A Pedophile Scandal Implodes Iceland’s Government

When it became known that the father of Iceland's Prime Minister wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of his pedophile friend to have his 'honor restored', this island country was rocked to its core, resulting in a government implosion.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=16960&picture=iceland-flagIceland Flag Waving

Something unprecedented just happened in Iceland. Last week a pedophile scandal rocked the small island occupied by just over 332,500 inhabitants. To put it in perspective, the city where Dee and I live (Raleigh, North Carolina) had just over 451,000 residents in 2015.

Here is the shocking background information from a recent Washington Post article (see screen shot below).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/16/how-a-convicted-pedophile-brought-down-icelands-government/?utm_term=.13144f5076a0

Prime Minister Bjarni Benediktsson (pictured below) was appointed by the President of Iceland according to Section II, Article 17 of the country's constitution. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet of Iceland. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Iceland#/media/File:Bjarni_Benediktsson_vid_Nordiska_Radets_session_i_Stockholm.jpgFor the last 77 years or so, Iceland has had what is called a 'Restored Honor Law". To understand how this became the law of the land, this is what a reporter from the Schintzel Republic discovered:

What Icelandic people say is that around the late 1930s…..folks were talking about the problem of folks who'd been convicted of crimes and were no longer allowed to vote.  The general public felt that once a guy had served his time in prison….he ought to get his ability to vote back.

The population in Iceland in this period?  Around 120,000 residents.  It's not a lot.  No one ever says how many were affected by the jail-and-vote situation.  One might take a guess that we are talking about dozens…..not hundreds.

So in 1940, this law was crafted with the intended purpose of just giving you your vote back.

Part of this crafting led to the reputation being restored, and you'd have the chance to hold a public position (like mayor).

Clearing your record?  No….it won't do anything with the crime you committed.

To get 'restored honor'?  You fill out a form and identify our past crime.  No one says much over how much information is required.  I doubt if it's more than four pages max.  Then there's the matter of the three letters of recommendation.  Character references….would be an appropriate translation. You find three folks who have some upstanding situation in the community and they will vouch for your character.  Then the whole thing is packaged up and sent to the Justice Ministry.  They review and make a decision.  Once passed by them….it goes to the Icelandic President, and he signs.  It's finished then….you have 'restored honor'.

Getting back to the matter at hand, the Prime Minister's father signed a letter of recommendation for his friend Hjalti Sigurjon Hauksson to have his 'honor restored'. As the information above indicates, Hauksson and another convicted pedophile received full pardons because of this 'restored honor law'.

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune,

Those decisions "rattled Icelandic society," according to Iceland Magazine. As a reporter explains: "public and media have spent much of summer discussing the two cases and the horrifying world of violence and abuse they revealed."

Soon after, one of Downey's victims launched a campaign urging the government to release the letters of support for Downey and Hauksson. But the Justice Ministry refused to respond to questions on the subject.

This week, a parliamentary committee ruled that the administration was violating freedom of information laws by keeping the names a secret. So the letters were released to the news media. Even more damning: On Thursday, Iceland's justice minister, Sigridur Andersen, told television news reporters he had informed the prime minister of his father's involvement back in June. She said she told no one else.

That disclosure, which smacked of a coverup, sent shock waves through Iceland's political class and threatened the fragile three-party coalition that put Benediktsson in power last year.

The Chicago Tribune article provided the following details regarding Benediktsson's rise to power"

To secure a majority, his Independence Party joined forces with the centrists and the Bright Future coalition, squeaking in with a razor-thin majority of 32 out of 63 seats. On Friday, Bright Future voted unanimously to leave the government. The letter "was the straw that broke the camel's back," a Bright Future insider told Reuters. "This is not in our spirit, and everybody agreed this was the end of it. It came as a complete surprise. It was something we couldn't have continued with, this is something completely opposed to our principles. The corruption and dishonesty are just incredible."

Apparently, this isn't the Prime Minister's first controversy. It has been reported that P.M. Benediktsson and his father have connections to offshore tax havens and a controversial sale of state assets. 

Since the scandal broke, Benediktsson's father has issued a formal apology for signing a letter supporting his old friend.  According to the BBC (as stated in the Tribute piece), the Prime Minister's father had this to say:

"I have never considered the restored honor as anything except a legal procedure making it possible for convicted criminals to regain some civil rights. I did not think of it as something that would justify Hjalti's position toward his victim. I told Hjalti to face his action and to repent."

Hauksson's victim (his stepdaughter) described the ordeal as surreal. During interviews with various Icelandic media outlets, she has revealed that her stepfather (Hauksson) continues to harass her and has even approached her 6-year-old daughter while she was on a school field trip. Believe it or not, Hauksson (the convicted pedophile) was working as a bus driver at the time!

The New York Times has also covered this unprededented occurrence in Iceland, as has the Associated Press.

So why are the Deebs reporting on this unbelievable situation?

We find it absolutely incredible that Iceland, which prides itself in being a SECULARIST country, appears to care more about the problem of pedophilia than some evangelical leaders in the United States. Take Steven Furtick, for example. Two years ago Dee wrote a post about Furtick's friend Norm Vigue, who served four years in Federal prison and is on the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry for having child pornography on his computer. You can read the details in this court document. Steven Furtick held Vigue up as one of his heroes. Apparently, Vigue is a changed man and a professing Christian. While we hope this is the case, he is still listed on our state's Sex Offender Registry.

If you've been reading here for any length of time, you know that there are quite a few other Christian leaders who appear to turn a blind eye to pedophilia. So often they minister to sex offenders and re-victimize those who have been violated. A lack of empathy and the withholding of counseling are just two of the ways these victims are hurt by 'so-called' Christian pastors / leaders.

Good for Iceland for having the guts to shut down its government when it was discovered the Prime Minister's father vouched for his pedophile friend, who had almost daily committed heinous sex acts against his young stepdaughter for 12 years! Our evangelical leaders have much to learn from this tiny country where Christians are few and far between.

Comments

A Pedophile Scandal Implodes Iceland’s Government — 125 Comments

  1. On a more serious note, the way CJ Mahaney is treated by many in the church is an absolute disgrace. Quite apart from his authoritarianism and bullying, he presided over a network of churches where child molestation seemed more prevalent than most. The offences were covered up, and victims frequently blamed. Yet Mahaney gets welcomed and praised by some of the most prominent church leaders in the US. Totally shameful. Sadly, as you say, the secular world takes abuse far more seriously than the church does.

    But here’s a thought. Outside of the old boys network of pastors, I reckon most people in the pew are deeply upset by all this, but only a small number are willing to speak out. The rest are scared of the consequences if they dare to rock the boat. The 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation is imminent, and I’m sure a reformation of attitudes and culture in the church is needed today.

  2. The trouble with everyone here is that you’re all looking for the perfect country.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect country, don’t join it because you’ll spoil it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  3. What would happen if pew peons protested and revolted like the people of Iceland did???

  4. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    What would happen if pew peons protested and revolted like the people of Iceland did???

    Then the abusers who’ve anointed themselves as leaders would fade away and skulk off, never to return or hurt fellowships again. Any tyrant ultimately leads only by deceit and misdirection, setting people against one another, preventing people from organizing opposition, and terrorizing them into silence. But if the majority ever stood up and refused to take it, the abusers would fold like cheap lawn chairs. If the people of North Korea ever decided “Enough!”, no amount of bullets could stop millions of people and the dictator’s soldiers, many of whom are paralyzed with fear themselves, would quickly lay down their weapons and that strange, psychotic little tyrant would be torn to shreds.

  5. Can someone explain to me what Arnold means?Is he being judgemental,funny or is this some joke I don’t get.I know this sounds dumb but I really don’t get it.

  6. Mandavilla wrote:

    Can someone explain to me what Arnold means?Is he being judgemental,funny or is this some joke I don’t get.I know this sounds dumb but I really don’t get it.

    You’re not dumb. Various characters show up with Nick’s avatar. Arnold (to me) represents the commenters who show up here from time to time and dismiss TWW with some variation of Arnold’s “perfect church” christianese cliche.

  7. @ Mandavilla:

    The universal (and I mean universal) comment I get from Christians attending a local denominational subgroup (or “a church” as it’s known, to distinguish it from all the other bodies of Christ in the area) follows the assumption that I’m “looking for the perfect church”. It is usually followed by someone parroting the quote: If you ever find the perfect church, don’t join because you’ll spoil it.

    What’s really remarkable is not just how often I hear this clapped-out old cliché, but the extent to which everyone who uses it does so as if they were saying something pricelessly clever and original.

