many (maybe most?) Christians believe that when Paul says God loves Jacob and hates Esau, he is referring to the fact that God chose (elected) Israel as his chosen nation for revealing himself to the world. It’s corporate election, not personal, individual election. And as for “hating” Esau, it’s the same concept of “hate” that Jesus used when he said we should “hate” our father and mother. It’s hyperbole.

I still remember the flood of physical relief that I felt. I grew up IFB, then I moved to Calvinism. The God of the IFB’ers is picky and legalistic. The God of the Calvinists cares more about his glory than he does about us. For the last several years, I’ve been on the hunt for a more compassionate, generous God.

I was always taught that this hate-vs-love thing was a Semitic idiom. It does not literally mean that God hated Esau, any more than Jesus meant that we should literally hate our parents and children in order to follow Him.

Plus ISTM that God took excellent care of Esau. If that’s “hate,” let’s have some more of it!

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

You allude to the River of Fire, I believe?

If I did, I did not mean to. I was not thinking about that at all, but you reminded me that it is represented in Orthodox icons. I need to do some research on this. As for the belief that God’s presence can be like fire or water depending on our state, that thought was expressed by both Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen. I’ll have to do more research to know which other church fathers believed it. But the key point is this – historically, “orthodox” Christianity has included a variety of thoughts. Much more flexibility than the current New Calvinists such as the subject of this post.

Yes, indeedy! Could not agree more!

And I agree with you about Disney World. Sheer torture!!!!

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ dee:
Well, yes, I did know that much. I assume you knew they are not just a fruit, but a berry in particular?

And that home grown tomatoes are far better than greenhouse tomatoes any day! 😉

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
@ elastigirl:
It is also an exercise in intellectual arrogance….. As was summarized above… do you believe in free will? do you believe in predestination? Yes and Yes. Can we really understand this, no…. it is supernatural, and we are, for the most part, natural beings..
AKA Paradoxes exist. Deal with it.

Yes, that free will and predestination both exist is a paradox. And that they can both exist at the same time is a mystery. This is where I place the mystery, not in: Did Jesus die for everyone or only the elect?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Anyway, CS Lewis talks about this a lot in The Great Divorce. It’s a work of the imagination, not a theological treatise, but I find much of it very thought provoking and compelling.

I agree this is a good, well, I guess Lewis was good at analogies or parables. It has been a few years since I read this one. I think I would get more out of it at the place I am now.

As to Calvinism (or Puratinism) and Universalism being two sides of the same coin, I agree. I didn’t realize that a lot of the Calvinism of old became the Universalist of now. It does make sense, though. I know in my own wrestling with various doctrines in my wilderness days (metaphorically speaking), my own compassion would drive me to universalism if I spent too much time considering Calvinism. But free will upsets both apple carts every time. 🙂

chuck wrote:

My mother is unsaved and I regularly pray that she would trust Jesus, with Limited Atonement my prayers may never make a difference since she is not chosen. I have to believe that my mother can choose with God making her heart warm toward the gospel whether or not to accept Jesus.

God bless you, Chuck! I just prayed for you both.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

For those who reject godliness, that fiery presence will be experienced as torment as they cling to all the things that cannot survive God’s presence.

Ken, it may be that the fiery presence will burn away all the things that can’t survive God’s presence, and it may be that the eyes of that person will finally open and see God for all his worth and beauty. This is something I’ve thought a lot about, so I’ll just submit my thoughts to the community for review! A comparison that might work is that of a criminal who is imprisoned. Without his support structure and enablers, he may find himself alone and unable to escape the realization of the hurt he has caused. He may start to experience real grief and repentance, and we know this has actually happened to some imprisoned criminals.

This may also be what happens with some people after death. God may confront them with the truth about their deeds, bringing about grief and repentance. And that would not be coercion. That would be coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Lydia wrote:

He can woo a young Soviet girl who mused about his existence upon studying a snowflake or from an episode of Star Trek (Ht: Dee) I have heard a former Muslim from Afghanistan speak of his dreams about Isa. (Moved me more than anything!) Whitaker Chambers, a rabid atheist, could not dismiss the concept of God from studying the ear of his new born daughter. So, I don’t discount anything.

