R.C. Sproul, Reformed Theologian and Founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dies at 78

When asked whether he believed Arminians are Christian, R.C. Sproul responded: “Yes, barely.”

Society of Evangelical Arminians

https://twitter.com/RYMRadio/status/936569357647392768R.C. Sproul – Twitter

R.C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian and founder of Ligonier Ministries, died on December 14, 2017, at the age of 78. He was the son of a Presbyterian minister who came to faith in Christ during his first week of college. Sproul, who attended Westminster College on a football scholarship, was profoundly influenced by the team captain. He shared his personal testimony fifteen years ago with Christianity Today.

According to a tribute by Ligonier Ministries, R.C. Sproul married his childhood sweetheart Vesta in June 1960. He fell in love with her the first time he ever laid eyes on her – she was in 2nd grade and he was in 1st – no doubt a predestined encounter. Sproul is survived by his wife, two children (Sherrie Sproul Dorotiak and R. C. Sproul Jr., along with their spouses), as well as 11 grandchildren (one is deceased) and 7 great-grandchildren. His son is remarried, having lost his wife to cancer on December 18, 2011.

A Memorial Service was held today at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida, where Sproul served as co-pastor. Notable speakers were John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, and Steve Lawson.

Sproul began preparing for the ministry after graduating from college. He earned his seminary degree from Pittsburgh Theological College (1964), his doctorate from the Free University of Amsterdam (1969), and later a Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary (2001).

Two years later (1971), Sproul founded a ministry in the Ligonier Valley, located just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. According to the Orlando Sentinel:

Sproul founded Ligonier Valley Study Center in Stahlstown, Pa., where he offered classes on the “sin nature of humanity.”

Sproul moved the ministry to Orlando in 1984 and renamed it Ligonier Ministries. It eventually grew to become one of the largest Reformed educational and discipleship ministries in the world.

We are wondering why Sproul moved the ministry so far from its place of origin. While in Florida, he founded Reformation Bible College in Sanford (near Orlando).

The Orlando Sentinel also stated:

Michael Milton, former chancellor of the Reformed Theological Seminary System, called Sproul a leader in the Reformed movement for nearly 50 years.

“I think he has had an impact beyond Protestantism,” Milton said. “I see his passing as the falling of a great oak in the forest. But he released a lot of acorns. He left a legacy of faith that will be carried by others.”

Not everyone viewed R.C. Sproul with reverence. Sometimes he made remarks that were highly offensive to believers who do not identify as Calvinists. As the following quotation indicates, Sproul was once asked whether Arminians are Christians. His response was: “Yes, barely.” (see excerpt below)

Arminians are Christians, Barely

The following clip is a good illustration of Sproul’s attitude toward those who may not embrace Reformed theology as fully as he did.

A recent article in Christianity Today praised R.C. Sproul for his ministry and its impact on so many. The CT article states:

Sproul’s legacy lives on in generations of laypeople and Reformed leaders whose theology was strengthened and shaped by Ligonier, the organization he founded in 1971 to fill the gap “between Sunday school and seminary…

Sproul brought theological education to the masses through his radio show Renewing Your Mind, his ministry’s Tabletalk magazine, over 300 lecture series, 90 books, and dozens of articles.”

The CT article also reveals that:

The global organization shares 2 million “biblical and theological resources” annually, with hundreds of thousands of students, readers, and subscribers in 105 countries.”

Russell Moore, ERLC President, wrote of R.C. Sproul:

“It is hard to overestimate his influence on gospel-resurgent evangelicalism.”

Alistair Begg also shared his thoughts regarding Sproul in the clip below.

In the above video, Begg said Sproul always had a joke for him and that he will miss that. Check out Sproul’s wit with Al Mohler.

And given Sproul’s profound influence on the Reformed corner of Christendom, it will be interesting to see who succeeds him at Ligonier Ministries. At one point we assumed his son R.C. Sproul, Jr. would be heir apparent, but given his problems with Ashley Madison and driving while intoxicated (with his children in the car), we don’t see how it would be possible for him to follow in his father’s footsteps.

We’ll continue to monitor developments at Ligonier Ministries. In the meantime, please join us in praying for Vesta and the entire Sproul family. No doubt this will be a very difficult Christmas.

Comments

R.C. Sproul, Reformed Theologian and Founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dies at 78 — 390 Comments

  1. Look who is still awake and gets to be first! Let’s hear it for the night owls.
    My Facebook newsfeed was full of the Sproul news. Haven’t seen anyone speculate on a replacement on the organization.

  2. First I am sorry to his family for their loss, and I know he is in heaven now because of the grace of God.

    An aside, why is it that us nonprofessional Christians cant show grief of any kind for even a second, well maybe the day of the funeral but there were rebukes for that as well. If I ever and I mean ever even thought about sharing any type of grief like this I would have been rebuked with great passion. I can say I do my very best never to share grief, show grief, feel grief, or even think it applies to us soulless ones. I never got that about the Evangelical faith, I really never did.

  3. Forrest wrote:

    I find Sproul’s sarcasm on these clips sickening.

    I struggled with that as well though it was extremely tame compared to my experience. I just wanted to morn my departed family. I wont go into how that was rebuked. Like I have said a few times, no good news here. And there has never been. I find that rather sad, irrelevant but sad.

  4. Forrest wrote:

    I find Sproul’s sarcasm on these clips sickening.

    Sympathy to his family over his passing…but, I feel no love lost for his ministry. His snide sarcasm to the non Reformed was unbecoming, unnecessary, and unkind. His sarcasm didn’t mimic Jesus Christ.

  5. Mae wrote:

    Sympathy to his family over his passing…but, I feel no love lost for his ministry. His snide sarcasm to the non Reformed was unbecoming, unnecessary, and unkind. His sarcasm didn’t mimic Jesus Christ.

    It’s hard to disagree with this. Here is what Kevin DeYoung post on TGC – said it was from one of the best sermons he ever heard: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/one-best-sermons-ive-ever-heard/. At 4:30 he describes Jesus as the most intense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet, and he says that Jesus was the ultimate obscenity. As far as I can tell, RC Sproul was the originator of the “Scream of the Damned” phrase that was later picked up by Piper and Mahaney.

  6. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    It’s odd that his friends on the stage didn’t find what he said sarcastic but laughed at his humour and replied in a similar vein. It’s also odd that people think that they can be saved without the Lord Jesus having to stand in their place and bear the punishment that is rightfully theirs. I think you’ll find that the wailing and gnashing of teeth is mentioned in Scripture and wasn’t invented by the men you mention.

  7. Lowlandseer wrote:

    It’s also odd that people think that they can be saved without the Lord Jesus having to stand in their place and bear the punishment that is rightfully theirs.

    This is the question about how Jesus saved us. What you describe is penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). As far as I have been able to find, Calvin was the first to articulate it and it was not believed or taught for at least the first 1000 years of Christianity. The key issue is whether Jesus saved us by appeasing the wrath of God by being punished in our place. This is a pagan view of the atonement. Saying that Jesus was actually forsaken by God, in that God turned away from Jesus, is formal heresy because it divides the Trinity. Can you cite any writing from the first 1000 years of orthodox Christianity that lays out PSA in the way Calvinists describe it? I have not found any such writings.

  8. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    I just listened to that clip of Sproul, which is from his message at the 2008 T4G.

    How interesting that not many months later (early 2009) the Resolved trailer has Piper and Mahaney mimicking Sproul’s “Scream of the Damned” lingo (which I find highly offensive).

    These guys are such copycats.

  9. Nan wrote:

    “Penal substitutionary atonement in the Church Fathers” (2011)

    I’ve seen this before. The problem with his argument is he assumes what he tries to prove, and then cherry-picks some quotes from early church fathers to show that their writings COULD be interpreted to support PSA. But when read in context, the early church fathers taught nothing that approaches PSA, at least in the sense that 1) God is too holy/pure to look at sin, 2)The Father forsook the Son on the cross, 3) God poured out his wrath on the Son, 4) God was appeased after pouring out his wrath, and 5) Jesus was punished by God. But the early church fathers did agree that Jesus became a curse for us, and that through his life, death, and resurrection, he saved mankind.

    Here is the best argument for PSA that I have yet found, but it changes the emphasis from what is taught in Reformed circles: http://ntwrightpage.com/2017/01/30/the-royal-revolution-fresh-perspectives-on-the-cross/.

    I personally believe one can believe in PSA and still be saved. I also believe it gives us a very bad view of God.

  10. I was saved in the mid 80’s. I became familiar with R.C. Sproul approximately 5 years after being saved.I learned a lot from Dr. Sproul. Those early years were foundational to my understanding “the whole counsel of God”. I will be forever grateful to God for what I learned about the Word of God and the nature and person of God from Dr. Sproul’s teaching in those years. How tragic that he could not stand up to the temptation of his celebrity and abuse his position as head of his ministry and abuse his staff and abuse the contributions of those who gave to his ministry. If the reports are true he even denied his Presbyterian belief by having no accountability at his church, St. Andrew’s. How tragic! Being a celebrity is such a temptation and it appears that few are the men and women that can handle it. I pray for his family. He did seem to be a good husband. He appeared to love his children almost to a fault.

  11. Sproul defends Limited atonement via logic rather than exposition of biblical texts such as 2 Peter 2:1

    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    – drstevej (Christmas Calvinist — Limited Attainment rather than Limited Atonement)

  12. “It is hard to overestimate his influence on gospel-resurgent evangelicalism.” (Russell Moore)

    “Gospel-resurgent evangelicalism” is code for New Calvinism. To the reformed at heart, Calvinism = Gospel.

  13. At one point we assumed his son R.C. Sproul, Jr. would be heir apparent, but given his problems with Ashley Madison and driving while intoxicated (with his children in the car), we don’t see how it would be possible for him to follow in his father’s footsteps.

    Oh I don’t know. The history of many of the people you’ve blogged about suggest otherwise. After all those experiences allow him to say he understands the depth of sin. For many, theological accuracy is more important than integrity….

  14. “Sproul’s legacy lives on in generations of laypeople and Reformed leaders …” (Christianity Today)

    Unfortunately.

  15. Mae wrote:

    His snide sarcasm to the non Reformed was unbecoming, unnecessary, and unkind.

    Much has been said on this blog and elsewhere, that there is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks. Leaders of the movement display it best.

  16. Max wrote:

    “It is hard to overestimate his influence on gospel-resurgent evangelicalism.” (Russell Moore)
    “Gospel-resurgent evangelicalism” is code for New Calvinism. To the reformed at heart, Calvinism = Gospel.

    Yes….They just won’t come out and say, “Calvinism”, they try to hide it in code language.
    Calvinism = Gospel will never be my mantra.

  17. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    “It’s hard to disagree with this. Here is what Kevin DeYoung post on TGC – said it was from one of the best sermons he ever heard: … At 4:30 he describes Jesus as the most intense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet, and he says that Jesus was the ultimate obscenity. As far as I can tell, RC Sproul was the originator of the “Scream of the Damned” phrase that was later picked up by Piper and Mahaney.”
    +++++++++++++++

    first off, condolences to the family.

    now that that’s done… this is like conjecture city. and why does something as weird and obscene as this take? why get all orgasmic over this??

  18. brian wrote:

    An aside, why is it that us nonprofessional Christians cant show grief of any kind for even a second

    I am really sorry that you got mixed up with the awful kind of people who made you feel like grief wasn’t appropriate. It is.

    We have a monthly grief support lunch with a speaker and they are doing one about grief during the holidays, which I think is nice. I’ve definitely been more melancholy lately.