    I’m sure Mr Smartarse would be at home in those circles. It’s purely coincidence that his avatar fotie resembles mine.

  8. Law Prof wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
    What would happen if pew peons protested and revolted like the people of Iceland did???
    Then the abusers who’ve anointed themselves as leaders would fade away and skulk off, never to return or hurt fellowships again. Any tyrant ultimately leads only by deceit and misdirection, setting people against one another, preventing people from organizing opposition, and terrorizing them into silence. But if the majority ever stood up and refused to take it, the abusers would fold like cheap lawn chairs.

    It’s true! When our church “pushed back” on our former YRR Neo-Cal pastor, he packed up his toys and left–without even the courtesy of a two-weeks’ notice! He was a liar and we called him out on it. When he realized he couldn’t control the church through deceit and under-handedness, he left to find easier pickin’s. Congregationalism works, folks! Don’t let your pastor take it away!

  9. Gram3 wrote:

    Various characters show up with Nick’s avatar.

    My avatar is a heavy responsibility.

    I think Arnold can be whatever you want him to be! But the reason he always says exactly the same thing is a Douglas-Adams-esque response to the endless times I hear the same thing. (A lot of the absurdities in Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy were Adams taking a pot-shot at some personality type, or situation, he’d encountered in real life. He did it rather better, if the truth be told.)

  10. I fear these government level scandals are more common than we know. Look up the “Casa Pia scandal” from Portugal for a a horrifying example. Thankfully Icelandic officials handled it better than the Portuguese officials. The Casa Pia abuse went on for decades before it was publicized.

  11. ian wrote:

    Outside of the old boys network of pastors, I reckon most people in the pew are deeply upset by all this, but only a small number are willing to speak out.

    I wonder how many people actually know what’s going on, unless it happens to them. I think some things are like this…I read that story from the Masters seminary (I think) about a girl who was raped and how the entire school basically conspired to lie about the circumstances. She is frozen out, so people can’t really even hear her story. I know I had NO idea about all of this until I started reading these sites and if I asked, I would have assumed churches would handle these things correctly.

    This Iceland story is totally crazy though. I think the ‘restored honor’ name is what seems to convey approval on these criminals.

  12. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    It really is remarkable how often you hear that cliche. It reminds me of the Search for Excellence story about the company slogan, “We’re No Worse Than Anyone Else…” Like all churches are supposed to settle for mediocrity. It’s a slap-down response to my ears.

    I had a friend in the last church justify all of the infighting and competition present there by saying that the church is supposed to be filled with conflict and strife so those who “are approved” will be evident to all. I guess he meant that the winners in the battle get the spoils.

    I certainly wish our former congregation would have stood up to the bad leaders. Now it’s too late for them. But for us, the conflicts opened our eyes to what was really being taught, and we are better off for that.

    As to the cover-ups, yeah. It would be nice if the evangelicals reacted in a similar fashion to what is obviously a huge problem in their churches. But hey, at least they are not like those nasty catholics… Yeah, right…

  13. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    follows the assumption that I’m “looking for the perfect church”.

    At this point, I think the real question is if a church is *safe*.

  14. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It’s purely coincidence that his avatar fotie resembles mine.

    Yeah, sometimes even God bears a striking resemblance to your avatar!

  15. Slightly off-topic, but can someone refresh my mind on the resources that lay out the neo-Calv takeover strategy? Online articles are fine, someone also mentioned a book at one point?

  16. Refugee wrote:

    Vogon poetry, anyone?

    O freddled gruntbuggly!
    Thy micturitions are to me
    As plurgled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee!

    Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes;
    And hooptiously drangle me with cringled brindlewurdles;
    Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
    See if I don’t!

    Sadly, I did that from memory… from 37 years ago…! Hitchhiker was huge when I was at school.


  17. Vogon poetry is, of course, the third worst in the universe.

    The second worst is that of the Azgoths of Kria. During a recitation by their poet master Grunthos the Flatulent, of his poem Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning, four of the recipients died of internal haemorrhaging; while the president of the Mid-Galactic Arts-Knobbling Council survived by gnawing one of his own legs off.

    Grunthos is said to have been “disappointed’ by the poem’s reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his twelve-volume epic, My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles, when his own major intestine – in a desperate attempt to preserve life and civilisation – leapt straight through his neck and throttled his brain.

    The very worst poetry of all perished along with its creator, Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings, of Greenbridge, Essex, in the destruction of planet Earth.

  18. Completely off-topic; perhaps even more so than were the The HitchHiker’s Guide to the Galaxy references: I’m just returning hame fae a job interview, for a job I’d really like to be offered. And the train’s stationary at a signal on a part of the line where we should be doing 100mph; no idea what’s going on here.

  19. ian wrote:

    The 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation is imminent, and I’m sure a reformation of attitudes and culture in the church is needed today.

    And it’s high time too. Protestantism cannot remain stuck in the 16th century much longer. If it does, the hemorrhage of its adherents leaving will only worsen.

  20. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    What would happen if pew peons protested and revolted like the people of Iceland did???

    I think the answer(s) is(are) obvious. To me, the question is: why haven’t they?

  21. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Completely off-topic; perhaps even more so than were the The HitchHiker’s Guide to the Galaxy references: I’m just returning hame fae a job interview, for a job I’d really like to be offered. And the train’s stationary at a signal on a part of the line where we should be doing 100mph; no idea what’s going on here.

    Probably because Planet X (Nibiru) is closing in on the earth–just as predicted! 😉

  22. @ GreekEpigraph:

    Perhaps we need to revisit this topic. Here are several articles by Dr. Roger Olson, who teaches theology at George W. Truett Seminary (Baylor) to get you going. Olson also wrote a book entitled Against Calvinism.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/07/beware-of-stealth-calvinism/

    http://evangelicalarminians.org/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/

    https://baptistnews.com/article/a-lone-arminian-voice-crying-in-the-calvinist-wilderness/#.WcFcuIprwUs

  23. You’ll recall my failed attempts yesterday to install JUnit on the Mac. So, I just posted some stuff on the intranet channel for the skills academy I’m part of, and a friend pointed out that my problems all stemmed from a typo.

    It’s a bit of a numpty error, too – I had no option but to kick myself. Wartburgers will undoubtedly spot the errant dollar-sign immediately:

    export CLASSPATH=”$CLASSPATH:$JUNIT_HOME/junit-4.12.jar:$/JUNIT_HOME/hamcrest-core-1.3.jar:.”

    🙁

  24. Indeed, errant dollar-signs are very much a feature of the “christian” trends dissected by Deebs.

  25. Oh, and one final thing before I sign off (need an early night, and it’s 9:40 here in the Land of the Mountain and the Flood) – properly speaking, it’s Deebs and not the Deebs. Here in the UK, “Debs” is short for Deborah, “Dee and Debs” = “Deebs”. I’m not really sure what a Deeb is.

    IHTIH

  26. When I was in college, there was a group of girls called “the Dweebs.” Why? Because they were dweeby, as in goofy, silly, nutty… So calling our hosts the “Deebs” is nostalgic for me.

    And I’ve personally enjoyed Arnold’s frequent reminders, knowing it’s a parody of standard Christianeze pat answers that are designed to shut down any critical thinking.

  27. readingalong wrote:

    Wheaton’s star football players

    Sick. Felons.
    Their victim has permanent physical injury. Christ-centered school? Fortunately, the victim’s grandparents and parents came to his immediate rescue, and he left this sham of a “Christ-centered” program.
    Unreal.

  28. From the post:
    “Christian leaders who appear to turn a blind eye to pedophilia, …, Our evangelical leaders have much to learn from this tiny country where Christians are few and far between.”

    To step up into leadership in the church, means leaving moral conscience and responsibility behind?

  29. Spartacus wrote:

    I think the answer(s) is(are) obvious. To me, the question is: why haven’t they?

    Why don’t they? In my opinion?
    Because so long as the potlucks and other social functions continue as usual, they don’t really give a rat’s rip who’s in the pulpit or how much they cover up for their underlings in the leadership cadre.
    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it this way:

    “You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power – he’s free again.”

  30. Spartacus wrote:

    the question is: why haven’t they?

    Todd Wilhelm (thou art the man) did up and leave. He voted with his feet, taking his participation, donation, and spiritual gifts elsewhere.

    Todd has a recent tweet on a Guardian 2015 article about Hillsong:

    “Brian Houston, the founder of the Hillsong Church, failed to alert the police about allegations his father had sexually assaulted children, …”

  31. Muff Potter wrote:

    he’s free again

    Or, when a person is solely dependent on God, that, too is freedom.