Lydia, those are beautiful examples. And it may be that God will work with people in the same way after they die! Although I imagine the process might be faster taking place in God’s actual presence! And that wouldn’t be determinism. That would be finally having the privilege of knowing fully, even as we are fully known.

@ Lydia:

As so many have mentioned and alluded to, I think that’s why it’s so important to consider philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, etc and so on – the whole context of a human and group of people – instead of merely looking at “doctrine” as if it is static and unaffected. It’s never just “doctrine”, but many things, personally and social systems and historically, informing and interplaying into someone’s or a group’s theology.

Like this new strain and off shoot of classic Calvinism, it’s not just limited atonement, but why and what would draw someone to those beliefs?When does theology become projection instead of revelation? How are personal, local, national, universal issues and history manifesting themselves?

It will be interesting to see how this movement plays out further down the line from a church history perspective and how future historians will connect dots we cannot even see yet.

@ Beakerj:
Forgive me for painting with a brush too broad. Some people have a need to find an answer for every question and resolve every contradiction. I do not have that need. For me, as my faith has grown, I have found peace living with the infinite mysteries of an infinite God who, I believe, loves his creation with an infinite love. And I believe that God always – for God’s purposes and in God’s way – does the right thing. Since I have a finite mind, I cannot begin to fully understand the infinite mind of God. Often, the only response I have for questions about God and the ensuing theological conundrums, is “I don’t know.” Knowing God and knowing about God are two different things. I do know Jesus; and, through my relationship with the living Jesus, I have been given me a glimpse of the wonderful, mysterious God of creation. I have found peace in his presence. For this I am thankful.

okrapod wrote:

I don’t see that defining ultimate truth as whatever we happen to know right now is consistent with reason, tradition or scripture. So, yes, I think that there is yet unrevealed mystery behind almost everything, a deeper layer so to speak, which should not stop us from acting on what we do know.

Okrapod, I think when it comes to mystery, we agree. It’s when the mystery card is used as an excuse or diversion when we can know and understand that I have a problem. Not everything about our faith is shrouded in mystery. Some things have been clearly revealed to us in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Mae wrote:

Lydia wrote:
@ Darlene:
Great question!
Here is mine, why would Jesus’ first teaching to people be “repent and believe” if some “couldn’t” because He, as Yahweh, did not choose them before the Foundation of the world? He would know, right?
Wouldn’t that be a bait and switch manuever worthy of a con man?
It would be bait and switch in my eyes. And, why would a benevolent God present himself in such a manner? Feels more like the Wizard of Oz then Jesus, savior of all.

Bringing Calvin’s teaching on Evanescent Grace into the discussion makes God a Trickster and Indian Giver.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

It’s a work of the imagination, not a theological treatise…

Potayto / potarto.

okrapod wrote:

Is it loving for God to offer salvation to someone when by his foreknowledge he knows the offer will be rejected if that rejection is then only one more nail in the spiritual coffin of the one who rejects the offer?

It is certainly more loving than offering it in bad faith. If I invite a friend to a party and think “I know what his answer will be but I would really like him to come”, you have acted with love and integrity. But if you offer it with no actual intention of giving it yourself, thinking “I know what his answer will be and I am happy about that. I really don’t want to invite him but I need to keep up appearances” then that is just hypocrisy and unloving!

Himalaya wrote:

For the last several years, I’ve been on the hunt for a more compassionate, generous God.

I think you’ve put your finger on something really important, Himalaya.

Pondering the narrow gate (as in, “enter through the narrow gate”)… it’s narrow and hard to find, but that’s just the beginning. It leads to a narrow path.