  19. To the true Calvinist, “Total Depravity” = total inability. In reformed theology, people are unable to choose freely when it comes to matters of faith; thus, Sproul tossed out free-will to accept or reject Christ and laughed at the futility of Arminian (and any non-Calvinist) belief and practice. As Sproul notes in the video clip, if you start with this premise (total depravity) then you must accept all other points in the TULIP acrostic. Thus, there is really no such animal as a 4-Point Calvinist (to which I agree, even though I’m a non-Calvinist). Sproul put it this way as he disputed moderate (4-point) Calvinism:

    “There is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches. However, I think that if a person really understands the other four points and is thinking at all clearly, he must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic.”

    It should be noted that (Praise the Lord), Calvinism still represents only a small percentage of Christendom. Whosoever-will-may-come still stands at the center of Gospel truth preached around the world. New Calvinism will run its course as all aberrations of faith eventually do, but it will leave in its wake a multitude of disillusioned folks who may never go to church again.

    I am deeply sorry for Dr. Sproul’s family, friends, and followers who lost a loved one, but not sorry to see this chapter in New Calvinism end.

  20. Max wrote:

    “It is hard to overestimate his influence on gospel-resurgent evangelicalism.” (Russell Moore)

    What an irritating phrase! Ugh.

  21. Jesus said, “Take up your cross and follow me.”

    Peter said, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.”

    Calvinists demand you accept Calvin’s axioms and his deductions from them as if salvation were basically mathematics.

    Paul said, “God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.”

  22. At one time I was a Calvinist, but the more I read, the more I studied, the more I realized the doctrine was about man and not Christ.
    At one time I was involved with a Reformed organization that after becoming involved discovered many of the newer members used predestination as an excuse for racism. I left the organization and my Reformed beliefs quickly followed. ( For those of you who do not know, I now have a Chinese daughter-in-law….from Yunnan Province. I am sure the members now would be certain I am non-elect because of her. Seriously.)
    I mean seriously, how could I follow a God who would send a baby to hell just because it was foreordained?

  23. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    I think you might have this confused — it’s the antithesis of cherry picking.
    The abstract: “This article replies to the claim of Derek Flood that the church fathers did not teach penal substitutionary atonement. It revisits examples cited in Pierced for Our Transgressions from the author’s own doctorate. Flood’s claim is met in two ways: by closer exegesis of the primary texts, and by a critique of his method. It is shown that Flood repeatedly uses restoration or victory themes in the writers to trump their specific retributive vocabulary and concepts. Against this approach, it is argued that we should maintain the integrity of all of the descriptions in the texts and allow the richness of patristic views of the cross to stand out, a richness that includes penal substitutionary atonement.”

  24. I do not mean this as a criticism of RC Sproul specifically. I’m only marginally familiar with his work, I own a Reformation Study Bible, etc. From watching those videos though, it seems like he fits into a group of people I have noticed that treat theology like a fun logic game that they want to win. I see New Calvinists do this a lot, but they aren’t the only ones. Some Catholics I know are like this.

    Theology can be a game until what you think about God is the only thing standing between your soul and destruction in the face of tragedy. Once you have been there, you aren’t so patient with people playing word games about Jesus.

    The celebration of Sproul is also evidence of our destructive sacred/secular divide. Would a carpenter in his congregation who died get the same celebration? That man served god as much with his hands if not more than Sproul ever did with his words.

  25. Ricco wrote:

    The celebration of Sproul is also evidence of our destructive sacred/secular divide. Would a carpenter in his congregation who died get the same celebration? That man served god as much with his hands if not more than Sproul ever did with his words.

    I like this comment. We say the same thing abut abuse in the church. We are critiqued for taking the victims’ side consistently and what about the *poor* pastor. The pastor is surrounded by his followers who do not see that victims are surrounded by nobody.

  26. I guess Sproul is partly to blame for the tainting of the word “grace.”

    Grace is one of the most beautiful ideas in the Bible, but thanks to smug Neo-Cals it’s been tainted into something ugly and vile. To them, it’s not freely given to all who believe, but only available to those God chose eons ago. Which might explain why they’re so smug. “God chose me and not you, so na na na.”

    These days when I hear a preacher talk about “grace” I always hold my breath. Thankfully I gave up on neo-Calvinsim a while ago so I haven’t heard any dodgy sermons about the “elect” for a while.

  27. Donnie wrote:

    These days when I hear a preacher talk about “grace” I always hold my breath.

    New Calvinist sermons emphasize grace-this and grace-that, without ever delivering Grace. Their theology is built on doctrines of grace, but not a direct experience of Grace – an encounter with the living Christ. New Calvinists prefer to think of Christianity in terms of rigid doctrinal propositions, rather than a personal experience with Christ. How it has survived this long is beyond me; there’s just no spiritual life in their belief and practice.

  28. K.D. wrote:

    I mean seriously, how could I follow a God who would send a baby to hell just because it was foreordained?

    I have found Calvinists talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one. For example: Here is John Piper’s version that all babies go to heaven.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-do-you-believe-that-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven

    Al Mohler agrees:

    https://albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/

    However, this Reformed website says their is disagreement on the matter.

    http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40388

    To your point, Sproul says an emphatic “I don’t know. ”

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/do-all-those-who-die-womb-go-heaven/

  29. Max wrote:

    New Calvinist sermons emphasize grace-this and grace-that, without ever delivering Grace.

    Agreed. I have told many people who call us about difficult churches that the doctrines of grace are not about grace.

  30. Robert M wrote:

    Calvinists demand you accept Calvin’s axioms and his deductions from them as if salvation were basically mathematics.

    Well put. A former pastor says many Calvinists are basically always trying to balance the equation.

  31. Max wrote:

    I am deeply sorry for Dr. Sproul’s family, friends, and followers who lost a loved one, but not sorry to see this chapter in New Calvinism end

    I like how you put this. I agree.

  32. @ dee:
    The other destructive facet of this is discouraging people from pursuing their God given gifts and talents to do more “for the church.” The biologists who is always traveling for research or the nurse who works on Sundays are often told that they “need to put God before their careers.” This leads to them using their talents less effectively, being overcome with guilt, or loosing their faith. The church should support it’s members in their individual callings, not all come together to only support the pastor in his.

  33. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    It’s hard to disagree with this. Here is what Kevin DeYoung post on TGC – said it was from one of the best sermons he ever heard: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/one-best-sermons-ive-ever-heard/. At 4:30 he describes Jesus as the most intense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet, and he says that Jesus was the ultimate obscenity. As far as I can tell, RC Sproul was the originator of the “Scream of the Damned” phrase that was later picked up by Piper and Mahaney.

    This is excellent. Years ago, we looked at the “Scream of the Damned.” Having trapped through the evangelical wilderness for decades, I have heard more sermons trying to describe just how must evil was piled on Jesus. Each and everyone of them was trying to outdo others in describing the evil.

    I am of the opinion that we have no idea exactly what happened on the Cross except to say that Christ’s gruesome death paid for our sins. Given the complexities of a Triune God who is the ultimate Creator of everything, I am hesitant token try to comprehend such a thing. The one thing I do know is that Jesus sweat blood which is a very rare, medically known condition. You might find this paper by the NIH to be of interest.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810702/

  34. I just finished reading “Chosen to Serve: Why Divine Election Is to Service, Not to Eternal Life” by David Lazar. It is an excellent book. The author takes the verses Calvinists use to support “election” and “predestination” as though it were to eternal life, and he shows so clearly and easily that the context of those verses does not support that conclusion at all. The book is not long or difficult to read and it makes so much sense. I highly recommend it.

  35. dee wrote:

    I have told many people who call us about difficult churches that the doctrines of grace are not about grace.

    When the New Calvinism bubble breaks, one of the greatest mission fields on the planet for the real Gospel will be among the disillusioned exiting those churches.

  36. From the OP –

    As the following quotation indicates, Sproul was once asked whether Arminians are Christians. His response was: “Yes, barely.”

    To be fair, Sproul got that from his professor/mentor/friend John Gerstner, who got that from the subject of his historical studies – the theology of Jonathan Edwards. I have a recording of Gerstner somewhere in my library saying as much.

  37. In the first video clip, there’s enough arrogance sitting on that stage to fuel a rocket to the moon and back! Have you ever noticed that religious intellectuals are not very smart?

  38. @ Burwell:

    Jonaathan and Sarah Edwards’ descendants: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 65 professors, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers and 100 missionaries.

  39. The highest accredited degree Sproul earned was not a doctorate. He topped out at the masters level.

    bachelor of arts (philosophy) from Westminster
    bachelor of divinity from Pittsburgh
    doctorandus from Free Univ. of Amsterdam

    His obituary:

    http://baldwinfairchildoaklawn.tributes.com/dignitymemorial/obituary/Robert-Charles-Sproul-105598580

    “He held degrees from Westminster College (B.A., 1961), Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (B.D., 1964), and the Free University of Amsterdam (Drs., 1969) and received several honorary degrees.”

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/r-c-sproul-1939-2017/

    “…enabled him to receive the “drs.” (doctorandus) degree—equivalent to a masters—which would have enabled him to begin writing a dissertation. But ministry endeavors prevailed, and he never did complete his dissertation and thus did not earn a PhD from Amsterdam. (He would later be granted a PhD from the unaccredited Whitefield Theological Seminary based upon all of his writing for the church.)”

  40. Sproul’s bachelor’s of divinity and doctorandus degrees were master’s level degrees.

    Seminaries have replaced bachelor’s of divinity with master’s of divinity to avoid confusion, hence bios of Sproul sometimes give his degree from Pittsburgh as M.Div., the updated/upgraded term.

    Here is what the doctorandus degree is:

    https://www.amsterdam.info/students/education/

    “The Dutch equivalent to a Master’s degree…abbreviated Drs…not to be confused with a Doctoral degree”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorandus

    “Doctorandus…Latin: he who should become a doctor), abbreviated drs., is a Dutch academic title according to the pre-Bachelor–Master system….The title is acquired by passing the doctoraalexamen, traditionally a matriculation exam for admission to study at doctoral level.”

    “the Dutch doctorandus degree is equivalent to the MA or MSc degree in English-speaking countries”

    “the title doctorandus has been replaced by the degrees MA and MSc, and those who receive such Dutch degrees may choose: they may use MA/MSc behind their name, or continue to use drs.”

    Sproul’s bios continued using the term “Drs.” despite [or because of?] its being easily misunderstood.

  41. @ drstevej:
    The population of America in 1750 was about 3 million … today, it is over 300 million … countless millions have lived and died in this land over the last 300 years. Most early Americans have descendants who left their mark on this country for the good – numerous souls made America great … it is a collective legacy.

  42. And Chrysostom said this in an exposition of Matthew
    “For the cross destroyed the enmity of God towards man, brought about the reconciliation, made the earth Heaven, associated men with angels, pulled down the citadel of death, unstrung the force of the devil, extinguished the power of sin, delivered the world from error, brought back the truth, expelled the Demons, destroyed temples, overturned altars, suppressed the sacrificial offering, implanted virtue, founded the Churches. The cross is the will of the Father, the glory of the Son, the rejoicing of the Spirit, the boast of Paul, “for,” he says, “God forbid that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The cross is that which is brighter than the sun, more brilliant than the sunbeam: for when the sun is darkened then the cross shines brightly: and the sun is darkened not because it is extinguished, but because it is overpowered by the brilliancy of the cross. The cross has broken our bond, it has made the prison of death ineffectual, it is the demonstration of the love of God. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one who believes in Him should not perish.” And again Paul says “If being enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” The cross is the impregnable wall, the invulnerable shield, the safeguard of the rich, the resource of the poor, the defence of those who are exposed to snares, the armour of those who are attacked, the means of suppressing passion, and of acquiring virtue, the wonderful and marvellous sign. “For this generation seeketh after a sign: and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonas;” and again Paul says, “for the Jews ask for a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified.” The cross opened Paradise, it brought in the robber, it conducted into the kingdom of Heaven the race of man which was about to perish, and was not worthy even of earth. So great are the benefits which have sprung and do spring from the cross,“

  43. drstevej wrote:

    @ Burwell:
    Jonaathan and Sarah Edwards’ descendants: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 65 professors, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers and 100 missionaries.