    Possibly only a remnant, however, get there.

    The majority may be bunched arm-in-arm in a crowd, sinking in the shifting sands, together.

    What is that parable about the virgins who lit their lamps and were ready for the Bridegroom? What was the percentage, the remnant?

  32. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Wartburgers will undoubtedly spot the errant dollar-sign immediately:

    export CLASSPATH=”$CLASSPATH:$JUNIT_HOME/junit-4.12.jar:$/JUNIT_HOME/hamcrest-core-1.3.jar:.”

    Was that Satin trying to COBOLLIX up your work?

  33. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    And I’ve personally enjoyed Arnold’s frequent reminders, knowing it’s a parody of standard Christianeze pat answers that are designed to shut down any critical thinking.

    I’ve been monitoring the response to Arnold Smartarse (“smartarse” being UK english for “smartass”, just in case that’s not clear). A joke’s a joke, but just because I think it should be funny, that doesn’t obligate anybody else to find it funny.

    I hoped the parody name would make it obvious enough, but again, there may be a failure in translation. The name “Arnold”, while not unheard-of in the UK, is pretty rare, and it’s used as a generic person whose initial is “A”. Hence, “Arnold Wartburger”, by implication “A. Wartburger”, would be used as a name for a random generic Wartburger. Hence, Arnold Smartarse is just a character who’s a smartarse.

  34. Gram3 wrote:

    Was that Satin trying to COBOLLIX up your work?

    Nope – cannae blame Santa for that one.

    Obviously, I gave the hamcrest-core class path as being in the folder named /JUNIT_HOME instead of JUNIT_HOME – the significance of the dollar-sign being before the forward-slash. So, bash_profile sent the shell looking for a folder that didn’t exist when I tried to run a junit test.

    Whenever you get a compile or (in this case) runtime error saying that it some object can’t be found or otherwise doesn’t exist, when you know it does exist, the first thing you should do is check your spelling…

  35. JYJames wrote:

    To step up into leadership in the church, means leaving moral conscience and responsibility behind?

    It all depends on the tiny, but huge, bait-and-switch on the word “church”, doesn’t it?

    Marq Driskle claims God called him to preach Christ, train leaders and teach men. What he actually did was preach doctrine, and train/teach subordinates for himself.

  36. Steve Scott wrote:

    Whenever I’m accused of being a smartarse I always reply, “Well, at least I’m not a dumbarse.”

    I can’t comment on that; it wouldn’t be good time-management.

  37. Zla’od wrote:

    Just a heads-up in case you haven’t seen the Wheaton College sexual assault (and administration cover-up) story:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/09/19/five-christian-athletes-face-felony-charges-after-allegedly-sodomizing-student

    I have been reading about this. It is revolting. I’m also wondering when then assault was reported to the police? Why are we hearing about it a year later? It seems quite possible that Wheaton suppressed the story and convinced the victim to keep quiet as long as they could.

    I definitely feel that a college student (male or female) would be much safer on a secular college campus than on a Christian one at this point in time. At least many secular colleges are waking up to the reality that these actions are reprehensible and people who commit them should be prosecuted under the law. Pen State is certainly finding out. The current Administration’s desire to change the rules at schools concerning this subject is very troubling to me though.

  38. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    dollar-sign being before the forward-slash

    That one was my SWAG, but only because that one looked the weirdest if they were strings. Obviously, I have no idea in God’s universe what you said meant or what that expression meant. Vac tubes totally blown.

  39. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Marq Driskle claims God called him to preach Christ, train leaders and teach men. What he actually did was preach doctrine, and train/teach subordinates for himself

    Doctrine(TM) that personally benefited himself.

  40. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Marq Driskle claims God called him to preach Christ, train leaders and teach men. What he actually did was preach doctrine, and train/teach subordinates for himself.

    I’ve heard a lot of talk lately about the importance of doctrine at the church where some members of my family attend.

    At the risk of being OT, what is the benefit in preaching doctrine? What is the detriment? (Guess I’m saying I’m looking for the pros and cons.)

    More and more, my brain is tying doctrine to authority. Or perceived authority. Or assumed authority. Or something like that.

    But I suppose without it, “every man would do what was right in his own sight” to paraphrase something from the book of Judges. And I am reminded that all of Paul’s epistles seem to be structured in a way that the first half of each lays out doctrine and the second half goes into practical application. So Paul himself addressed doctrine at length.

    So why should I feel so uneasy every time I hear the importance of preaching doctrine emphasized from the guy speaking in the front of the room?

  41. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The name “Arnold”, while not unheard-of in the UK, is pretty rare, and it’s used as a generic person whose initial is “A”. Hence, “Arnold Wartburger”, by implication “A. Wartburger”, would be used as a name for a random generic Wartburger.

    I knew what you were doing but I did not know this piece.

    I think Arnold in the US is most often associated with The Terminator 🙂

  42. Here in Seattle, our (openly gay, very liberal) mayor (F
    resigned (finally!) after FIVE accusations of child molestation surfaced (the fifth one being from his OWN COUSIN!). The link below is several emails the mayor received over the past several months from other city officials telling him what a good guy he was, and to not listen to those nasty accusers. That these “false accusations” were somehow politically motivated. An implosion and outrage and believing the victim would have been much better!
    http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/09/19/25421815/emails-show-how-city-employees-responded-to-ed-murrays-sex-abuse-allegations

  43. refugee wrote:

    So why should I feel so uneasy every time I hear the importance of preaching doctrine emphasized from the guy speaking in the front of the room?

    Probably because they ignore everything else? What good is doctrine without love? I think that’s in the bible somewhere…

  44. refugee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’ve heard a lot of talk lately about the importance of doctrine at the church where some members of my family attend.

    At the risk of being OT, what is the benefit in preaching doctrine? What is the detriment? (Guess I’m saying I’m looking for the pros and cons.)

    More and more, my brain is tying doctrine to authority. Or perceived authority. Or assumed authority. Or something like that.

    Doctrine is tied to authority! God’s Self-Revelation is authoritative (as opposed to man’s).
    Dogma necessarily leads to doxa! Dogma is truth about God, doctrine, etc. Doxa is praise or worship of God.

    Today, we have a prevalence of imperatives rather than indicatives posing as a sermon. Imperatives are commands (Law, good christian stewards, good christian spouses, love more, give more, etc.). A new generation can look ‘relevant’ by coming up with new imperatives for a new social context. Then go on tour, sell student manuals, teacher manuals, platinum memberships, etc. It’s all do-do published in glitzy technobabble.
    Indicatives tell us Who God is. They indicate His Character and what He has already accomplished. So, we don’t do (imperative) the Gospel; the Gospel has already been accomplished for us (good news has already happened). Doctrine concerns Who God is, and what He has already done for us. We must know Him and what He has done in Christ for us. This is the foundation of our faith! We must know Whom we have believed in, and are persuaded that He is able…
    What’s the benefit in preaching doctrine you ask. One cannot have faith without knowing Who we believe in, and on what basis we have new life. Faith comes by hearing the indicatives.
    What is the detriment you ask. We end up with having faith in faith, or faith in a god of our own choosing. Doxa is a response to God’s Self-revelation. Since dogma necessarily leads to doxa, our praise and worship will not be acceptable unto the LORD (could be acceptable to the masses, though)IF it is not in response to what God has said. This is seen in the false prophets who bring a word that is not from the LORD.
    The Psalms typically follow this triune pattern: God’s triumphs despite His people’s unfaithfulness; leading to praise for His Name; finally, the response of trust and obey. All too often today where praise choruses are lifted from the Psalms, it’s a snippet and taken from the second or third section. Instead of starting with God and His mighty acts, we start with our response: “I will praise you,” “I love you, LORD,” “I will serve you,” “I bow down and worship you,” etc. This means we are encouraging faith in faith, confidence in our own experience and praise, rather than faith in Christ as the amen to God’s promises. In other words, we jump to works (the Law) without the context of what God has done (His mercy,the Gospel). Rehearsing God’s deeds takes a back seat to expressing our zeal and commitment. This is to have the Law without the Gospel, lifting the reasonable service (of our response) out of its native habitat in the story of redemption – the Good News.

  45. refugee wrote:

    So why should I feel so uneasy every time I hear the importance of preaching doctrine emphasized from the guy speaking in the front of the room

    To me, preaching “Reformed Doctrine” or “Catholic Doctrine” or “Any Particular Doctrine,” is not the same as teaching Christian doctrine as Paul taught and, more importantly, is not the same as the teaching of Jesus. Current leaders in the Christian faith seem to want words coming from their mouths to be equal to scripture and more important than the Holy Spirit’s work in a person. They are claiming authority that is not theirs to claim.