A lot’s been written about Paul’s “wretched man that I am!” passage at the end of Romans 7. I think it’s really instructive, because right before the “wretched” bit, things seem to be going well for our hero. Way back in chapter 5, he had peace with God etc. Then he didn’t…

Himalaya wrote:

Ken, it may be that the fiery presence will burn away all the things that can’t survive God’s presence, and it may be that the eyes of that person will finally open and see God for all his worth and beauty.

That seems very possible. One hint is in the book of Revelation. In the middle of Chapter 16, which describes the bowls of wrath being poured out on the earth, we find these words (twice): “and they did not repent…” If the whole point is retributive justice, what is the point of bringing up the idea of repentance? It makes it sound like repentance always remains a possibility.

Ray Anderson’s book “Judas and Jesus” explores this. Anderson’s question is basically this: if one dies unsaved, will that person face a god who will say, “I am sorry, there is nothing I can do for you now.”?

There is also this: Romans 8:38-39 – “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

I hold out the hope that God can save people even after they die. I don’t see convincing evidence making this impossible.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

If the whole point is retributive justice, what is the point of bringing up the idea of repentance?

Wow! I never saw this before! Thank you for adding another beautiful piece to the puzzle!

I looked up the book you mentioned. Is it “The Gospel According to Judas”? I will have to pick that up. It’s funny, but I know 10 years ago I would have scoffed at at book like that.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I think it’s really instructive, because right before the “wretched” bit, things seem to be going well for our hero. Way back in chapter 5, he had peace with God etc. Then he didn’t…

Right, what happened there? When I was going through my struggle over Romans 9, I picked up Volume X of the New Interpreter’s Bible so I could read NT Wright’s full commentary on Romans, not just the little “Romans for Everyone.” I remember he said some very interesting, insightful things about Romans 7. I’ll look it up when I get home from work this afternoon.

But what are your thoughts? What do you see going on there?

Himalaya wrote:

Is it “The Gospel According to Judas”?

That was the original book. The updated book title is “Judas and Jesus: Amazing Grace for the Wounded Soul.” It includes The Gospel According to Jesus. It’s a quick read – only 130 pages. I highly recommend it.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

But it’s really about God’s plan for bringing the Savior into the world.

And God’s chosen nation to bring about this plan.

@ elastigirl:

Well put elastigirl. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

And Augustine’s views on women certainly sound twisted.

Reminds me a bit of Piper, actually.

Sopwith wrote:

“John Calvin, following the 4th century Gnostic writings of Augustine, have left a five hundred year old casted shadow upon Christianity; thereby fostering and encouraging a malignant tyranny upon all it touches.” -Sopwith

Refugee wrote:

I had not heard of that idiom/semantic thing before. How typicical, to shroud “eternal” truth in something that will be incomprehensible to later generations.

The scene where Esau is not blessed by his father because of his brother’s trickery has always been troubling to me.

One of the watershed moments I had in my journey out of fundagelicalism was when I was no longer troubled by the lives and times of bronze-age desert chieftains.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Deb wrote:
I’ll bet Kevin’s wife is busier than he is. Surprised she hasn’t written her own CRAZY BUSY book yet.
Maybe it’s in the works…
Nah. She prolly don’t have the spare time.

Naturally. After all, housewives don’t get sabbaticals.

Refugee wrote:

The scene where Esau is not blessed by his father because of his brother’s trickery has always been troubling to me.

I wonder what would have happened if Jacob had not tricked his father. Would he have been blessed anyway. Maybe the point of the story is how God can bring about his plans (in this case the line of the Messiah) even when we humans try to do it on our own.

Refugee wrote:

And Augustine’s views on women certainly sound twisted.
Reminds me a bit of Piper, actually.

Piper wrote a biography of Augustine. Of course Piper didn’t include any of Augustine’s views on women, but I have to wonder about his conclusion on those views. I’m wondering if Augustine’s views confirmed anything for Piper . . .

Bridget wrote:

Piper wrote a biography of Augustine.