    I don’t know . . . should we also consider the known and unknowns who prematurely ended their lives or lived in worlds of depression due to the teachings of Edwards? Maybe we should ignore this part?

    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.

  44. Bridget wrote:

    I don’t know . . . should we also consider the known and unknowns who prematurely ended their lives or lived in worlds of depression due to the teachings of Edwards? Maybe we should ignore this part?

    Omelettes and Eggs?

  45. Jerome wrote:

    Sproul’s bios continued using the term “Drs.” despite [or because of?] its being easily misunderstood.

    Degree inflation is nothing new among MenaGAWD.

  46. Lowlandseer wrote:

    And you can read about its origins around 2nd century here.

    If you like this type of history and logic, then I highly recommend this book for you: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Prophet-Muhammad-Ata-Ur-Rahim/dp/1879402734. It makes a very compelling case from the writings of the church fathers that Jesus was only a man and not in any way divine. I read it quite a few years ago. The book takes the writings of the church fathers completely out of context – it uses their arguments for the humanity of Jesus to make it sound like he had only a human nature. It is a very dishonest book. I find the same thing from modern authors who try to use early church writings to prove PSA. The fact is you would never derive PSA from the entire context of early church writings. It’s dishonest to project this belief onto them. One can believe PSA if one wants to, but one should not try to make the case that the early church also believed it. At least in the way it is now taught as Jesus satisfying the wrath of God by being punished and forsaken by the Father.

  47. Max wrote:

    In the first video clip, there’s enough arrogance sitting on that stage to fuel a rocket to the moon and back! Have you ever noticed that religious intellectuals are not very smart?

    “You don’t need any intellect to be an Intellectual.”
    — G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries

    (To which I would add “…, only an Attitude”.)

  48. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    The book takes the writings of the church fathers completely out of context – it uses their arguments for the humanity of Jesus to make it sound like he had only a human nature. It is a very dishonest book.

    So what else is new?
    The Arians did the same thing some 1700 years ago.
    It’s a flip-side form of Gnosticism, i.e. “We Alone KNOW What’s REALLY Going On”.

  49. dee wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    I mean seriously, how could I follow a God who would send a baby to hell just because it was foreordained?
    I have found Calvinists talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one. For example: Here is John Piper’s version that all babies go to heaven.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-do-you-believe-that-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven
    Al Mohler agrees:
    https://albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/
    However, this Reformed website says their is disagreement on the matter.
    http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40388
    To your point, Sproul says an emphatic “I don’t know. ”
    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/do-all-those-who-die-womb-go-heaven/

    The organization I left was pushing that we taught( many members were SBC deacons, Presbyterian elders, Sunday School teachers ) this belief.
    I grew up in a SBC church and heard this in SS class.
    My junior high to early high school SS teacher told us that ” babies in China or India went to hell if they died without Christ. Because of the orginal sin.”
    It took years later and me forgetting everything I learned at SWBTS to come to my senses.

  50. Max wrote:

    When the New Calvinism bubble breaks, one of the greatest mission fields on the planet for the real Gospel will be among the disillusioned exiting those churches.

    Assuming they haven’t been vaccinated against the real Gospel by then.

    Vaccination: Exposing the patient to a fake or weakened (i.e. Harmless) form of a pathogen, so when exposed to the real thing, the immune system will Automatically Reject it.

  51. dee wrote:

    This is excellent. Years ago, we looked at the “Scream of the Damned.”

    i.e. Chuckles Mahaney channeling Sam Kinnison.

  52. dee wrote:

    Well put. A former pastor says many Calvinists are basically always trying to balance the equation.

    And like Homey the Clown, “God don’t Play that Game”.

  53. Bridget wrote:

    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.

    Bingo.
    The Vice President grandson was…Aaron Burr!

  54. Max wrote:

    New Calvinist sermons emphasize grace-this and grace-that, without ever delivering Grace.

    They’re Virtue Signalling.
    Just like North Korea’s “Democratic Democratic Democratic Democracy”.

    Both examples of “THE MORE VIRTUE SIGNALLING, THE GREATER THE CORRUPTION”.

  55. Miss Dee, Miss Deb, sorry about the double post, our lights had a ” glitch” about the time I hit send and doubled my post.

  56. Donnie wrote:

    Grace is one of the most beautiful ideas in the Bible, but thanks to smug Neo-Cals it’s been tainted into something ugly and vile. To them, it’s not freely given to all who believe, but only available to those God chose eons ago. Which might explain why they’re so smug. “God chose me and not you, so na na na.”

    Again, “IT’S ALL ABOUT ONE-UPMANSHIP, BABY!”

  57. Mae wrote:

    Yes….They just won’t come out and say, “Calvinism”, they try to hide it in code language.

    “Always use proper code words: ‘Relocation’… ‘Resettlement’… ‘Delousing’…”
    — (fictional) Hauptsturmfuehrer-SD Eric Dorf, Holocaust (1970s minseries)

  58. Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    It’s odd that his friends on the stage didn’t find what he said sarcastic but laughed at his humour and replied in a similar vein.

    Scene from the movie version of A Man for All Seasons:

    King Henry VIII and his court are cruising the Thames on the Royal Barge, which puts in on the riverbank. King Henry leaps overboard onto land, sinking up to his knees in the mud of the riverbank — mud splashing everywhere over “England” (the Royal Personage).
    Dead silence from King Henry.
    Dead silence from the courtiers still on the Royal Barge.
    King Henry starts laughing out loud, then stops and points to the courtiers on the Barge.
    Every courtier immediately starts laughing out loud.

  59. @ drstevej:
    If he had been sterile, would he still have been as worthy of respect? What if all his babies had died or his wife died in childbirth?

    I can’t get past Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God with Edwards. That thinking has damaged my faith and I’m only now escaping.

  60. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Just from the description, THAT sounds like something from Saturday Night Live or South Park…

    My thoughts exactly – I wondered if JP did a fluttery, winsome interpretive dance to that?

  61. dee wrote:

    I have found Calvinists talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one. For example: Here is John Piper’s version that all babies go to heaven.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-do-you-believe-that-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven
    Al Mohler agrees:
    https://albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

  62. drstevej wrote:

    FYI, Edwards preached more on the love of God than the wrath of God…

    That may be true, quantitatively. But once you have been terrified by his infamous sermon the’love’ he may talk about becomes so redefined as to have no recognisable meaning. May as well use a totally different word.

    Can you tell me what you mean by limited attainment rather than limited atonement? I think I know, but want to double check.

  63. @ Lowlandseer:
    It’s an interesting article, but it does nothing to prove PSA. If this is the best that reformed theologians can offer, then it looks like they themselves have undermined their own argument.

    I think it’s pretty clear that you and I will probably never see eye to eye on this. But that is ok.

  64. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    Thanks, Ken. I had not seen this one.

    From the link:

    “My friends, please don’t ever think of trying to construct something called an ‘atonement-theology’ unless you know, with John and Paul, what it means that the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.
    Because of course we have tried – the western tradition has tried – to do it in many other ways. We have erected many different structures, with Israel’s scriptures merely a source-book for random prophecies to be fitted into the redemption-narratives we have gleaned from elsewhere. We have then distorted those texts themselves to play the role demanded by these other narratives: narratives of divine honour offended, of divine lawcourt sitting in judgment, of human muddle and mistake. All these matter in their way, but if we start with them we will skew the whole. ‘Atonement’ itself – the word is far less precise than we normally imagine – must include so much more, including the notions of sacrifice, which itself demands that we stop not at the cross but with the Ascension where, according to Hebrews, the Son offers his once-for-all sacrifice in the heavenly temple. And these ideas themselves can be and have been be distorted, as we have put them into our different frameworks.
    In particular, we have misread the sacrificial tradition of ancient Israel. Animals were not subjected to a vicarious death penalty. They were killed so that their blood, itself a gift from God, would cleanse the sanctuary to maintain the heaven-and-earth reality in the midst of an as yet unredeemed world. Passover itself was not an atoning sacrifice. The only animal that has sins confessed over its head is the only animal in the Levitical rituals that does not get killed: the scapegoat bears Israel’s sins into the wilderness.
    These and other misreadings are enshrined in our traditions. The much-cherished and heavily guarded statements of atonement theology that we learned from the sixteenth-century reformers, vital in some ways as a bulwark against error, were themselves framed far more in terms of late mediaeval ideas, particularly of purgatory and the mass, against which the reformers were reacting. The reformers were trying to give biblical answers to fifteenth-century questions.”

    I have heard Wright speak on Atonement “theory’s” before and he makes the case it’s much bigger than Atonement. I have found his teaching on this seems to unify traditions and theories into a much bigger picture.

    My concern is Protestant views, that swept West, leave out the Hebrew scholarship of the OT and what centering it around Passover-Pentecost means in a much larger picture. I am not convinced we can sound bite it or even systematize it. It’s too big. Too all encompassing. I try by focusing on “conquering death” but that doesn’t even begin to cover it. But I do believe Jesus is God in the flesh. If Wrath was poured out on Him, it was His.

  65. @ Beakerj:

    “Can you tell me what you mean by limited attainment rather than limited atonement? I think I know, but want to double check.”

    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.

  66. K.D. wrote:

    It took years later and me forgetting everything I learned at SWBTS to come to my senses.

    The best preacher/teacher I ever sat under confessed in a Wednesday night Bible study that it took him 14 years to unlearn everything he had learned in seminary to become an effective pastor. Religious education is for naught if it is not touched by the Holy Spirit. The dead letter can only become life if the Spirit is the teacher; the teachings and traditions of mere men are poor substitutes.

  67. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    1) God is too holy/pure to look at sin, 2)The Father forsook the Son on the cross, 3) God poured out his wrath on the Son, 4) God was appeased after pouring out his wrath, and 5) Jesus was punished by God. But the early church fathers did agree that Jesus became a curse for us, and that through his life, death, and resurrection, he saved mankind.

    Calvary Chapel teaches this whole spiel too, even though their top honchos will go out of their way to insist that they’re not Calvinists.

    Jesus became a curse for us?
    I believe no such thing.
    I trust in Jesus’ very literal body (hardly accursed) and in his very literal person.
    Nothing more.
    I put almost zero stock in the pronouncements of old dead men from centuries ago.

  68. What is interesting to me is that today I am in the middle of a Wesleyan theology book by Thomas Oden. I’m reading the section of extensive quotes from the Westminster Catechism Wesley makes. All on original sin and man’s inability to turn to God in his own power.

    Has me thinking at the extreme edges various theologies of Christianity are very different, but the orthodox (small o)type are very similar at the base.

  69. Jerome wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.
    Bingo.
    The Vice President grandson was…Aaron Burr!

    Sixth great granddaughter is Janet Edwards. Presbyterian Minister. 🙂

  70. Former member of The Backstreet Boys poised to lead at Ligonier:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/welcoming-rev-burk-parsons-our-newest-teaching-fellow/

    Mar 09, 2017
    “Earlier today at the Ligonier National Conference, we announced the newest Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow, Rev. Burk Parsons…longtime co-laborer in ministry with Dr. R.C. Sproul both at Saint Andrew’s Chapel and at Ligonier”

    “Planning for a strong and stable succession to Dr. Sproul’s leadership at Ligonier is important to Dr. Sproul and our board. If you have observed the ministry over the past decades, you will have noticed that the momentum for our outreach continues to grow. At the heart of much of our outreach growth has been Rev. Parsons.”