  46. refugee wrote:

    So why should I feel so uneasy every time I hear the importance of preaching doctrine emphasized from the guy speaking in the front of the room?

    You should feel uneasy. That is healthy!
    Doctrine:

    a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

    As adults, our beliefs should never come from one human source who claims truth.

    Everything should be weighed and tested as we seek truth.

    When Jesus said be perfect like your heavenly father is perfect, the word “perfect” is best translated as mature/ completed. No one can make us mature but ourselves as we seek truth. That is a journey.

  47. Lydia wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Even on secular campuses it is best to call the real police.

    Exactly! I wasn’t implying anything else.

    At this point, I find secular institutions more willing to get police involved than religious institutions.

  48. I may be wrong but it seems to me that trained 3rd party independent authority IE law enforcement should be contacted for the protection of all involved. One thing that should not happen is that any “alleged” perpetrator and victim should never be in the same room other than a court room. The victim should never have to apologize to anyone, they should not have to repent, go into arbitration, or into any mediation lead by a pastor/elder etc.

  49. Lydia wrote:

    refugee wrote:
    So why should I feel so uneasy every time I hear the importance of preaching doctrine emphasized from the guy speaking in the front of the room?

    You should feel uneasy. That is healthy!

    Doctrine:
    a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

    Though in the above (Lydia’s) context, more like…

    Doctrine:
    EES PARTY LINE, COMRADES!

  50. Lea wrote:

    I think Arnold in the US is most often associated with The Terminator

    No, that’s “AHNOLD”.

  51. brian wrote:

    they should not have to repent, go into arbitration, or into any mediation lead by a pastor/elder etc.

    Add to this –

    Teacher, coach, or school official.

  52. @ TEDSgrad:

    ” Since dogma necessarily leads to doxa, our praise and worship will not be acceptable unto the LORD (could be acceptable to the masses, though)IF it is not in response to what God has said. This is seen in the false prophets who bring a word that is not from the LORD.
    The Psalms typically follow this triune pattern: God’s triumphs despite His people’s unfaithfulness; leading to praise for His Name; finally, the response of trust and obey.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm… so formulaic. it’s a nice formula. but i can’t imagine God requires these formulas. i can’t believe that God would be anything but ‘heartwarmed’ by any expression to him of joy and love and appreciation and devotion, no matter how structured, unstructured, eloquent, simple.

    what you describe seems to me like faith in a formula.

  53. @ refugee:

    “But I suppose without it [doctrine], “every man would do what was right in his own sight” to paraphrase something from the book of Judges.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i can’t help but think of my friends and neighbors who are agnostic and 100% irreligious. they are all excellent human beings. they do right according to their common sense-infused conscience. their integrity & values match those of the the most sincere christian.

    no doctrine required.

    i get the feeling that all these doctrine purveyors truly believe everyone but them is a total moron — incapable of knowing and understanding anything. well, it gives them (doctrine purveyors) something to do. job security. they’re delusional, and/or easily taken in by those who have trained them to believe such things.

    and i get the feeling that many christians have very little self-confidence. They seem to believe they are the total morons the doctrine purveyors project onto them. well, for starters they believe to some degree that God frowns on self-confidence, and that their God-given common sense and conscience are something to be scared of.

    doctrine….. sermon-giving purveyors of doctrine…. truth: in the last 20 or so years i haven’t heard one sermon that wasn’t utterly forgettable, an assemblage of tired out ideas warmed over, irrelevant, full of propaganda, devoid of inspiration. or simply nothing but noise.

    i really don’t think God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is/are all that complicated. I get to know “them” in the doing and living of life — not in the listening to a man with a mic jabber.

  54. @ TEDSgrad:
    You have some good ideas, but my old eyes need some breaks. Pretty please. I will disagree that dogma leads to doxa unless dogma and doxa are strictly defined. Because, in my personal experience, dogma very nearly strangled the doxa out of me because that dogma was focused on a false god. And it took a lot of time away from that false dogma and, frankly, out in God’s own creation to recapture the doxa.

    And if you want to get even weirder, it has been through personal physical pain and the personal physical pain and emotional pain of others and the way that the peace of the Lord has sustained us as a Body has brought the doxa much, much more than any dogma, and certainly not the dogma of our most recent former church and, frankly many of our former churches who have since gone over to the Calvinista dark side. I say that with much sorrow, since I have many friends and many great memories and connections with some *conservative* seminaries, including TEDS.

    The Gospel Glitterati phenomenon is a parasitic blight that is consuming the health of the church, and more dogma is not the answer unless you mean teaching the truth by exposing the error. I hope that is what you mean, but unfortunately, the Trustees in the SBC have served the interests of political Calvinistaism. That makes it nearly impossible to go against the Machine. I’m an inerrantist, old school Southern Baptist. These men talk a lot about what the Bible says, but I found out that they mean that the Bible says what they say it says. That is Vatican dogma, not Baptist belief. But that is today’s SBC as it has been “reformed.”

  55. elastigirl wrote:

    @ TEDSgrad:

    ” Since dogma necessarily leads to doxa, our praise and worship will not be acceptable unto the LORD (could be acceptable to the masses, though)IF it is not in response to what God has said. This is seen in the false prophets who bring a word that is not from the LORD.
    The Psalms typically follow this triune pattern: God’s triumphs despite His people’s unfaithfulness; leading to praise for His Name; finally, the response of trust and obey.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm… so formulaic. it’s a nice formula. but i can’t imagine God requires these formulas. i can’t believe that God would be anything but ‘heartwarmed’ by any expression to him of joy and love and appreciation and devotion, no matter how structured, unstructured, eloquent, simple.

    what you describe seems to me like faith in a formula.

    Hi Elastigirl,
    No man/woman comes unto the Father but by Me – sounds formulaic, doesn’t it.
    If you love me, keep my commandments (3X to Peter)- sounds so doctrinal, doesn’t it, that love is defined by commandment keeping.
    Who is God to command our response or approach? Can’t we determine how we…..

    Psalms are poems which are artfully structured, and eloquent speech. There is much to be learned by their study. Over two thirds of the Bible is poetry or prose – a very artful, structured form of communication.

    “I can’t believe that God would be anything but heartwarmed by any expression to him…” – sounds anthropomorphic to me. He has declared what is acceptable to Him. Both the offerer and the offering have to be acceptable unto Him – He sets the terms.
    Can’t we just have good intentions of love? Why the cross, then?

    Truth, for the NT writers, was not something so much to be perceived, but was something to be accepted/received in the Person of Jesus Christ. So it is not just the theologians in their ivory towers that have access or the intelligence to grasp truth. They might fail to receive/accept Him, as did the Pharisees. If you receive Christ, you have no need of anyone to instruct you – John’s epistles. But John did write to them to instruct them! We all need instruction – I am so glad for my parents.

  56. Gram3 wrote:

    Hi Gram3,
    Yes, dogma and doxa are defined biblical terms.
    I knew that self-identifying would provoke responses – ones which I expected, here.

    My father, as a pastor, was sacrificed by church officials in hopes of avoiding a church split. It split anyway, and my father’s ministry was destroyed along with his family and 4 kids. I was destroyed by a mega church pastor, and church officials who covered up his wrong doing to me in order to keep the money flowing and save reputations. I can tell you of multi-generational church abuse of my family. I can tell you that I have been thrown into poverty. I’ve never married, and now cannot, being in poverty. Female egalitarianism stops when they have to support a male spouse (as men have for several millennia); and my pride won’t let them. I was very successful in a Fortune 100 company.
    I am currently un-employed, am a live-in caretaker to my elderly parents as I keep them out of a nursing home. My mother has had Parkinson’s for 25 years, and my 87 yr old father has had two bi-PE’s in the last year. I am not the elitist you pre-judge me to be by my moniker. I am broken and poured out, and alone. I value my TEDS MDiv, greatly – even though you see it as pejorative and add to the abuse in your ignorance.

    It is not my ability to praise, worship, or do service to others (doxa) that sustains me – the works of my hands or the sentiments of my heart. It is in my belief in Who God is: His Essence, His Character, His Being. My confidence is not in my response or how strong my faith is, but in the strength of the object of my faith – Jesus Christ! It is worth everything to know God better – and it has cost me my very life.

    I don’t know much about the SBC or the Calvinistas.