What… he has a TARDIS? I never knew that.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

At that point, you think: I thought I knew God, but apparently I don’t. You do some praying, and maybe, a lot of telling God to **** off and die (I certainly have). But in that process, if you don’t give up telling God where to go, maybe something else happens – a bit like Romans 8, or the end of the book of Job, where the Lord answers you out of the storm. He doesn’t answer your question, mind – but that’s not important, because at least he shows up, which is all you really wanted.

Yes. This process is never fun. A friend calls it that stage of faith where you hit the wall.

It has been (and is ongoing) a slow process for me to learn to let go of specific expectation on the way things should look/be. When He shows up in the middle of your railing and doubting and anger and is Emmanuel anyway….I don’t know, really, how to word it well, but you begin to shift your faith. I have gone from believing (and expecting/demanding) He will do x, y, Z for me that I conjured up based on men teaching what God will do if I just believe HARD enough, to just trusting Him – that He loves me and that He knows what I need. To just trust Him, not expect this or that specific outcome. Just trust His love. Not sure I’ve articulated that well…

Himalaya wrote:

It was a huge relief to find out I could still be a Jesus-loving believer in the empty tomb without believing that God wanted Samuel to hack Agag to pieces.

I love this!

Lydia wrote:

I love this!

I have trouble with it. How can one believe in the resurrection unless one believes in the cross-the death by torture of an innocent person by the express will of God (ref: Gethsemane).

And how can one believe in the cross, considering innocence, and yet not think it possible that God would require the death of the guilty (Agag) especially if the Wiki article on Agag is correct and especially since the death of Agag was based on law, Wiki saying that Samuel ordered/did the execution according to the law of the people of whom Agag was high ruler instead of under Hebrew law. If, of course I have read a reliable source, which is always and ‘if’.

So if we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus (a sin offering as Paul describes it) from what are we saved? Partly we are saved from the death (spiritual death) which the law required for sin-again Paul, who also says that we each and all are still subject to physical death because of sin-the consequences on all living things. But if there had been no death penalty, if Samuel was just a maniac or if the OT understanding of the legal consequences was incorrect, then from what are we saved? If sin has no outcomes then is Christianity not total nonsense anyhow? If the law had no penalty then why are we jumping around in glee that we are not under the old law (again Paul). If sin and death have nothing to do with each other-spiritual and physical death-then why the cross and why the resurrection?

Yes, those were barbaric times. We mostly don’t crucify people any more. We do dismember them in utero, of course, but we have decided that one sort of slaughter is acceptable while another sort of slaughter is not acceptable. Not much difference in thinking from OT days it seems. Nevertheless, given the crucifixion of Jesus, how can the execution of Agag not make sense? Given the slaughter of the innocents in our medical facilities, how can anyone object to the execution of Agag who had done horrible (Wiki) things (mutilations) to the Israelite men on some ground that we have come a long way and we would never do something like that so therefore God would never have done anything like that, which is comforting because we have not come as far as we need to have come and who wants to think that God still even now retains to himself the right to act as He chooses.

How could one sleep at night if one did not think ‘surely not’?

People were talking about the last verses in Romans 7. That is how one can sleep at night. Wretch that Paul described himself he claimed that Jesus was the answer. But he never claimed a crossless Christ; the cross and Christ are inseparable ideas, and indeed that is disturbing. We have a difficult choice, the cross of Christ with spiritual life now and eternally and with our own physical resurrection (however that is accomplished) eventually and eternally -or else-the consequences of the law and the fate of Agag.

Sometime in the future perhaps we can talk about God desiring obedience more than sacrifice (OT) and desiring mercy more than sacrifice (OT and Jesus) even while our salvation hinges on the sacrifice of Christ. Another topic for another day.

I know that is a lot of intersecting ideas all slung together, but they all seem to be part of one whole as I see it.

Himalaya wrote:

What I think of in response to this is that God does not want us to repay evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good.

At which point it boils down to definitions. If one sees the retributive justice of God as an evil in itself, then the idea that God would not do such a thing is a logical conclusion. Except, I don’t see that attitude toward retributive justice (that it is evil) in scripture including the NT apocryphal writings including what Jesus said, nor does it make any sense to me when viewing, let us say, our own judicial system.