    Tim Challies interviewing Parsons:

    https://www.challies.com/interviews/to-backstreet-and-back-an-interview-with-burk-parsons-part-2/

    CHALLIES: you were an original member of the Backstreet Boys. Is this true?

    PARSONS: I recall the day we were told the name of our group. Alex, Nick, Howie, Sam, and I were together in Lou Pearlman’s enormous game room…

  71. Max wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    It took years later and me forgetting everything I learned at SWBTS to come to my senses.
    The best preacher/teacher I ever sat under confessed in a Wednesday night Bible study that it took him 14 years to unlearn everything he had learned in seminary to become an effective pastor. Religious education is for naught if it is not touched by the Holy Spirit. The dead letter can only become life if the Spirit is the teacher; the teachings and traditions of mere men are poor substitutes.

    Max, seminary was the most horrid time in my life. I did not know how awful people could be until I saw the preacher wannabes. I had taught high school in an inner city school ( Houston,Tx) and the kids there had more morals and ethics than the ” preachers.” ( Now this is not everyone, but I am shocked at how many of my classmates are now holding fairly large pastorships that were questionable at best in seminary.)

  72. Jerome wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.
    Bingo.
    The Vice President grandson was…Aaron Burr!

    Sixth great granddaughter is Janet Edwards. Presbyterian Minister. 🙂Lowlandseer wrote:

    @ Lowlandseer:
    And the SBC affirmed it this year in Arizona.
    http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2278/on-the-necessity-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement

    The SBC of my childhood accepted that there were different views by Baptists that did not negate the basics.

    It would have been considered unseemly to affirm such a creedal concept at the convention back then because that was a local church issue.

    Since the Neo cals have taken over it’s become very creedal and authoritarian. It’s theirs now.

  73. There is something else that Ligonier is sort of famous for in legal circles. Back around 2006-7, Ligoneir filed suit against a blogger who was questioning their financial operations when Sprouls son-in-law, Tim Dick,was running the place.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2006-09-05/news/BLOG05_1_first-amendment-sanford-dick

    USA Today also covered it as did law Prof, Glenn Reynolds aka, Instapundit.

    It was a big deal because it was about the internet and the First Amendment. The media coverage backfired on Ligoneir and they told their donors they dropped it when they really didn’t. They kept it open but they could never find the Blogger. So they did lie to their donors. And boy did they troll for donations while living pretty high on the hog. The General Manager of Ligoneir at the time was Ligon Duncan’s brother.

    It also came out at this time that Ligonier stoled an old guys book business by duping him in the contract. (Can’t remember the name) but the old guy would not sue them. Made me think of Paul Debusman who just lived with Al Mohlers decision to hurt his retirement. Cruel men.

    It was also during this time that Sproul juniors online book was discovered. In it, he called the wealthy woman who bankrolled Ligoneir a “white witch”. He took it down, of course.

    The more one looked into the fruit of this “family business” it was not what one expected. At all.

  74. K.D. wrote:

    I did not know how awful people could be until I saw the preacher wannabes.

    It’s common knowledge that some of the meanest people on the planet are church folks, some preachers included. Sadly, there are young men who go to seminary because they see the pastorate as an easy job and/or route to mega-stardom. We usually hear about them when they fall, but some reach celebrity status in front of the spotlight while living like hell behind it without their sins being exposed. They use the church, instead of serving it.

  75. @ Max:

    “It’s common knowledge that some of the meanest people on the planet are church folks, some preachers included.”

    ——

    There’s a baby in that bathwater. The New Testament era churches had their share of issues too. Many of the epistles are written to address/correct these issues/individuals.

  76. K.D. wrote:

    Max, seminary was the most horrid time in my life. I did not know how awful people could be until I saw the preacher wannabes. I had taught high school in an inner city school ( Houston,Tx) and the kids there had more morals and ethics than the ” preachers.” ( Now this is not everyone, but I am shocked at how many of my classmates are now holding fairly large pastorships that were questionable at best in seminary.)

    I had a similar experience both at Liberty and at SETBS. Being specialized in missions was the only thing that redeemed that. Some of those wannabe pastors would try to impress me with their “I’m going to start a megachurch” spiel and totally fumbled when I asked them the key question of a missionary: “Who are you reaching?”

    One memorable guy actually ran away…

  77. @ drstevej:
    I understand where you are coming from, but I see it a bit differently. I am willing to see an entire institutional church or ministry be destroyed to do right by just one innocent person. To many people, especially women and children, have been chewed up and spit out so we don’t “throw the baby out with the bath water.” Please understand: I am not accusing you of this in any way, shape, or form. I just think that this is what Jesus’s millstone comment was about. We cannot value anything higher than individual people, because they are the true church.

  78. I am in favor of throwing out the bathwater (congregants or pastor). My point is that we need to be careful not to paint with too broad of a brush. I have attended or taught in 5 seminaries, been a pastor in 4 churches in the last 45 years and know thousands of wonderful, caring Christian church members and pastors and church staff.

    I have listened to the sad stories of many who have been abused in church contexts and sought to help them find a caring place in the Body of Christ.

  79. Max wrote:

    In the first video clip, there’s enough arrogance sitting on that stage to fuel a rocket to the moon and back! Have you ever noticed that religious intellectuals are not very smart?

    I don’t know about smart, but they tend not to be very kind, compassionate, gentle, loving and lack in goodness and humility.

  80. drstevej wrote:

    The New Testament era churches had their share of issues too.

    Agreed. Satan has always found a way into the organized church. The great deceiver is still at work in pulpit and pew. Believers need to be diligent … it’s OK to come out from her and not partake of her sins if the Holy Spirit so moves you.

  81. Darlene wrote:

    they tend not to be very kind, compassionate, gentle, loving and lack in goodness and humility

    Have you noticed that always comes up in TWW pieces about New Calvinism? It’s just the nature of the beast.

  82. @ Max:

    We do need to gather together regularly (Heb. 10:24-25) to build-up one another. Isolation is not spiritually healthy. I gather with believers in the local church I attend as well as online with fellow believers widely scattered.

  83. drstevej wrote:

    @ Burwell:
    Jonaathan and Sarah Edwards’ descendants: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 65 professors, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers and 100 missionaries.

    And this proves what, exactly?

  84. Lowlandseer wrote:

    And Chrysostom said this in an exposition of Matthew
    “For the cross destroyed the enmity of God towards man, brought about the reconciliation, made the earth Heaven, associated men with angels, pulled down the citadel of death, unstrung the force of the devil, extinguished the power of sin, delivered the world from error, brought back the truth, expelled the Demons, destroyed temples, overturned altars, suppressed the sacrificial offering, implanted virtue, founded the Churches. The cross is the will of the Father, the glory of the Son, the rejoicing of the Spirit, the boast of Paul, “for,” he says, “God forbid that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The cross is that which is brighter than the sun, more brilliant than the sunbeam: for when the sun is darkened then the cross shines brightly: and the sun is darkened not because it is extinguished, but because it is overpowered by the brilliancy of the cross. The cross has broken our bond, it has made the prison of death ineffectual, it is the demonstration of the love of God. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one who believes in Him should not perish.” And again Paul says “If being enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” The cross is the impregnable wall, the invulnerable shield, the safeguard of the rich, the resource of the poor, the defence of those who are exposed to snares, the armour of those who are attacked, the means of suppressing passion, and of acquiring virtue, the wonderful and marvellous sign. “For this generation seeketh after a sign: and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonas;” and again Paul says, “for the Jews ask for a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified.” The cross opened Paradise, it brought in the robber, it conducted into the kingdom of Heaven the race of man which was about to perish, and was not worthy even of earth. So great are the benefits which have sprung and do spring from the cross,“

    Amen! I am an Orthodox Christian and we make use of Chrysostom’s liturgy in our worship. However, in all the above, I see not one iota of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

  85. ION: Space

    It looks as though SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy will make its first flight (however far it gets – Elon Musk is managing expectations rather conservatively) in January. I’m sure Wartburgers will all be anticipating this as eagerly as I am.

  86. Max wrote:

    In the first video clip, there’s enough arrogance sitting on that stage to fuel a rocket to the moon and back! Have you ever noticed that religious intellectuals are not very smart?

    I missed this, otherwise I’d have linked my last comment to it.

  87. Incidentally, I’m not sure it’s true. The energy-density of arrogance is actually very low.

  88. Bridget wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    @ Burwell:
    Jonaathan and Sarah Edwards’ descendants: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 65 professors, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers and 100 missionaries.
    I don’t know . . . should we also consider the known and unknowns who prematurely ended their lives or lived in worlds of depression due to the teachings of Edwards? Maybe we should ignore this part?
    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.

    Amen, Bridget. There are many who are unknown in the archives of history but are precious in the sight of God.

  89. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    This is excellent. Years ago, we looked at the “Scream of the Damned.”
    i.e. Chuckles Mahaney channeling Sam Kinnison.

    HUG: Sometimes your humor nails it.

  90. drstevej wrote:

    Jonaathan and Sarah Edwards’ descendants: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 65 professors, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers and 100 missionaries.

    What about Jonathan Edwards’ slaves? Do we know about their descendants? (I do know that Jonathan Edwards the younger was one of the earliest public anti-slavery Presbyterians in the US.)

    Seriously, as a descendant of American nobodies, I’m pretty unimpressed here.

  91. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    Yes….They just won’t come out and say, “Calvinism”, they try to hide it in code language.
    “Always use proper code words: ‘Relocation’… ‘Resettlement’… ‘Delousing’…”
    — (fictional) Hauptsturmfuehrer-SD Eric Dorf, Holocaust (1970s minseries)

    Winsome, Complementarianism, Biblical…

  92. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:
    And Chrysostom said this in an exposition of Matthew
    This is a very good quote that does not prove PSA.

    Ditto! We think alike, Ken. It’s anachronistic to read PSA into Chrysostom.

  93. Re: RC Sproul (thread idea)… I am not very familiar with him at all. I do not swim in the New Calvinist stream. I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

  94. Ricco wrote:

    @ drstevej:
    If he had been sterile, would he still have been as worthy of respect? What if all his babies had died or his wife died in childbirth?

    I can’t get past Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God with Edwards. That thinking has damaged my faith and I’m only now escaping.

    Thankfully I just read it, but didn’t accept or believe it. Otherwise, me thinks I may have been driven to despair.

  95. drstevej wrote:

    @ Ricco:
    FYI, Edwards preached more on the love of God than the wrath of God…

    “Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off an evil odor: so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.” Ecclesiastes 10:1

  96. drstevej wrote:

    Re: RC Sproul (thread idea)… I am not very familiar with him at all. I do not swim in the New Calvinist stream. I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

    Off the record, being from the South, I always liked RC Cola….but never a moon pie……and a little known cola called ” Mr. Cola.” ( I have not seen a bottle of Mr. Cola in 40 yrs.)

  97. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I have found Calvinists talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one. For example: Here is John Piper’s version that all babies go to heaven.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-do-you-believe-that-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven
    Al Mohler agrees:
    https://albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

    Nancy2: He sorted before they ever took breath.

  98. drstevej wrote:

    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.

    Oh, so as horrible as the first term then. Thanks anyway.

  99. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I have found Calvinists talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one.

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

    Nancy2: He sorts them before they ever took breath, before they ever came into the womb.