    Long ago, I had to decide if I would ever trust people, again. It is better to trust and be harmed, then to never trust people thereby harming yourself. There are many good learned men and women who are worthy of our trust and confidence. They just might be the broken and poured out ones!

    For His Glory,

  57. @ TEDSgrad:

    the formulaic part i’m referring to is in your requirements for praising God.

    Psalms are more than great. However, I don’t see where we are commanded to adhere to the structured form of communication as in Psalms. I don’t see where God sets any terms whatsoever for what is acceptable praise (beyond sincerity).

    Where are these commandments?

    i’m very taken aback by your legalistic approach.

  58. @ TEDSgrad:

    perhaps Gram3 like myself was simply responding to the content of your comment, not your moniker.

    i’m very sorry for the circumstances you describe.

  59. elastigirl wrote:

    @ TEDSgrad:

    the formulaic part i’m referring to is in your requirements for praising God.

    Psalms are more than great. However, I don’t see where we are commanded to adhere to the structured form of communication as in Psalms. I don’t see where God sets any terms whatsoever for what is acceptable praise (beyond sincerity).

    Where are these commandments?

    i’m very taken aback by your legalistic approach.

    Those who worship, must worship in Spirit and in Truth – those are requirements. One could be sincerely mistaken – no truth. God does set the requirements for approaching Him. I do not. Are you objecting to His legal requirements? Or to my interpretation of His requirements? Or the fact that there are requirements?
    The Levites tied a chord to the High Priest in case God struck him dead – they could pull his body out of the Holy of Holies. Now certainly Christ has rent the veil in two, and we can come boldly before the throne of Grace. But that does not negate the safeguarding of His Holiness – the respect, reverence, and awe.

    In the OT, the worshipper had to be in a ceremonial clean state, and the offering had to be umblemished and the best portion for the worship/offering to be accepted.

    You say that you don’t see where God sets any terms whatsoever for what is acceptable praise – I just don’t understand this statement. No terms for what is acceptable – oxymoron? Doesn’t acceptable mean that there are terms to be met? Confused, here. Then, you are the one who determines the terms – sincerity. How can the worshipper be the one who determines the terms? Isn’t the One worshipped greater than the worshipper? How can the lesser be the one who determines what is acceptable? Aren’t some works burned up in the fire? Some said, LORD, LORD, haven’t we done all this ministry in your name? – Depart from Me, for I never knew you. I think they were taken aback by His legalistic approach, too, to no avail. Can we come to the Wedding Feast without wedding clothes? Can we determine what to wear?

    I am concerned when someone thinks that all is necessary is a heart felt sentiment – the work of our emotions. We attempt to get God on our terms.

    You are correct that we don’t have to adhere to structured forms of communication. But the understanding of the genre is critical to understanding what is being communicated – the poem and it’s meaning content is being conveyed through the structured form and helps to convey that meaning.

    Grace to you,

  60. @ TEDSgrad:

    look, Tedsgrad, i’m just singing a song to God. that is all. a song of my heartfelt appreciation for God.

    how ridiculous to propose the heavy machinery of such a complex conjectured grid over someone’s honest expression.

  61. TEDSgrad wrote:

    Some said, LORD, LORD, haven’t we done all this ministry in your name? – Depart from Me, for I never knew you. I think they were taken aback by His legalistic approach, too, to no avail.

    See I see that as the opposite of ‘legalism’. They did all these things, but their hearts were wrong. They followed your formulas, but it didn’t matter.

    Then later we hear that you can do all the right things, say all the right things, but if you don’t have love it counts for nothing.

    What do formulas matter? It is the heart that counts.

  62. @ elastigirl:
    Well, dumb old me had to look doxa up. I couldn’t quite place how he was using it. Here is one thing I found

    Doxa (ancient Greek δόξα; from verb δοκεῖν dokein, “to appear”, “to seem”, “to think” and “to accept”[1]) is a Greek word meaning common belief or popular opinion. Used by the Greek rhetoricians as a tool for the formation of argument by using common opinions, the doxa was often manipulated by sophists to persuade the people, leading to Plato’s condemnation of Athenian democracy.

  63. @ Gram3:
    Thank you! Especially the part about getting away to see more clearly. Same here.

    (At least you knew what was meant by doxa!)

  64. @ TEDSgrad:
    Frankly, I view the work of your hands now as you care for your parents as a form of worship. It is mercy living and nothing can compare to its nobility.

    I can totally understand your mega church experience. I have seen it many times. Most churches big and small are businesses in many respects. I consider my exit from such a spiritual life saving event.

  65. @ TEDSgrad:
    I am a bit confused. The reverence and awe you insist upon was not required from Jesus Christ. He calls us friends. Family, even.

    And while the Jews had the holy of holy’s, it served it’s purpose after being enslaved but eventually ended up where such formulations always end up. A rote exercise.

    And the worship in “spirit and truth” was actually a dig on the Temple system and pointing her to Christ.

    We reverence our Lord daily when we seek truth, tell truth, do what is right, etc. if that is not so then Metanoia would not to be a requirement of salvation. And it is. Not in a legalistic way at all but a journey of maturity in wisdom as His temples.

  66. TEDSgrad wrote:

    I knew that self-identifying would provoke responses – ones which I expected, here.

    But, you see, you don’t actually know that you received a negative response from me because I said I had difficulty understanding what you meant due to my own weakness (brain being functionally broken along with some other things) and the words doxa and dogma being undefined in this immediate context. Yes, I do understand that they have definitions, but I also know that definitions of established words and methodologies have been covertly changed by the Calvinistas, and I am not accusing you of doing that but only pointing out that it is a live issue, as we discuss here frequently. The Calvinistas, regrettably, have infiltrated the EVFrees, and how long did Grudem teach ESS at TEDS while no one objected? A lovely and brilliant young woman who was a M.Div. graduate from TEDS gave me Grudem’s ST way back when. Interesting reading.

    The strength of TWW community is that there is a very wide range of ideas represented along with a spectrum of experience. ISTM that you have a valuable contribution to make here because it certainly sounds like you have been chewed up by the churchy system that has not represented the Risen Savior well, to say the very least.

    I humbly suggest that we had a combox misunderstanding. The WW commenters know that Gram3 has — moments — but I do try to work toward understanding.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    @ TEDSgrad:
    I am a bit confused. The reverence and awe you insist upon was not required from Jesus Christ. He calls us friends. Family, even.

    And while the Jews had the holy of holy’s, it served it’s purpose after being enslaved but eventually ended up where such formulations always end up. A rote exercise.

    And the worship in “spirit and truth” was actually a dig on the Temple system and pointing her to Christ.

    We reverence our Lord daily when we seek truth, tell truth, do what is right, etc. if that is not so then Metanoia would not to be a requirement of salvation. And it is. Not in a legalistic way at all but a journey of maturity in wisdom as His temples.

    Hi Lydia,
    Be holy, for I am holy! How legalistic is that? Legalism is imposing the Law from without – an imposition with no power to obey. When I desire to be bold and courageous and do all that the LORD has commanded, a new heart (born of the Spirit) desires to perform it. It could easily look like legalism from outward appearances and accusations. The requirements are still there. Previously, there was no power to obey. Now, the Holy Spirit’s empowering Presence gives me the ability to do and desire the Law – as a response, not the means.
    Reverence and awe will be required when He returns and rules with a rod of iron with all tongues confessing that He is LORD. God is worthy (all three persons). Yes, we are children – friends do not inherit, nor do we discipline friends.
    The Mosaic Law, Temple, and sacrificial system was given to Moses as a copy of the heavenly one. The purpose was to reveal Who God is and what He requires – this remains. Then, when Christ came in the flesh, we could understand His revelation and how He fulfills the OT. All scripture is given for instruction. It is not merely a formulation to end up as a rote exercise. I don’t think Christ had a ‘dig’ on the temple system since it was instituted by the Godhead, and He came to reveal the heavenly one and be its cornerstone.
    The Law (legalism) was never meant to be the means of salvation. It was meant to reveal Who He is what God requires of us – God’s holy requirements. God’s presence was already in their midst. The Law was the covenant conditions by which His Presence could be maintained in their midst without God’s Presence breaking out and destroying them. When I say maintained, I don’t mean that we maintain God, but that there are covenant stipulations to be maintained to ensure the relationship/covenant. They presuppose God’s Presence. ‘If you love me, keep my commandments’ are not just the beatitudes, but includes the principles in the Mosaic/ethnic Law, it also presupposes that the love relationship exists. There are requirements for the covenant (which is one covenant but ‘ramped up’).