If convicting and punishing the offender (let us say the pedophile) furnishes safety for the offender’s potential future victims as well as some level of healing for the already victims then has justice on the one hand and mercy for the victims on the other hand been done by the same action? I think so. Has one then done evil that good may come of it, or is it that the actions against the offender are themselves good? In this case I think that punishment and other restraints are not evil but rather good.

It is within that line of thinking that I do not see the execution of Agag as evil.

And BTW, Jesus is the God of the OT as well as the NT, if one believes the Christian idea of Trinity and incarnation. It gets problematic to call one the god of the OT and the other ‘Jesus’ or god as seen in the incarnate Christ. BTW, Jesus himself prophesied future justice/judgment with himself as the judge.

IMO a way has to found to live with the entire picture, not just gentle Jesus meek and mild or just God as judge and enforcer. Neither is the entire story, because, I think, enforcement is part of how God loves.

@ okrapod:

I’m very glad we convict and punish pedophiles! I’m also glad we do not practice the brutality described in the OT. Where I’m coming from is that I think that the OT is not inerrant in its description of how God commands us to deal with people. And one reason I think that is that Jesus does not seem to endorse those brutal OT methods. Numbers tells us that God commanded Moses to stone a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath. But Jesus himself broke the Sabbath (John 5:18 says “not only was he breaking the Sabbath”), and told the man he healed to carry his bed on the Sabbath! 2 Kings tells us God sent fire to consume men who wanted to take Elijah to see the king. But when Jesus’ disciples asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans, he rebuked them. And Jesus showed respect for women, so I believe he would not endorse the trial by ordeal described in Numbers where a woman is forced to drink dirty water to see if she miscarries to prove whether she has been unfaithful to her husband.

@ okrapod:

I really should have elaborated. ” I love this” referred to the way Himalaya described his/her difficulty with conflating the God of the OT and God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ. They do seem like two different gods if we don’t take the entire trajectory into consideration. Mean God/Nice God. But they are One True God. The Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus because He claimed to be His Son which meant to them he was claiming equality. (John 5)

I admit I have huge problems with Lots daughters but I get the context of that time. Think of how that plays out with the homosexual lobby. Sheesh! But a note on OT stories,we cannot discount literary devices in lots of ancient writing. A declaration that every woman, child and goat was wiped out in some instances can be hyperbole like we say, cleaned their clock or wiped the floor with them, etc. The flood might have only wiped out Mesopotamia’, for example. And so on.

And concerning punishment, I am not anti death penalty…cautiously. I would love to see it for the parents who hold down their little girl for FGM and the doctors who perform it. For serial killers and such. Culture matters. Big time. What we allow and don’t allow. The penalties for heinous evil get lighter and lighter in the name of some macabre mercy or cultural appeasement. In effect, We value what we allow or even promote. That means we don’t value as much innocents such as with abortion for convienence sake or child molesters or those who prey on the elderly. We end up valuing the evil more than the innocent without serious punishment.

I came to grips long ago with the wrath of God because I focused on the trajectory of how God interacted and intervened with people after the Fall. Continued…..

@ okrapod:

Cont….

I say all that because I don’t do law/grace dichotomies. I think there was “grace” offered in the OT. Therefore I don’t buy into the cross as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for doing evil to others just because I say I believe. Or keeping the law. That part would have been most likely metaphorical for the Jews. They did not do human sacrifice like other pagans so only mapping Jesus a a sacrifice for sin misses a much larger picture the ultimate rescue.

Paul said he was chief of all sinners, not that he continued to be. He wasn’t hunting anyone for prison after Damascus. He changed his mind and direction. He did not remain a perpetual wretch.