  100. Beakerj wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    FYI, Edwards preached more on the love of God than the wrath of God…
    That may be true, quantitatively. But once you have been terrified by his infamous sermon the’love’ he may talk about becomes so redefined as to have no recognisable meaning. May as well use a totally different word.

    You’ve got that right, Beaker. After reading Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, one must wonder what Jonathan Edwards meant by the word love. Because the God he depicts in that sermon sure isn’t a God of love, compassion, kindness or mercy.

  101. Beakerj wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.

    Oh, so as horrible as the first term then. Thanks anyway.

    A distinction without a difference.

  102. elastigirl wrote:

    this is like conjecture city. and why does something as weird and obscene as this take? why get all orgasmic over this??

    Why? Because it’s what defines them and gives their empty lives meaning.
    Weird and obscene doesn’t go far enough.

    When TWW first did an article on the scream of the damned thing, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, fart, or cuss. Probably did all four but can’t remember in what order. I’m just glad to be free and emancipated from their sick and twisted religion.

  103. Jerome wrote:

    Former member of The Backstreet Boys poised to lead at Ligonier:

    CHALLIES: you were an original member of the Backstreet Boys. Is this true?
    PARSONS: I recall the day we were told the name of our group. Alex, Nick, Howie, Sam, and I were together in Lou Pearlman’s enormous game room…

    Odd. I looked up the history of the Backstreet Boys on Wiki and elsewhere and cannot find any information that he was an original member of the band. It turns out he never made one recording with this group. He never accepted the offer to join.

  104. I concur with Ken and Darlene. It is completely anachronistic to read penal substitution back into the church fathers. That quote from Chrysostom above does not speak of PSA. PSA has its origins in the sixteenth century, 200 years after the nominalistic revolution instigated the replacement of personal language with legal language in theology.

    However, the fathers in my opinion unequivocally affirmed substitution in the atonement, both in the fairly literal sense and the more vicarious sense. The concept of substitution is all through them. I think the Chrysostom quote affirms a substitution, just not in the penal sense.

    The real problem with PSA is that it operates on the same “moral debt” paradigm as the concept of forgiveness. Our sins are a moral debt to God. A debt can be discharged in two ways: it can be forgiven, or it can be paid, but not both. If a debt is paid in full, there is nothing left to forgive. If a debt is forgiven, there is nothing left to pay. We can’t have it both ways. Either our sins are paid for or our sins are forgiven – having both is impossible. Saying that the sin was transferred to Christ does not help our cause, because then we have the Father needing paid while the Son can be okay without payment, a problem that divides the one being of God (Father and Son).

    Since the Bible says plenty about divine forgiveness and does so clearly, I will stake my claim there.

    Jim G.

  105. @ dee:

    “Years ago, we looked at the “Scream of the Damned.” Having trapped through the evangelical wilderness for decades, I have heard more sermons trying to describe just how must evil was piled on Jesus. Each and everyone of them was trying to outdo others in describing the evil.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    so…. why? is it a competition? are they campaigning for president of the pretend “Elusive Concepts with Deep Meaning” club? The ECDM?

    or… i truly pick up on some thrills and jollies, here. like, they get some kind of stimulation out of all the horror (sexual, even — on some level).

    (Oh man, you should have seen the pastor of the church i attended when Mel Gibson’s Passion Of The Christ was out. A giddiness. As if he was titillated by it all. He saw the movie several times.)

    or maybe anything where they can demonstrate what they believe shows their superior prowess has a sexual component to it.

    they all look and sound so silly. it’s their air of smug satisfaction with themselves that makes it darkly comical.

  106. Darlene wrote:

    Nancy2: He sorts them before they ever took breath, before they ever came into the womb.

    Ah, Jerimiah 1:5 …….

  107. Lydia wrote:

    It also came out at this time that Ligonier stoled an old guys book business by duping him in the contract. (Can’t remember the name) but the old guy would not sue them. Made me think of Paul Debusman who just lived with Al Mohlers decision to hurt his retirement. Cruel men.

    Lydia, your comment about Paul Debusman perked my interest. Then I read about the way he was treated at SBTS. That institution throws people under the bus without so much as a pang of conscience to deter them. Here is an article about this librarian and the manner in which he was treated by those behind the Conservative Resurgence, i.e. – the Neo-Calvinists.
    https://baptistnews.com/article/for-one-seminary-librarian-stating-the-facts-cost-him-his-job/#.Wjw4XUqnHIU

  108. @ Muff Potter:

    Though not really a unit of energy density, 1 Tesla is actually quite a strong magnet.

    Interestingly, in June of last year, a research team led by physicists at Beijing University of Technology succeeded in isolating a few milligrams of arrogance. They then dissolved it in a solution of sodium bromide in perchloric acid and developed a sophisticated technique for measuring the net change in redox potential of the sodium ions. This enabled them to measure the energy-density of the arrogance; they found it to be less than 100 J / kg (compare with over 40 million J / kg for typical hydrocarbon fuels, rather more for hydrogen, and around 80 billion J / kg for typical nucular fission.

  109. @ Darlene:
    That him and his wife had functioning reproductive equipment and were fortunate enough to not loose them all in childhood.

    JS Bach’s wife bore 19 children. 10 survived to adolescence

  110. Ricco wrote:

    @ drstevej:
    I understand where you are coming from, but I see it a bit differently. I am willing to see an entire institutional church or ministry be destroyed to do right by just one innocent person. To many people, especially women and children, have been chewed up and spit out so we don’t “throw the baby out with the bath water.” Please understand: I am not accusing you of this in any way, shape, or form. I just think that this is what Jesus’s millstone comment was about. We cannot value anything higher than individual people, because they are the true church.

    Sometimes the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many.

  111. Ricco wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    That him and his wife had functioning reproductive equipment and were fortunate enough to not loose them all in childhood.
    JS Bach’s wife bore 19 children. 10 survived to adolescence

    And then we have Rahab the Harlot who is in the genealogy of Jesus Christ our Savior.

  112. Bridget wrote:

    Not to mention, we really don’t know how these descendents lived their lives. This definitely “looks” like success to many but, as we are currently seeing around us, titles, business successes, political successes, etc. don’t necessarily mean anything spiritually.

    Excellent point, Bridget. Judging by the headlines that we have been seeing on a daily basis recently, having a position of power or authority in this world is no guarantee of anything.

  113. drstevej wrote:

    Re: RC Sproul (thread idea)… I am not very familiar with him at all. I do not swim in the New Calvinist stream. I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

    Last week I visited an old haunt in Scranton, PA, Papa’s Pizza. They serve RC Cola there, which is quite rare to find in most establishments. I tasted it and it brought back wonderful memories.

  114. K.D. wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    Re: RC Sproul (thread idea)… I am not very familiar with him at all. I do not swim in the New Calvinist stream. I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

    Off the record, being from the South, I always liked RC Cola….but never a moon pie……and a little known cola called ” Mr. Cola.” ( I have not seen a bottle of Mr. Cola in 40 yrs.)

    Remember the soda, Wink? I miss that stuff.

  115. Jim G. wrote:

    I think the Chrysostom quote affirms a substitution, just not in the penal sense.
    The real problem with PSA is that it operates on the same “moral debt” paradigm as the concept of forgiveness. Our sins are a moral debt to God. A debt can be discharged in two ways: it can be forgiven, or it can be paid, but not both. If a debt is paid in full, there is nothing left to forgive. If a debt is forgiven, there is nothing left to pay. We can’t have it both ways. Either our sins are paid for or our sins are forgiven – having both is impossible. Saying that the sin was transferred to Christ does not help our cause, because then we have the Father needing paid while the Son can be okay without payment, a problem that divides the one being of God (Father and Son).
    Since the Bible says plenty about divine forgiveness and does so clearly, I will stake my claim there.
    Jim G.

    Thank you so much, Jim, for explaining the problems with PSA in such clear terms.

  116. My wife and I are heading North on I-65 just South of Louisville, KY( she is driving). Since I’ve never been to this place before, if we come across an HOV lane, does she count as a full person here?

  117. Darlene wrote:

    K.D. wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    Re: RC Sproul (thread idea)… I am not very familiar with him at all. I do not swim in the New Calvinist stream. I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

    Off the record, being from the South, I always liked RC Cola….but never a moon pie……and a little known cola called ” Mr. Cola.” ( I have not seen a bottle of Mr. Cola in 40 yrs.)

    Remember the soda, Wink? I miss that stuff.

    I am not familiar with Mr Cola

  118. Max wrote:

    How it [new calvinism] has survived this long is beyond me

    First, new calvinism hasn’t been around all that long; only twenty years or so, essentially corresponding with the life of the internet. I think a lot of people haven’t noticed it yet. It’s still within the leadership of affected churches, and under the radar of the man in the pew.

    Second, the man in the pew isn’t really interested in either theology or in church politics. Affected churches will undergo changes in their politics, but it doesn’t really change Sunday morning worship. Service will continue to start at 10:30 and get done around noon. And most people won’t notice the shift in theology because it’s all “biblical” and supported by bible verses which they’re already familiar with. People may notice a shift in attitudes, perhaps an edge that wasn’t there in the past, and eventually they may wander to another church if it’s distasteful. But I’m not convinced that most are paying attention to what’s behind it.

  119. Ted wrote:

    I’m not convinced that most are paying attention

    Agreed. New Calvinism has made inroads into SBC life because the average Southern Baptist is uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant about the subtle shifts in belief and practice that are taking place as a new breed of pastors hit the pulpit. The New Calvinist leaders (Mohler et al) knew that a general apathy and complacency in Southern Baptist churches would open the window they needed (brilliant strategy!). The average Southern Baptist doesn’t give a big whoop about theology … but if you mess with their potluck dinners you’ll have a fight on your hands!

  120. @ drstevej
    The organized church in America is in such a mess today that believers need to seriously look at where they go to church and strike a balance between “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” vs. “come out of her and be not a partaker of her sins.” It’s not healthy for Christians to do church without God. If you can find the Bride of Christ in a community, join yourself to it … you might have to look hard for the Church within the church.

  121. drstevej wrote:

    @ Max:
    We do need to gather together regularly (Heb. 10:24-25) to build-up one another. Isolation is not spiritually healthy. I gather with believers in the local church I attend as well as online with fellow believers widely scattered.

    And sometimes we need to go to Tarsus (home for a while) and work things through with our Advocate. All of that is a personal decision and ignore proof texting used for guilting. The Hebrews were in a specific precarious situation.

  122. @ Darlene:
    I am grateful for the people who put the stories online. A lot of really bad stuff was done before social media. Frankly, few knew outside the inner circles. Older gentleman like Mr. Debussman did not make a fuss. They were just gone and few dared to ask.

    Be sure our sins will find us out!

  123. Max wrote:

    Not in Louisville … that is ground-zero for New Calvinism and female subordination!

    Well, we made it through the city without seeing any HOV lanes. I was wondering how the city manages how to count women, but it looks like they dodged the issue.

  124. Jim G. wrote:

    However, the fathers in my opinion unequivocally affirmed substitution in the atonement, both in the fairly literal sense and the more vicarious sense. The concept of substitution is all through them. I think the Chrysostom quote affirms a substitution, just not in the penal sense.

    This is a very important point. The penal aspect makes all the difference. I get the sense that PSA advocates fail to see this important distinction.

  125. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    It’s also odd that people think that they can be saved without the Lord Jesus having to stand in their place and bear the punishment that is rightfully theirs.