    I very much agree with you that Truth is important. It is the foundation of Love, but love is greater. The problem with us humans is that Truth is contentious, and it places a requirement upon us.

    Lea said: “What do formulas matter? It is the heart that counts.” I agree that without love, I am just a clanging cymbal. But the human heart cannot offer, it is inherently sinful. It is on the basis of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence that I am accepted. There are stipulations for the maintenance of His Presence. Can you tell that I am not a Calvinist? With His Presence is my life established, there are maintenance requirements. If you love me, keep my commandments. Not as a means of establishing the relationship, but as love’s response because we can only obey out of love and a grateful response born of the Spirit.

    I’ll hang around for a few days. I’m not here to be a thorn in anyone’s side. Maybe I’ll learn something.

  68. Thanks Gram3, I appreciate that comment. Communicating over the internet with people who you may not share the same definitions, loaded meanings, history, etc. is difficult. I will try to improve as well.

    Many here who have been hurt, still have a house and a spouse to go home to, maybe even a career (means of support). I have lost it all. The antidote to bad doctrine is more good doctrine. All I have is my confidence in Who God is and what He has already done in Christ for me – can you tell that I am adamant about this? That is doctrine – the indicatives (things to be believed about God). The responses of faith and worship, while important, are not what I build my confidence on. My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.
    To know God is man’s chief aim. This relationship doesn’t require an MDiv, but I value mine greatly. To counter all the bad doctrine, an MDiv is immensely valuable. We need more people who can reveal Who God is – pressing need.

    Grace to you,

  69. TEDSgrad wrote:

    My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.

    Have you ever heard the filk of that (Eighties or Nineties EOTW “prepper” joke)?

    “My faith is built on nothing less than
    Freeze-Dried Foods and Smith & Wesson…”

  70. @ TEDSgrad:
    I have a bit of a different view of the Mosaic Law that’s probably a bit too lengthy to get into right now. I see it as being necessary after the Egyptian Pagan enslavement to point them to Yahweh but I also see that dissipating throughout the trajectory of the OT. (Mercy over Sacrifice as one example) So, I don’t see the system as a “copy” for the Holy One. The animals were not sacrificed in the Temple but the blood was taken there. In fact, people rarely even mention the scape goat.

    The more I read of Hebrew scholarship the more I question what Christians have been taught about the Old Testament. I think it deserves a revisit.

    The Mosaic Law meant nothing to Gentiles even though the Judaizers wanted it to. So I come from a different perspective. I don’t buy into PSA. Perhaps a teeny tiny bit of PA –but mostly Christus Victor for the cross.

  71. @ TEDSgrad:
    IMO, The anecdote is God wants you strong. Not perfect doctrine. There is no such thing within Christianity as we see from centuries of history because when it’s all said and done —it is a personal relationship we choose to fellowship around.

  72. Lydia,
    Mercy is not over sacrifice. The wages of sin is death. A sacrifice is necessary. Jesus Christ is a propitiation. God was satisfying Himself – His justice demands and His Holiness demands. Then, mercy can be extended because justice has been satisfied. The story of the Atonement is first of all towards God – He Himself is the sacrifice required and the party satisfied. Only then, can mercy be extended on the basis of faith in His atoning sacrifice.
    The primary plot of the atonement is that God is glorifying Himself in Christ Jesus. His great love is on display, publicly placarded on the cross. He is the Lamb upon the throne! Of course by extension, we get redemption. We are not at the center of God’s love. God is. The by-product of this love, is that we are redeemed. It is this great love that breaks the cycles of guilt-shame, guilt-shame. Because of His great love, I live.
    So the sacrificial altar and the mercy seat are fulfilled in Jesus Christ – NOT dissipating. The type gives way to the real, and we come to understand the real through the type (frame of reference). Hallelujah what a Savior!

    Mosaic Law also had the ten commandments. I don’t think that meant nothing to the Gentiles. The principles, not the ethnic stipulations, still have force. You’re right though, this is discussion of much debate as to just what principles come forward into the NT. Jesus encapsulated the Law into just two: love God, love neighbor. This is not an easier stipulation!!!
    God wants his strength shown in my weakness, a stumbling block; and boy am I kicking and screaming. “God wants” is a trigger phrase for me. Usually, doctrinal error follows.
    God is still perfect Truth. Yes, my doctrine will never be perfect. That does not mean that I should not pursue perfect Truth (in the Person of Jesus Christ), or to try to more perfectly reveal Him to others. So the pursuit of Truth and doctrine is a worthy goal. And yes, it is a personal relationship available to all without regard to intellect. Usually intellect is a stumbling block, but not necessarily.

  73. TEDSgrad wrote:

    The antidote to bad doctrine is more good doctrine. All I have is my confidence in Who God is and what He has already done in Christ for me – can you tell that I am adamant about this? That is doctrine – the indicatives (things to be believed about God). The responses of faith and worship, while important, are not what I build my confidence on. My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.
    To know God is man’s chief aim.</blockquotehe
    To that I shout AMEN and HALLELU YAH!

    The problem is that, like the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed the Lord of the Temple, the Gatekeepers who profit from the new temple System oppose every effort to expose their legalism and false doctrines and eisegesis and manipulations of the text. As I've said so many times, they are as inconsistent and imaginative as the Liberals they claim to oppose. For, what is the practical difference between someone who disregards the authority of the text and someone who makes up rules and puts them into it. In either case, the text — the Word of God from a conservative's POV — is violated.

    Yet it seems that one of these is given a pass, and the pass depends *entirely* on the person or the "correctness" a priori of the doctrinal conclusion. In such a closed environment, nothing can ever be challenged, and no error can ever be corrected. They, like their fathers, the Scribes and Pharisees, try to foreclose questioning, as exemplified by their efforts to narrow the membership of ETS. They do not want scholarship! They want capitulation, if we judge by actions. So, the threat to conservative Christianity is not “feminism” or “egalitarianism” or “liberalism” or blurring gender roles, whatever that means. The real threat to conservative Christianity is abandoning what that means, and these men have abandoned everything that conservative Christianity *should* mean in order to fend off these imagined existential threats. They have hijacked it and are playing on the fear of well-intentioned people.

  74. Good post, Gram3! I agree.
    I never experienced any of this at TEDS, but I heard about it going on in the societies. I appreciated the multi-denominational nature of TEDS. None of those correct a priori doctrinal conclusions were allowed to go unchallenged in my classes. To me, it was the strength of my education. Unity was never coerced, but you better be able to make a reasonable case why you would come to the text with that doctrinal presupposition. We always need to be aware of our interpretive lens as we come to the text – and check ourselves against others.
    I feel the same today. As long as someone shows they’ve thought about it and are aware, reasonable people can disagree.
    I feel that I am different from most here, because I still have not given up on organized church (whatever that means). My pain is as great as anyone else. Jesus went to the synagogue as was His custom. He had a stronger critique than I. My one consolation through all my pain, is that I know that I have been a blessing to others – repeatedly! If I withdraw, I wouldn’t even have that. I’m not condemning those who feel they need to withdraw, though. My presence among the frauds is a witness against them.
    Again, Good Post!

  75. TEDSgrad wrote:

    I agree that without love, I am just a clanging cymbal. But the human heart cannot offer, it is inherently sinful.

    I no longer believe that the human heart’s default condition is sin. There was a time when I wouldn’t dare and question this fundamental Christian teaching, that time is past. I now take the Jewish view that it can go either way, preferably to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

    TEDSgrad wrote:

    I’ll hang around for a few days. I’m not here to be a thorn in anyone’s side. Maybe I’ll learn something.

    Welcome to TWW, it’s a safe place for folks of all persuasions and non-persuasions.

  76. Lydia wrote:

    The more I read of Hebrew scholarship the more I question what Christians have been taught about the Old Testament. I think it deserves a revisit.

    Agreed. There’s gotta’ be lenses ground differently than the ones used by Augustine and the Reformers of the 16th century.

  77. TEDSgrad wrote:

    I never experienced any of this at TEDS, but I heard about it going on in the societies. I appreciated the multi-denominational nature of TEDS.

    I believe that was true at one time and may still be true. I have less confidence that it will continue to be true. David Dockery is the President at TEDS now. He used to be at Union University (I know a young man who knew a young woman there), and that means that he was approved by Mohler. That’s just the way things work in the SBC.