I also don’t buy into the concept of God developing laws for people He knew they COULD NOT keep. That is cruel, unjust and makes Him a monster. I think it all boils down to strains of later Christendom missed or misused the real reason for the law and then turned it into something it was never meant to be. (This dawned on me reading other ancient law codes that sounded eerily familiar but whose purpose was also to obey a leader or gods)

There is so much to this it’s hard to boil down into a cogent comment without too many rabbit trails. I think it helps to see scripture as a collection of books that weaves a big narrative. People were barbarians after what is described as the Fall. They chose to be. This was Not Gods intention. God intervenes with a flood and then Abraham. He decides that Abraham and his descendants would be the light of the world if they took His guidance. He makes them promises. He keeps his word, they don’t. They take what is good and use it for bad. They allowed themselves to become slaves for centuries. God rescues them and starts an education program in following Him. Not pagan masters. (I don’t promote OT characters as examples for us in too many cases! )

Still they became corrupt and the priests start oppressing people and mingling with pagans . They are exiled. Then rescued again. Eventually, they are occupied by Romans. God, once and for all, decides to come among his chosen people who were chosen to be the light of the world (model for others) to show them how it is done when they look to Yahweh.. They already know death is the consequence for sin and thought they could sacrifice their way out of penalties yet this “Savior” of Isreal (The Romans also called their divine Caesars “son of gods”) this Son of the One True God becomes the final sacrifice and is “sacrificed” for daring to confront corrupt religious leaders of His tribe…, even though innocent.

With the teaming masses in Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost that must resulted in much confusion. The priests say he was bad. What did he do that was so horrible? Then, because most pilgrims stayed in Jerusalem for Pentecost, his resurrection and subsequent appearances must have spread like wildfire.

He proved His way was the way of Yahweh (of the OT, too!) by His resurrection. Love Him, Love others. Be righteous as in do right. Be the light of the world. And you will have eternal life…..

So the trajectory for me is Gods was for humans to self govern with His guidance, subdue the earth and make it bloom –to the Fall and a very long sad trajectory to Jesus Christ and then a few thousand years for some to realize the concept of divinely chosen rulers and ruling of a church, was wrong. We are capable of self governing whether we obey God or not.

That is how I see it in general terms. I think we tend to over complicate it. I think we can do better. Sorry for the length. My fav subject!!!

Lydia wrote:

My fav subject!!!

Mine too. And amen to your comments–so far. I don’t know about continuing on this thread, but we seem not to have mentioned the concept of ‘the remnant’. That idea is close to the post in that it is intertwined with the idea of the ‘some’ or perhaps the ‘few’ as opposed to the concept of the ‘all.

I can’t stay and talk right not. I have an appointment with the oncologist in which I have to tell him that I quit taking the new meds he prescribed (side effects) and went back to my old meds (having just obtained a 90 day supply before he changed his mind) and now the e-records are all messed up because I did not tell him until now, which is my first time back to him after further surgery.

Ah, the glories of the complexities of juggling doctors and meds and appointments and now the blasted computer based records.

But I would love to hear what you have to say further. We probably agree about 95%, rough guess. That is awesome.

@ Muff Potter:
Jump in the water is fine. 🙂

Lydia wrote:

When you get a chance, can you clarify what you mean by remnant. Not everyone is speaking of the same. Such are mentioned in the OT, too, from what I remember.

Yes, it is an OT concept which was used to describe whoever was left standing after the disaster. Several of the prophets used the idea in one way or another. There is also the NT idea that not everyone who is a biological descendent of Abraham is a true child of Abraham, and the idea that not everyone who says ‘lord, lord’ is part of the kingdom, and the issue of ‘whoever endures to the end’-ideas like this that seem to clearly say ‘not everybody’ fall within the general idea of a remnant.

I am not referring to the Anglican concept of various circles of people within the parish, the remnant being the most dedicated. That is a similar idea, I just am not talking about that specifically.

Max talks about the ‘true church’ within the church-that is a remnant idea.

I just mentioned this line of thinking because we have been talking about all vs some vs few on this thread.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Anyway, CS Lewis talks about this a lot in The Great Divorce. It’s a work of the imagination, not a theological treatise, but I find much of it very thought provoking and compelling.