    This is the question about how Jesus saved us. What you describe is penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). As far as I have been able to find, Calvin was the first to articulate it and it was not believed or taught for at least the first 1000 years of Christianity. The key issue is whether Jesus saved us by appeasing the wrath of God by being punished in our place. This is a pagan view of the atonement. Saying that Jesus was actually forsaken by God, in that God turned away from Jesus, is formal heresy because it divides the Trinity. Can you cite any writing from the first 1000 years of orthodox Christianity that lays out PSA in the way Calvinists describe it? I have not found any such writings.

    What Ken F said!!!

  126. Darlene wrote:

    You’ve got that right, Beaker. After reading Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, one must wonder what Jonathan Edwards meant by the word love.

    After reading this by Edwards, one has to question what he means by glory: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/newly-published-edwards-essay.
    He claims that God’s glory requires eternal evil. Think about that one for a minute. Historical Christianity says Jesus defeats evil. But Edwards says the defeat of evil would diminish God’s glory and our happiness. Wow!

  127. Darlene wrote:

    Ditto! We think alike, Ken. It’s anachronistic to read PSA into Chrysostom.

    I’m wondering if I will become Orthodox like you. It’s very tempting right now. I would never have discovered Orthodox theology if I had not investigated Calvinism. Have you followed Brad Jersak? He is a former Calvinist who became Orthodox. His writings and podcasts having been making a big impression on me lately.

  128. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/from-backstreet-boys-to-ligonier/

    “Burk is the editor of Tabletalk and a minister at St. Andrews (where he will eventually be the successor to R.C. Sproul)…he was once slotted to be the frontman for the Backstreet Boys (and then was offered the same with N’Sync)”

    https://www.challies.com/interviews/to-backstreet-and-back-an-interview-with-burk-parsons-part-3/

    CHALLIES: you were the first person Lou Pearlman spoke to when he decided to begin another band he called ‘N Sync.

    PARSONS: we met in his game room; he sat in his big chair and I sat on his sofa; he leaned toward me and said, “Burk, I’m going to give you another chance. I’m starting a new group…I want you to be the first member of this group. We will build the group around you, and you will help us choose the guys in the group. You are no longer a minor; you will need to move to Orlando as soon as possible”….While the name ‘N SYNC was never mentioned to me, it was my understanding that was the group I would have been a part of.

  129. Lydia wrote:

    And sometimes we need to go to Tarsus (home for a while) and work things through with our Advocate.

    The best days of my Christian experience were spent alone, talking to Jesus. Much of the New Testament was written by believers living in isolation … in prison cells, in a cave in exile. While the Church is at its best when believers link their individual giftings together as one man in Christ Jesus, I don’t see much of that happening in 21st century institutional church. Jesus came to redeem individuals, not institutions. The institution we call church is OK if it is reaching lost souls for Christ, equipping them to do the work of the ministry, with all engaged in fulfilling the Great Commission. Anything less than that is doing church without God.

  130. @ Max:
    Doing that myself saved my faith and spiritual health. It was a dire necessity after what I saw and experienced. .

  131. Jerome wrote:

    “He held degrees from Westminster College (B.A., 1961), Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (B.D., 1964), and the Free University of Amsterdam (Drs., 1969) and received several honorary degrees.”

    How common is this among christian celebrities?

  132. Nan wrote:

    I think you might have this confused — it’s the antithesis of cherry picking

    I don’t believe I am confused on this. I have done quite a lot of research on this. Only a very thin minority of Christians have ever believed in PSA in the way it is described by folks like Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Calvin, and the vast majority of Calvinists. Can you find one early church father who claimed that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God, or that God turned his face away from Jesus, or that God was appeased by punishing Jesus. You will find them supporting substitution, but not penal substitution. PSA really was an invention by Calvin. It could be true, but I find it highly unlikely to be true.

  133. Isaiah 53

    4 Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
    yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
    upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with his wounds we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
    and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.

  134. @ Ricco:
    Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. Psalms 116.

    I recently attended the funeral of an elderly saint. Simple blue collar long life that touched so many. He was the fix it guy for so many people who needed help but could not afford to hire it. I was having the same thoughts you articulated in your comment during the funeral. He was always doing for others— with his hands.

  135. @ drstevej:
    Isaiah 9

    6 For unto us a Child is born,
    Unto us a Son is given;
    And the government will be upon His shoulder.
    And His name will be called
    Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    7 Of the increase of His government and peace
    There will be no end,
    Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
    To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
    From that time forward, even forever.
    The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this

    Look at the descriptors.

  136. drstevej wrote:

    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.

    If I believed that, I’d keep that coin in my pocket.

  137. drstevej wrote:

    yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God,

    This passage is used by PSA advocates to prove their point, but they miss the important “yet” that turns the meaning around. This was a prophetic warning against PSA. God was not smiting Jesus, but that’s how we would be tempted to interpret it. It’s exactly the trap that PSA advocates fell into, in spite of the clear warning against it. Read all of Psalm 22, especially verse 24.

  138. Deb wrote:

    These guys are such copycats.

    When they copy, whom do they credit?

    Satan is The Great Imitator, Counterfeit, Deceiver.

  139. Ricco wrote:

    Theology can be a game until what you think about God is the only thing standing between your soul and destruction in the face of tragedy.

    What one thinks, and as you aptly point out, what one does, even more importantly.

    There’s a book by Dave Breese called, “Seven Men Who Rule the World from the Grave”. One wonders if there are “theologians” who rule or influence even from the grave.

  140. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    what, is it vicarious self-flagellation, with some pleasure component in the torture?

    christianity makes people too weird.

    (no, don’t reach for “we’re a peculiar people” — religion has gotten to your head and you’re weird)

    not speaking to you, Ken F Tweed — “heavens to betsy” (love that saying) not to you, Ken, but to christians who like to talk about pain and torture. as if being comfortable with it is a Members Only jacket only for the spiritually elite.

  141. @ Lydia:
    The way I see it now, that man was participating in God’s work to care for his children, whether that man knew it or not.

  142. drstevej wrote:

    @ Max:

    “It’s common knowledge that some of the meanest people on the planet are church folks, some preachers included.”

    ——

    There’s a baby in that bathwater. The New Testament era churches had their share of issues too. Many of the epistles are written to address/correct these issues/individuals.

    Unfortunately, those writing today have fouled the water so badly that the baby needs to be rescued from the toxic waters. 15 yard penalty for recording of bathwater phrase. Offsetting penalties for further butchering of baby and bathwater.

  143. drstevej wrote:

    I have listened to the sad stories of many who have been abused in church contexts and sought to help them find a caring place in the Body of Christ.

    True pastors are no more and no less than a co-equal member of the body. Much evil results from the distorted way we view leadership in the church. It breaks my heart when this system hurts anyone.

  144. @ Ricco:
    Agree. He was a simple Christian of his generation and would be embarrassed that people made a big deal of it. That’s a whole other subject that eventually made me weary of the current “church” types. The showcasing of holiness talk and good deeds which often consists of a visit to a Portugal beach/ mission trip. Sigh.

  145. @ Max:

    “While the Church is at its best when believers link their individual giftings together as one man in Christ Jesus, I don’t see much of that happening in 21st century institutional church.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    i’ve never, ever observed this. have you? i don’t think it’s possible in the institutional church.

    (well, in my prayer group i suppose i do — we all are on unique spiritual frequencies, and pray in different ways, responding to each other and to God to do ‘business’)

  146. drstevej wrote:

    @ Max:

    We do need to gather together regularly (Heb. 10:24-25) to build-up one another. Isolation is not spiritually healthy. I gather with believers in the local church I attend as well as online with fellow believers widely scattered.

    The body has been replaced by a programmable machine with a small group of programmers who may or may not care for the mechanical components. There are even traveling programmers; some of whom travel much of the time. I hope your health is such that you’re able to attend al the weekly functions of your home fellowship.

  147. drstevej wrote:

    @ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:

    I do not condone slavery, whether the owner is Edwards, Whitefield or anyone else. It was and is wrong.

    But, it is an interesting fact.

  148. Max wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    They serve RC Cola there
    Did they have any Moon Pies to go with it?

    No, Max. Scranton is not the South. 😉

  149. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    And you can read about its origins around 2nd century here.

    If you like this type of history and logic, then I highly recommend this book for you: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Prophet-Muhammad-Ata-Ur-Rahim/dp/1879402734. It makes a very compelling case from the writings of the church fathers that Jesus was only a man and not in any way divine. I read it quite a few years ago. The book takes the writings of the church fathers completely out of context – it uses their arguments for the humanity of Jesus to make it sound like he had only a human nature. It is a very dishonest book. I find the same thing from modern authors who try to use early church writings to prove PSA. The fact is you would never derive PSA from the entire context of early church writings. It’s dishonest to project this belief onto them. One can believe PSA if one wants to, but one should not try to make the case that the early church also believed it. At least in the way it is now taught as Jesus satisfying the wrath of God by being punished and forsaken by the Father.

    Thank you for saving me a lot of typing. PSA was unknown in the time of St John Chrysostom. Cherry-picking quotes from the Church Father’s is no different from quoting the Psalms to prove that the Bible says “there is no God.”

    The Bible does say that. In the Psalms.

    But it is preceded by the phrase, “The fool has said in his heart…”.

    The Church Father’s must bevread from the mind of the Church from which they wrote.

    PSA was from the 1100s. Anselm. A lot later than most of the writings of those identified as the Church Fathers.

  150. Max wrote:

    believers link their individual giftings together as one man in Christ Jesus

    That’s how Jesus left His people, and they were praying together as one in the book of Acts when the Holy Spirit arrived. Hmmm, today?

  151. elastigirl wrote:

    i’ve never, ever observed this. have you

    Nope. I have seen glimpses when some came together around an issue in the community but the sense of “believers link their individual giftings” was fleeting and was not in the context of an institutional church, definitely not 11AM Sunday morning.

  152. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God,
    This passage is used by PSA advocates to prove their point, but they miss the important “yet” that turns the meaning around. This was a prophetic warning against PSA. God was not smiting Jesus, but that’s how we would be tempted to interpret it. It’s exactly the trap that PSA advocates fell into, in spite of the clear warning against it. Read all of Psalm 22, especially verse 24.

    Amen, Ken! Just as I was reading this passage in Isaiah up thread, the very same thought occurred to me. It says We esteemed him stricken by God and afflicted. But the passage indicates that we are mistaken. And so are the PSA advocates.

  153. Darlene wrote:

    What are HOV lanes?

    It is a lane of highway or freeway that everyone pays for but you cannot use if you are driving by yourself and are honest.

  154. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    but only the elect are save
    How are the elect determined? Does mankind have any choice in the matter?

    According to Calvinism, no they do not. Any Calvinist that says otherwise is not truly a Calvinist. They are Monergists from beginning to end.

  155. A few years ago, Rick Warren also did a “Daniel Diet Plan” type book.
    I wish Christian celebrities would stop it with stuff like this. It’s so cheese ball.

    Perry Noble Invites You to Win with Weight
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/12/21/perry-noble-invites-win-weight/

    According to that page, Noble is charging $7, and for that fee, you get access to some private Facebook weight loss group of his, a diet plan, or whatever.

    Oh, and this:

    “A workout playlist featuring some of my favorite songs”

    Why would I need to pay him seven bucks for his workout list? I am capable of picking out my own workout music, thanks.

    (One of my recent favorite work out tunes is “Uptown Funk” by Bruno Mars, and lately, I’ve also been jogging to “Rebel Yell” by Billy Idol.
    There. I just gave you two workout song ideas ~FOR FREE~.)

    More from that page about Noble’s weight loss plan:

    The video promo is surreal. He launches into his stories as if his church and marriage losses never happened.

  156. I feel for his family members and friends, in their time of grief. But, I also feel, that he is now being corrected in the deficiencies of his theology and humility, by the Master.