    So, while TEDS has the reputation of being trans-denominational or non-denominational, what that actually means is that it is in the Gospel Glitterati orbit, just like the SBC seminaries, Moody, DTS and derivatives, Masters, RTS-Jackson, etc.
    While there are distinctives among these, the truth is, over the past decade or so, there has been a rather astonishing merger and consolidation into the SBC or de facto consolidation around T4g or TgC. They maintain the illusion of diversity of thought, but the reality is an enforced groupthink around certain non-negotiable Authoritarian and supra-Biblical doctrines which they hold in common as a new functional conservative Evangelical Ecumenical Creed, though they would deny it.

    My presence among the frauds is a witness against them.

    Well, that’s kind of how I feel about commenting as someone who’s way out in the right tail of the distribution at TWW. I think someone needs to challenge these guys (and some women) on the way they abuse people and abuse the Bible they claim to hold in esteem. They dismiss “liberals.” It’s not quite so easy to dismiss someone who believes what they claim to believe, who plays by their rules, and who shows them how they do not play by the rules.

    I am thankful that you have the support of a good church. No doubt you are a great blessing to others, and may you continue to be so! I agree with Lydia that your service to your parents is an act of worship to the Lord, and it is laying down your life for a friend. I think the Lord is pleased with the love you show to them, and he treasures the tears you shed. Yes, I know there are tears. You will be rewarded when all things are made New. But until then, I pray that you will experience bits of that while you labor in the Not Yet.

  78. Muff Potter wrote:

    There’s gotta’ be lenses ground differently than the ones used by Augustine

    Augustine is the fount of much error which has been remarkably persistent. When the God construct is Augustinian, it makes the persistence of Augustinian doctrine understandable. Do not make the mistake of pronouncing The Name like the city. Full blown Calvies are not amused. Dispies who are Calvies will forgive you because they are somewhat deficient anyway. 🙂

  79. Muff Potter wrote:

    I no longer believe that the human heart’s default condition is sin. There was a time when I wouldn’t dare and question this fundamental Christian teaching, that time is past. I

    Yep. We are born dying/decaying So I think that figures into the mix along with nurture. It’s a huge topic worth a lot of discussion. If only at church!!!

  80. @ TEDSgrad:
    As I said, I don’t subscribe to PSA at all. I do think people could be “saved” in the OT. Even some non Jews who did not follow the law. 🙂 And many Jews who did follow the Law seem have serious credibility problems with Yahweh, according to the OT. 🙂

    I personally think we get the OT law all wrong. And I think we over interpret the sacrificial language as metaphor.

    I just don’t do systematic theology anymore. I think there is a much bigger picture going on. Simpler yet bigger in conquering death which is the root cause of all sin.

    In fact I don’t even like the word sin. I prefer good/evil or right and wrong. One reason is because of the doctrine of original sin leads to the belief that our very existence is sin. It leads to dualism which, imo, is pagan and unnecessarily separates us from Jesus Christ and the belief that we can’t ever really know him.

  81. @ Gram3:
    Yes. It’s exhausting. But a joy to find others willing to probe and question.

    Sadly, not in most of Academia these days on either side

  82. Lydia wrote:

    In fact I don’t even like the word sin.

    I think ‘sin’ as a term has become sort of exhausting, as it seems to be applied to all sorts of things. Hard to say a woman not washing the dishes quick enough is ‘evil’…that’s stupid. Oh, but call it a sin and people will run along with it!

    I do not believe humans are fundamentally evil. We have the capacity for it but we choose, Christians or not. We were made in the image of God, how can all of that be evil? ( of course you can go flip side are say how can God be all good if we are also made in his image? But that’s a thought exercise 😉

    Teds, there are several people who have joined or attend regular churches. But maybe there is a different philosophy on why…

  83. @ Lea:

    i feel the same. “sin”, the word…. a stock item in every religious manipulator’s tool box.

    (although to use the word doesn’t make one a manipulator)

  84. Gram3 wrote:

    Dispies who are Calvies will forgive you because they are somewhat deficient anyway.

    Calvy + Dispy sounds like the worst possible combination.

  85. Lea wrote:

    I think ‘sin’ as a term has become sort of exhausting, as it seems to be applied to all sorts of things. Hard to say a woman not washing the dishes quick enough is ‘evil’…that’s stupid. Oh, but call it a sin and people will run along with it!

    In Christianese, the word is becoming so badly overused it’s ceasing to have any meaning other than a buzzword/snarl word.

  86. I think the existence of sin is one of the most provable facts for Christianity. As I define it, sin is an personal insult to the Holiness of God.
    If a finite creature insults the eternal God, what recompense can the finite make to the Infinite? Won’t the insult outlast the finite creature? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our LORD!
    I don’t have any conclusions on the dichotomous or trichotomous views. We do need to walk in a manner worthy by the Spirit, and not walk by the flesh – that much is clear.

  87. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    In fact I don’t even like the word sin.

    I do not believe humans are fundamentally evil. We have the capacity for it but we choose, Christians or not. We were made in the image of God, how can all of that be evil? ( of course you can go flip side are say how can God be all good if we are also made in his image? But that’s a thought exercise

    Teds, there are several people who have joined or attend regular churches. But maybe there is a different philosophy on why…

    The Bible states that all have fallen short, and that the race fell in Adam. Do we have the capacity to choose good or evil acts? Yes, but the main issue is not just acts of sin(s), but the sin nature. We need to be born again into a new nature – even then, we are already but not yet. The Calvinist believes that once truly born again, you cannot go back under that old nature – that salvation is secure regardless of acts of sin committed. For me, scripture is replete with warnings not to go back or fail because of unbelief. For me, faith is ongoing and needed all the way to death (or translation) for a salvation ready to be revealed on the last day (1 Peter). I believe in eternal security, but that it is Christ’s not mine. If I be found in Him, I have it. It is never in the possession of the believer apart from Christ until this time of testing is over – IMHO. Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall (1 Cor 10:12). To never lose one’s salvation would mean that all temptation has ceased, or it’s not really temptation but some play on words.
    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, etc. will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). I had one Calvinist tell me that this list refers to unregenerate sins, and that regenerate sin is covered!?! All sin separates us from God! There is no such classification as regenerate and unregenerate sin – it’s all sin. No wonder the Calvinists can commit whatever acts they want and claim cover (blood covering).
    It’s popular to hear, “Jesus loves the sinner, and hates the sin.” Well, sin is not an object that exists separately from the person. A person commits it – a person subjects himself to it. We do not lock up the act of rape, we lock up the rapist. So will God.
    The Good News is that there is forgiveness and new life in Christ. I better stop here, or it will get too long.

  88. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Calvy + Dispy sounds like the worst possible combination.

    As long as you stay within a SD of the mean, you are usually OK. You might not agree doctrinally, but they are not nuts. S. Lewis Johnson was a serious theologian, a Dispie, a 5 Pointer, and definitely not a nut.

  89. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Calvy + Dispy sounds like the worst possible combination.

    One further thought is that, in some cases people who are willing to go against the grain on an important point of a particular system may be worth a listen for that very reason. In the case of Calvie-Dispies, they were questioning the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption constructs. It goes well beyond the Hal Lindsey caricature. That does not make it right, of course, but it does make it interesting. Likewise the rise of New Covenant theology came, not coincidentally, after 1988. And that was a perfect fit for the YRR Baptists. Russell Moore’s dissertation was NCT. That is a digression, but it is interesting to me because I’ve watched the development over my lifetime.

  90. @ TEDSgrad:
    I did not say sin does not exist. This is one reason why I weary of these types of convos. And it seems like the more I try to explain, the more misunderstanding. See, I believe being “human” is good. When we do evil, we are “less human”.

    I do believe we are born into decay in the world and our bodies and we have the propensity to act in accordance. The inherited sin nature pose bothers me because it presupposes a cookie cutter original sin position of craving to do evil. Are babies evil? Or, are they a blank slate? We know that to molest children and yell at your kids are vastly different. It becomes a moral equivalency argument. We are all the same sinners. Thinking stops right there. It’s one reason I think Christianity as practiced today has become so corrupted.

  91. Lydia wrote:

    I did not say sin does not exist. This is one reason why I weary of these types of convos. And it seems like the more I try to explain, the more misunderstanding. See, I believe being “human” is good. When we do evil, we are “less human”.

    I too get weary of the same ol’ same ol’…
    Obsession with, and over-play of our ‘sin nature’ has a tendency to ignore the fact that we also have a divine nature.

  92. Lydia wrote:

    @ TEDSgrad:
    I did not say sin does not exist. This is one reason why I weary of these types of convos. And it seems like the more I try to explain, the more misunderstanding.

    Yes, especially over the internet! If one covers all the bases, it becomes too long, but then if you shorten it up, you leave things out and their are misunderstandings. Agree!