I remember reading once that there are some EO speculations along similar lines regarding Purgatory & Hell.
If you grow out of it, it WAS Purgatory.
If you never grow out of it, it IS Hell.

Question: How do those that believe in the L of TULIP (those that believe they were elected) how do they know that they have been elected? Personally, don’t see assurance of election in any of my bibles. Question for them: Is Jesus going to say they are one of G_ds? Only Jesus knows the answer to their eternity. Seems they want to dictate what G_d must do. My opinion is they have strayed far from our Lord.

Lydia wrote:

(On another note that sort of relates to this because of definitions being wrongly taught– I was a bit taken back to learn that when the terms ‘kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of heaven” are used it is referring to Jesus Christ. Not believers. )

If you (generic you) really think about it, people who mind their p’s and q’s and don’t do the kinds of things to others they wouldn’t want done to themselves, need no king.

Muff Potter wrote:

If you (generic you) really think about it, people who mind their p’s and q’s and don’t do the kinds of things to others they wouldn’t want done to themselves, need no king.

A problem arises when interests are in conflict. For instance the question of a pregnant mom who desperately wants not to be pregnant and the fetus who biologically at least is bent on survival. So if I decide according to ‘what would I want’ then it depends on whether ‘I’ am the pregnant woman or the fetus.

If I say that the right is what I would want, and to hang with the other person, if my only criterion for what the other person wants is that they surely must want what I would want in their circumstance, then I have an ethic according to me and the other person is just out of luck if we disagree.

If we have an ethic based on some third party-God or the law for example-then I cannot deprive the other person merely based on what I would want in their circumstance. But then, of course, I would have subjected myself to something outside myself, like God or the laws of the land.

But the bible says…and a similar statement was in the OT…indeed so. It is a good idea as far as it goes and within the limits of the ethical system in which was said, but when we take the idea and remove it from the context of the totality of scripture then we take it too far.

Wayne wrote:

Question: How do those that believe in the L of TULIP (those that believe they were elected) how do they know that they have been elected? Personally, don’t see assurance of election in any of my bibles.

They’re never sure, and are always searching for Absolute PROOF they really are.
(And just as important, that You’re NOT!)

Once this Absolute PROOF was “material blessings”, AKA getting rich.
Now it’s Perfectly Parsed Theology and Absolutely Correct Doctrine.

@ Muff Potter:

I saw that. Precious.

@ Lydia:

The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man’s.

— Letter from Twain to W.D. Howells, 2 April 1899 —

Janey wrote:

The more I listen to Neo-Calvinists, the more I think they need to take a year off, stop listening to Neo-Cal sermons, and read only the Gospels.

Amen and Amen! It would probably take a year to deprogram their minds from all the reformed mumbo-jumbo they have been feeding on. They just need a good dose of Jesus from Gospel-reading to balance the writings of Paul. The average New Calvinist spends far too much time listening to warped views about what Paul ‘was’ saying, rather than listening to what Jesus ‘is’ saying.

I counsel young reformers in my area, when I get the opportunity: If you read Paul first (his epistles), you might read Jesus wrong … but if you read Jesus first (the Gospels), the writings of Paul will come into perspective. Get alone with a New Testament for a while, read the red, and pray for power to overcome New Calvinist indoctrination. Don’t rely on New Calvinist preachers/teachers – they ain’t going to tell you about Jesus! Don’t wait until Judgment Day to encounter Jesus.

Burwell wrote:

Except, as I understand it, parallel worlds/the multiverse can and do coexist simultaneously.

In my opinion, Stephen King is probably the most convincing fiction writer in the parallel worlds genre. In his 7 volume Gunslinger saga, the characters traverse both worlds with the ease that each of us tile and book mark our ways into and out of TWW.

cindy blandin wrote:

Those who believe they are “saved” without any action upon their part either now or in the future seem to me more likely to sin with reckless abandonment because they believe they can never out-sin their special election.

Spoiled Aristocrats, Born Entitled before they were even born.