  157. drstevej wrote:

    I do like the initials RC however since my grandfather developed the formula for RC Cola.

    RC Cola and Moon Pie

  158. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … and around 80 billion J / kg for typical nucular fission.

    Well, look who can’t count his zeroes. That should be 80 trillion, obviously.

  159. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    John Piper memorialized him by posting a recording of Sproul reading one of Piper’s poems

    At a certain level, this is comedic, isn’t it?

    Years ago, Margaret Thatcher released a CD (I promise you, I am not making this up) in which she recited the Gettysburg Address with Aaron Copland’s “Lincoln Portrait” playing in the background. The The Independent newspaper gave away 10 copies for a joke, and I think they were the only ones sold.

    This happened at around the time she was starting to become, ISTM, a little unhinged (as per her “We are a grandmother!” announcement).

  160. Ricco wrote:

    I do not mean this as a criticism of RC Sproul specifically. I’m only marginally familiar with his work, I own a Reformation Study Bible, etc. From watching those videos though, it seems like he fits into a group of people I have noticed that treat theology like a fun logic game that they want to win. I see New Calvinists do this a lot, but they aren’t the only ones. Some Catholics I know are like this.

    Theology can be a game until what you think about God is the only thing standing between your soul and destruction in the face of tragedy. Once you have been there, you aren’t so patient with people playing word games about Jesus.

    The celebration of Sproul is also evidence of our destructive sacred/secular divide. Would a carpenter in his congregation who died get the same celebration? That man served god as much with his hands if not more than Sproul ever did with his words.

    Rely appreciate your post. Well thought out.
    Husband and me were introduced to Sproul back in 1974, via cassette tapes! At first he seemed so witty, but the sarcasm became more dominant and being that we weren’t Reformed, we kind of placed our interest in Ligoneer Ministry on the back burner.
    Years later I began to hear him again on our Christian radio station. The program always started with the prelude from Handel’s Messiah. Perhaps because I’m not bright enough to be an intellectual, playing that prelude came off to me as, see, I’m an intellectual. I’d occasionally listen to the whole broadcast and came back to our original observation of the presentation, lots of sarcasm, lots of as you called it, game playing.
    When I read the gospels, I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm, no faux intellectualism, no hype, and IMO, no Calvinism either.

  161. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    It’s a possibility I could follow that path too, but am going very slowly right now & taking the long view. Reading lots of NT Wright. Parishes are few & far between here in England & I’d want to find a moderate one. I’m a bit weirded out by all the bells & whistles though.

  162. What Happened wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.
    If I believed that, I’d keep that coin in my pocket.

    I’ve said for years, if you’re elect or not, what’s the point in going to church? Either you’re going to make it……Or not…..

  163. Interesting…lovely tributes. “Big impact” on a Protestantism? I was a protestant for years and never heard of him or his ministry.
    Sounds like he got a great payday out of it.

  164. Beakerj wrote:

    am going very slowly right now & taking the long view

    That’s my approach as well. So far I’ve found Orthodoxy much more patient – it has a “come and see” approach with no pressure for a quick conversion.

  165. Forrest wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    Bingo.
    The Vice President grandson was…Aaron Burr!

    LOL.

    Aaron Burr’s parents both died when he was a child. Jonathan and Sarah Edwards his grandparents died before he reached adulthood. Everyone has a back story that could use a little compassion. Oh and Alexander Hamilton did say in public some really awful things about Burr. Burr was no perfect person. “But for the grace of God go I.” It was a different time. Thank God that dueling has been shamed away.

  166. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

    I grew up in churches that preached this theology. Their answer: 12yrs old was the “Age of Accountability.” It mattered not that they could not quote chapter or verse. They would pull anecdotal “evidence” from passages about children and infer the age. And then apply current childhood growth and development milestones to us indicating at what point they felt a child could responsibly “believe and choose” in free will if given the option/election. Of course, imagine the pressure placed on us and youth pastors. It made for a lot of “turn or burn” and “hell fire and brimstone” threat type messages. Revivals were prevalent and we all went to the altar to “be saved” multiple times. Just in case.

    For a more interesting case of nailing jello to the wall, ask one of them “What about the developmentally disabled…do they go to heaven?” This becomes a very interesting discussion centered around MRDD and the profoundly mentally incapacitated. They will squirm like a fish on a hook at that question!

  167. Ken A wrote:

    Forrest wrote:
    Jerome wrote:
    Bingo.
    The Vice President grandson was…Aaron Burr!
    LOL.
    Aaron Burr’s parents both died when he was a child. Jonathan and Sarah Edwards his grandparents died before he reached adulthood. Everyone has a back story that could use a little compassion. Oh and Alexander Hamilton did say in public some really awful things about Burr. Burr was no perfect person. “But for the grace of God go I.” It was a different time. Thank God that dueling has been shamed away.

    And debtor’s prison, likewise. My own grandcestor’s brother was one Robert Morris. He had been the wealthiest human in North America. Wealthier even, perhaps, than the current Robert Morris. Also he was BFF of General Washington. If not for his generosity in personally financing the revolution, we might all be speaking English today. But after the war, when the economy tanked, the good ol’ USA thanked him by locking him up in debtor’s prison.

  168. K.D. wrote:

    What Happened wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.
    If I believed that, I’d keep that coin in my pocket.

    I’ve said for years, if you’re elect or not, what’s the point in going to church? Either you’re going to make it……Or not…..

    Church is not a place to earn anything. Its a place to say thanks! and to encourage one another to love and good works.

  169. Mae wrote:

    When I read the gospels, I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm, no faux intellectualism, no hype, and IMO, no Calvinism either.

    I’m that way with the tales of Jesus’ supernatural exploits. I believe them with no proof, marvel at them for what they are, and I love how they speak for themselves.

  170. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

    Maybe Two? Since that’s when toddlers turn terrible? If these guys are correct, then Herod did many if not most of the Innocents a FAVOR. Imagine the XMas card:
    To the babes of Bethlehem– Greetings!
    Please receive my XMas gift in the spirit in which it is intended.
    If you were about to be sentenced by the loving God to Eternal Conscious Torment had you been allowed to grow up– my gift will send you straight into his loving arms.
    If you are among the lucky Elect — sorry about the temporary discomfort my gift will bring– got to break a few eggs to make an omelette!
    Happy Holidays!
    Your ravenously affectionate Uncle,
    Herod

  171. Charis wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    I have a question for them: at what age do they think people are when God sorts between the elect and the condemned?

    I grew up in churches that preached this theology. Their answer: 12yrs old was the “Age of Accountability.” It mattered not that they could not quote chapter or verse. They would pull anecdotal “evidence” from passages about children and infer the age. And then apply current childhood growth and development milestones to us indicating at what point they felt a child could responsibly “believe and choose” in free will if given the option/election. Of course, imagine the pressure placed on us and youth pastors. It made for a lot of “turn or burn” and “hell fire and brimstone” threat type messages. Revivals were prevalent and we all went to the altar to “be saved” multiple times. Just in case.

    For a more interesting case of nailing jello to the wall, ask one of them “What about the developmentally disabled…do they go to heaven?” This becomes a very interesting discussion centered around MRDD and the profoundly mentally incapacitated. They will squirm like a fish on a hook at that question!

    I have had the same question, and gotten the same answer about an “age of accountability”, and you are right, there is NO book, chapter, verse where you can “prove” that an “age of accountability” exists.

    And since I have a son with autism, I also have the same questions about the mentally and developmentally disabled. My opinion is that I don’t believe that God, who through Jesus showed so much love for the children, would condemn someone child-like to eternal punishment.

  172. Daisy wrote:

    A few years ago, Rick Warren also did a “Daniel Diet Plan” type book.
    I wish Christian celebrities would stop it with stuff like this. It’s so cheese ball.

    “Cheese ball”. A good term.

  173. drstevej wrote:

    Church is not a place to earn anything. Its a place to say thanks! and to encourage one another to love and good works.

    This can be done anywhere and at all times without the pomp and endless suction of resources for expenses of building sites and people to run them, etc.

  174. Muff Potter wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    When I read the gospels, I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm, no faux intellectualism, no hype, and IMO, no Calvinism either.
    I’m that way with the tales of Jesus’ supernatural exploits. I believe them with no proof, marvel at them for what they are, and I love how they speak for themselves.

    Yes. No editing or promotion required.

  175. Bridget wrote:

    This can be done anywhere and at all times without the pomp and endless suction of resources for expenses of building sites and people to run them, etc.

    True. One of the most meaningful worship services I attended was in a small town in Mexico. We met in the alley between houses. Pews were cement blocks and boards. Pulpit was an old card table. The plastic keyboard had a dozen or so keys that still worked. Chickens roamed the aisles. I asked my missionary friend when the service started and he said, “ten or eleven… really when folks get there.”

  176. Mae wrote:

    I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm, no faux intellectualism, no hype, and IMO, no Calvinism either.

    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6:44

  177. drstevej wrote:

    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6:44

    John 12:32 – And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

    John 5:19 – Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

    If Jesus draws all, and he only does what he sees the Father doing (and cannot do otherwise), then doesn’t it sound like the Father draws all? Or is there a division in the Trinity?

  178. srs wrote:

    At one point we assumed his son R.C. Sproul, Jr. would be heir apparent, but given his problems with Ashley Madison and driving while intoxicated (with his children in the car), we don’t see how it would be possible for him to follow in his father’s footsteps.

    First my sympathies to the Sproul family. It is always hard losing a family member even when that person is up in age.

    It certainly cast a negative shadow on Sproul Sr. that he had a son with a drinking problem and apparently ignored it or at least shielded his son from the consequences of his actions. Sadly many times a leader chooses different actions when it is one’s own children. What is worse is that Sproul was either so revered or had such power that others weren’t able to force the issue with Sproul Jr.

    I wonder what Sproul’s thinking was about his own son and if he thought his son was really part of the “elect” that they teach? Perhaps that is why Sproul didn’t want to come down on his son like should have been done; doing so would have been Sproul admitting his son’s actions seem to indicate his son wasn’t part of the “elect.”

  179. @ drstevej:

    drstevej: “Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.”

    K.D: “I’ve said for years, if you’re elect or not, what’s the point in going to church? Either you’re going to make it……Or not…..”

    drstevej: “Church is not a place to earn anything. Its a place to say thanks! and to encourage one another to love and good works.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    drstevej, come now. Who said anything about church being a place to earn something? what reason would the non-elect have for going to church (other than to enrich the church and staff with their coveted tithe dollars)?

    What in the world are the non-elect supposed to give thanks for?

  180. PaJo wrote:

    PSA was from the 1100s. Anselm. A lot later than most of the writings of those identified as the Church Fathers.

    Anselm’s contribution to PSA is a bit fuzzy, which is why I wrote that PSA was not believed or taught for the first 1000 years of Christianity rather than the first 1500 years. Technically, Anselm’s theory addresses offended honor, whereas PSA addresses guilt and punishment. So Anselm did not teach PSA directly, but he certainly laid the groundwork for it. So much so that many PSA advocates start with Anselm’s idea that our sin is an infinite offense against God. But Calvin went further and called it infinite guilt that requires infinite punishment. One big problem with this (but not the only problem) is that finite humans cannot cause infinite effects. And for the sola scriptura folks, this assumption is not in the scriptura. I do know that Roman Catholics reject PSA. But I am pretty sure they accept Anselm’s moral satisfaction theory, which shows there is a difference. I personally believe both theories are attempts to explain a mystery that we are probably never going to figure out. I don’t think the “how” of the atonement is necessary for us to believe that it happened.