    The race fell in Adam – spiritual death. “The day you eat of the fruit of that tree you shall surely die.” They did not die physically. So human beings are born spiritual dead – in bondage to sin or a sin nature. Or to put it another way, we cannot not sin (Romans 1 & 2). I do believe in the inherited sin nature.
    If we are in Christ (2nd Adam), we have a new nature, we are not in bondage to a sin nature. So we must be born again into a new nature.
    As for babies, I don’t know. they have the sin nature, but there must be some kind of age of reasoning/moral culpability where they become accountable for their actions. What age that occurs, I don’t know.
    I dislike moral equivalency arguments, too – detest is the word. Human righteousness (not the kind required for salvation) is important to God – Have you seen my servant Job? There is none like him in all the earth. J & R (justice & righteousness) is all over the Minor Prophets. I have gone through and highlighted every occurrence where they are juxtaposed within a verse or neighboring verse – part of my healing process and to gain understanding. The lack of it in Israel, was the main visible indictment by the prophets. There is much contemporary application in the Minor Prophets!!

    Pedophiles try to say that age of consent is a social construct. They want to deconstruct then reconstruct new social values more favorable to them – this will be the new frontier in sexual politics. They say that the label, pedophile, is pejorative (duh). They prefer the label – inter-generational intimacy! Then, they want to claim their constitutional right to self-expression.

    Iceland is very secular. As a consequence, J & R will become perverted. God determines morals (right from wrong). The secular state will pervert morals it and it will change with ‘generational winds.’

  93. @ Muff Potter:
    And worse, it sounds like I am arguing that humans don’t do evil. But I am not as one look at the news or even around us in our community blows that out of the water. But as you mention, there is a divine nature that is totally ignored by most of Christendom. The key is choice but the doctrine of original sin convinces people not only is there no choice but that Jesus hung on the cross so we could sin all we want with a get out of hell pass for it. It does not encourage us to become “more fully human” as God intended in creation.

  94. @ TEDSgrad:
    You know the most dangerous thing about the sole focus of a “sin nature”? It means we can have “practicing” Christian pedophiles. They are caught after tons of victims and the church, recognizing the normalized inherited sin nature, accepts an apology as repentance. (I don’t even buy into the translation of metanoia as repentance. It dumbs it down to penance and NOT as the changed inside/out maturing individual it was meant to convey.)

    We are our own worst enemy because we can’t even get the main thing right. And we look no different. In fact, we are attracting more and more evil.

  95. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t even buy into the translation of metanoia as repentance. It dumbs it down to penance and NOT as the changed inside/out maturing individual it was meant to convey.

    Hmm… I know what you mean, but the problem there isn’t the translation – it’s the fact that “repentance”, in modern english usage, has been watered down to the point of becoming meaningless. Re-pent is effectively an anglicisation of the latin translation of metanoia, and the idea of a fundamental change of mindset would in be a very strong one if only we’d use it properly.

    As witness an incident covered on this very blog, where a professional preacher described his sometime-wife-beating son as “the most repentant man I’ve ever seen” based on, undoubtedly, a lot of outward remorse, angst and emotion. The truth, of course, is that you can’t see repentance, which is why John the Interdenominational Baptist said: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance”.

  96. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    “the most repentant man I’ve ever seen” based on, undoubtedly, a lot of outward remorse, angst and emotion. The truth, of course, is that you can’t see repentance, which is why John the Interdenominational Baptist said: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance”.

    Erratum:

    The styling was supposed to read thus:

    “the most repentant man I’ve ever seen” based on, undoubtedly, a lot of outward remorse, angst and emotion. The truth, of course, is that you can’t see repentance, which is why John the Interdenominational Baptist said: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance”.

  97. Lydia wrote:

    @ TEDSgrad:
    We are our own worst enemy because we can’t even get the main thing right. And we look no different. In fact, we are attracting more and more evil.

    Agree!
    Mistakes/errors in sanctification can be traced back to incomplete/mis-understanding of salvation. While we are temporal beings, we are stuck in time and sequence. But the act of being made holy (set apart for His use) is all one finished work of Calvary.
    We really do need to understand the Good News (indicatives) fully, before we are ruled over by leaders inundating us with “how to do it” (imperatives). Then of course, we never fully “do it right,” and they use that guilt to further leverage us and tell us to just try harder, love more, give more – of which they are the recipients. And they set themselves up as those who are doing it, perfectly. It really is boring.

  98. Lydia wrote:

    The inherited sin nature pose bothers me because it presupposes a cookie cutter original sin position of craving to do evil. Are babies evil? Or, are they a blank slate?

    Here is a different take on the Augustinian view of the “sin nature” or “flesh” translation of sarx. I have not resolved all of the issues, but Dr. Russell’s view makes more sense to me than Augustine’s.

    http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/36/36-2/JETS_36-2_179-187_Russell.pdf

  99. A good read; however, the choice to obey one or the other is continual. Do not go back under bondage or you have been separated from Christ (5:1-5). We are to endure and to overcome in Revelations. We live by faith, and faith is tested between the promise given and its fulfillment – we live here, don’t we. There is a struggle to believe and act accordingly – to submit the will which is ongoing. In Hebrews 5 they died for unbelief after being saved out of Egypt.
    I don’t like the two natures phrasing. It suggests that they are equal. The flesh is to be actively resisted, and we are not in bondage to it for greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world. I like his Spirit indwelling thoughts.
    D.A. Carson quoted Ridderbos a lot. Maybe he’s OSAS (once saved always saved), too?

  100. TEDSgrad wrote:

    I don’t like the two natures phrasing. It suggests that they are equal. The flesh is to be actively resisted, and we are not in bondage to it for greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world. I like his Spirit indwelling thoughts.

    No, I don’t think they are equal at all, because the indwelling Holy Spirit is definitely greater. As you say, we are to strive against the weakness of the flesh. At least that is how I see it. The *fact* that the indwelling Spirit is greater is the hope that sustained me in the darkest moments when the way that my flesh felt was telling me something quite different. The lie of my weak flesh — physical, emotional, mental — has nearly obliterated the spiritual truth to the point that I wonder if the traditional body/soul/spirit thinking is just so much bean soup and we are all one unified being. More wrongthink.

  101. Gram3 wrote:

    has nearly obliterated

    …had nearly obliterated.

    The point was that I could not separate the “spiritual” as neatly from the physical and mental/emotional.

  102. Gram3 wrote:

    I wonder if the traditional body/soul/spirit thinking is just so much bean soup and we are all one unified being. More wrongthink.

    I too have wondered long and hard about the traditional Christian teaching that man is a tripartite (three-part) being with sharp demarcations between body, soul, and spirit.
    And as a result, I no longer accept this teaching.
    I now consider body and soul to be an integral continuum with no bifurcation dividing the two. I also believe that the ‘spirit’ is simply the life-force with which the The Almighty gifts all life forms.

  103. Muff Potter wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I wonder if the traditional body/soul/spirit thinking is just so much bean soup and we are all one unified being. More wrongthink.

    I too have wondered long and hard about the traditional Christian teaching that man is a tripartite (three-part) being with sharp demarcations between body, soul, and spirit.
    And as a result, I no longer accept this teaching.
    I now consider body and soul to be an integral continuum with no bifurcation dividing the two. I also believe that the ‘spirit’ is simply the life-force with which the The Almighty gifts all life forms.

    I agree, except the last sentence. I could be misinterpreting, though.

    Only Man is made in the image of God – capable of His indwelling Presence.

    IMHO, the greatest challenge is how to live in the already but not yet scenario. I’m continuously drawn to the concept of “elegance” Elegance is not perfection, but a worked out style (as opposed to fashion) that is comfortable in one’s own clothes (clothes of righteousness), yet we live in the flesh. We have utter dependence on God as He is faithful, and we are unfaithful while we wait (yet clothed). To live this way in confidence and assurance is that lived out elegance.

    What is needed more than ever is a Gospel that saves unfaithful Christians!

    Definition:
    1.
    the quality of being graceful and stylish in appearance or manner; style.
    “a slender woman with grace and elegance”
    synonyms: style, stylishness, grace, gracefulness, taste, tastefulness, sophistication; More
    refinement, dignity, beauty, poise, charm, culture;
    suaveness, urbanity, panache
    “he was attracted by her elegance”
    neatness, simplicity;
    ingenuity, cleverness, inventiveness
    “the elegance of the idea”
    2.
    the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple; neatness.
    “the simplicity and elegance of the solution”