  181. steve240–your comment about leaders reacting differently when it is their own child echoes the comments of the same sex marriage and gay and transgender rights activists. They just assume that if a conservative Christian parent finds out a child is gay they will quickly change their minds about gay rights.

    Maybe it is just a recognition of the human tendency to chuck our deeply held beliefs if they bring consequences difficult for our kids to face?

  182. drstevej wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm, no faux intellectualism, no hype, and IMO, no Calvinism either.
    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6:44

    Uh, huh….. ” who so ever may come “…

  183. Max, your comments about the church remind me what I learned in Sunbeams in the mid 50’s at that little oilfield Baptist church (SBC.)

    “A church is a voluntary association for the propagation of the gospel.”

    That is all it is. Just a tool for a believer to help him or her reach more of their community for Christ.

    The Church, on the other hand, is all those in a saving relationship with Jesus.

    And as Baptists, heaven help the preacher, teacher, deacon, or whatever that tried to use the church to get between The Church and Jesus. They would be chewed up and spit out, violating soul competency and the priesthood of THE believer:)

  184. Mae wrote:

    ” who so ever may come “…

    actually it’s

    “who so ever WILL may come…”

    He is the one who makes us willing… Here’s another parable I wrote to illustrates how He effects our will.

    =====

    The “Liver & Onions Parable”
    The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will

    Suppose you detest L&O. The sight and smell makes you sick.

    Just once, to appease a friend that insisted that L&O really is good tasting, you touched your tongue’s tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

    You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying “Just try it.” You say, “No way!”

    You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

    SUCH is the unregenerate person’s free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

    ===

    Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

    God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, “What smells so good?” He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn’t look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

    He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste — then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

    He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

    ► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

    ====

    BTW, in Heaven… Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!

    =================================

    “God must tickle our willers.” — Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (Dallas Seminary)

  185. drstevej wrote:

    “God must tickle our willers.” — Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (Dallas Seminary)

    Why does your God not tickle all our willers? Why does he choose to save some when in fact he could save all? Should believers be glad or sad that not all are saved?

  186. drstevej wrote:

    Mae wrote:

    ” who so ever may come “…

    actually it’s

    “who so ever WILL may come…”

    He is the one who makes us willing… Here’s another parable I wrote to illustrates how He effects our will.

    =====

    The “Liver & Onions Parable”
    The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will

    Suppose you detest L&O. The sight and smell makes you sick.

    Just once, to appease a friend that insisted that L&O really is good tasting, you touched your tongue’s tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

    You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying “Just try it.” You say, “No way!”

    You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

    SUCH is the unregenerate person’s free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

    ===

    Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

    God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, “What smells so good?” He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn’t look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

    He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste — then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

    He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

    ► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

    ====

    BTW, in Heaven… Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!

    =================================

    “God must tickle our willers.” — Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (Dallas Seminary)

    I am so glad the babe in the manger, God in the flesh, came to seek the lost. That whoever calls upon Him will be saved, that he so loved the world he died for all the world. What a saviour is found in that blessed babe in the manger.

  187. linda wrote:

    violating soul competency and the priesthood of THE believer

    The New Calvinists swarming SBC right now are determined to do that. Those long-held Baptist doctrines were diminished when the Baptist Faith and Message were revised in 2000 (Al Mohler was on the revision team).

  188. linda wrote:

    A church is a voluntary association for the propagation of the gospel … The Church, on the other hand, is all those in a saving relationship with Jesus.

    Linda, as a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I am amazed at how many church folks don’t get that! I’m convinced that most churchmen don’t really know Jesus, even though they may have walked the isle, prayed a prayer, and been baptized. They go to church, but aren’t the Church. In the heat of a revival years ago, I saw deacons and others give their life to Christ … confessing that they just got it after years of serving the church. I even witnessed a Southern Baptist pastor at a church we attended for a while who, after 15 years of preaching, finally got a handle on Truth and gave his life to Christ.

  189. Mae wrote:

    I am so glad the babe in the manger, God in the flesh, came to seek the lost. That whoever calls upon Him will be saved, that he so loved the world he died for all the world. What a saviour is found in that blessed babe in the manger.

    Whosoever will may come.

    Merry Christmas, Mae.

  190. elastigirl wrote:

    @ drstevej:
    drstevej: “Limited attainment is a term I coined to express my view that Christ died (atoned) for all but only the elect are saved.”
    K.D: “I’ve said for years, if you’re elect or not, what’s the point in going to church? Either you’re going to make it……Or not…..”
    drstevej: “Church is not a place to earn anything. Its a place to say thanks! and to encourage one another to love and good works.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    drstevej, come now. Who said anything about church being a place to earn something? what reason would the non-elect have for going to church (other than to enrich the church and staff with their coveted tithe dollars)?
    What in the world are the non-elect supposed to give thanks for?

    Elastigirl….beat me to it…..well said, well said…

  191. Mae wrote:

    I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm…

    It would be hard to square this with Matthew 23. There is also Jesus reference to Herod as a female fox and some other similar passages. His digs may not have risen to the level of Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal but some are very stinging. Jesus was not a safe and peaceful kinda guy.

  192. Thersites wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    I’m smitten by Jesus sermons. So beautifully crafted….no sarcasm…
    It would be hard to square this with Matthew 23. There is also Jesus reference to Herod as a female fox and some other similar passages. His digs may not have risen to the level of Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal but some are very stinging. Jesus was not a safe and peaceful kinda guy.

    He is, “a safe and peaceful kinda guy”, to those that love him.
    Yes, he definitely was strident, harsh against the false teachers, the politicians, the Pharisees. But, to to the sheep of the fold, tender, kind, loving. As our shepherd, He was no sheep beater and in that I rejoice, find great comfort in the gospels.

  193. Max wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    I am so glad the babe in the manger, God in the flesh, came to seek the lost. That whoever calls upon Him will be saved, that he so loved the world he died for all the world. What a saviour is found in that blessed babe in the manger.
    Whosoever will may come.
    Merry Christmas, Mae.

    Merry Christmas Max.

  194. PaJo wrote:

    Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    And you can read about its origins around 2nd century here.

    If you like this type of history and logic, then I highly recommend this book for you: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Prophet-Muhammad-Ata-Ur-Rahim/dp/1879402734. It makes a very compelling case from the writings of the church fathers that Jesus was only a man and not in any way divine. I read it quite a few years ago. The book takes the writings of the church fathers completely out of context – it uses their arguments for the humanity of Jesus to make it sound like he had only a human nature. It is a very dishonest book. I find the same thing from modern authors who try to use early church writings to prove PSA. The fact is you would never derive PSA from the entire context of early church writings. It’s dishonest to project this belief onto them. One can believe PSA if one wants to, but one should not try to make the case that the early church also believed it. At least in the way it is now taught as Jesus satisfying the wrath of God by being punished and forsaken by the Father.

    Thank you for saving me a lot of typing. PSA was unknown in the time of St John Chrysostom. Cherry-picking quotes from the Church Father’s is no different from quoting the Psalms to prove that the Bible says “there is no God.”

    The Bible does say that. In the Psalms.

    But it is preceded by the phrase, “The fool has said in his heart…”.

    The Church Father’s must bevread from the mind of the Church from which they wrote.

    PSA was from the 1100s. Anselm. A lot later than most of the writings of those identified as the Church Fathers.

    Not true. Pace unscholarly, polemical nutcases like Frederica Matthewes-Greene, Anselm did *not* teach PSA.

    Sigh. One gets so tired of correcting these misconceptions. But I believe even David Bentley Hart has rapped FMG’s knuckles over this.

    Joseph le Maistre once famously said, “Hatred of the papacy is the tie that unites all of the separated churches.” I would revise this to: “misunderstanding and *misrepresenting* Catholic beliefs = that tie.

  195. Mae wrote:

    He is, “a safe and peaceful kinda guy”, to those that love him.
    Yes, he definitely was strident, harsh against the false teachers, the politicians, the Pharisees. But, to to the sheep of the fold, tender, kind, loving. As our shepherd, He was no sheep beater and in that I rejoice, find great comfort in the gospels.

    Indeed!

  196. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Anselm did *not* teach PSA.

    As I’ve heard it taught, Anselm introduced the idea of the atonement as “satisfaction.” In his case, it was more a matter of Jesus bringing glory and honor to the Father in a way that satisfied the Father, a way that no other human could do. It was about honor, at a time when knights still roamed the countryside, and honor was a big deal. Then Calvin and other lawyers applied satisfaction to justice and punishment, so that Jesus satisfied the Father’s need to apply punishment to pay for sins. The Father’s wrath was satisfied, instead of His need for honor.

    Please correct me if I did that wrong. I’m maintaining my status as an amateur theologian.

    These discussions are so helpful for me, personally. In our little corner of the world, most Christians are unaware of different atonement theories. Including the pastors. “Deep theology” usually involves an explanation of PSA. Other theories don’t exist in their world.

    The only exception was when a local pastor read a Facebook post that questioned PSA. For that Pastor, even questioning PSA was flirting with heresy. For me, the freedom to question and read and debate these issues with people who are more educated than myself is… reassuring.

  197. @ GSD [Getting Stuff Done]:

    “… “satisfaction.” In his case, it was more a matter of Jesus bringing glory and honor to the Father in a way that satisfied the Father, a way that no other human could do. It was about honor, …

    Then Calvin and other lawyers applied satisfaction to justice and punishment, so that Jesus satisfied the Father’s need to apply punishment to pay for sins. The Father’s wrath was satisfied, instead of His need for honor.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm…. does God need these things?

    the only thing i think God needs is company. relationship.

    i don’t think God needs to punish, or needs to be honored.

    i think i see it all as forces of nature (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces… or so i’ve just read)

    Without these fundamental forces, you and all the other matter in the universe would fall apart and float away. (or so i’ve just read)

    justice, mercy, love (etc) are like these fundamental forces. it’s not that water needs to flow down to sea level, it just does because of the gravitational force.

    it’s not that God needs to punish or needs to be honored or glorified (such a ridiculous word) — these things just work themselves out.

    you reap what you sow — God’s not punishing, it’s just a force that happens.

    I think creation cheers for God (plant life, animal life, maybe inanimate life, too) — i think there’s a kind of harmonious chorus sounding out from creation all the time. it’s not that God needs honor and glory — it just happens.

    Maybe Jesus is a force, too. maybe Jesus is the mercy force.

    (my thinking is a work in progress, here)

    to sum it up, all in all, these forces (justice, mercy, love, etc) all exert themselves on material and immaterial. God doesn’t need to punish, doesn’t need to be the center of attention. these forces take care of it.

    just as gravity takes care of water flowing down to sea level. (that’s really the only physics force i really understand)

  198. maybe holy spirit is a force. (dunamis explosive power notwithstanding)

    i think $hit happens is a force. (although i’m sure there’s a better name for it)

  199. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    For that Pastor, even questioning PSA was flirting with heresy.

    This leads to a very important question: who or what defines the standard for heresy? Is the standard set by a church council, or by an individual, or by many individuals? One could say that the Bible defines it, but there would not be thousands of Christian denominations if the Bible was unambiguous in every point of doctrine. It seems to me that in the Protestant world each individual believer decides for themselves by aligning with churches that agree with them. In any case, the word gets thrown around quite a lot, but I don’t get the sense that many who use it have questioned the standard by which heresy is measured.

  200. elastigirl wrote:

    i don’t think God needs to punish, or needs to be honored.

    This is really the crux of the matter. Is God free to forgive or is he bound to some higher law to which even he must submit? For example, if justice requires him to punish, then there is a higher eternal law/power than god.

  201. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    it was more a matter of Jesus bringing glory and honor to the Father in a way that satisfied the Father, a way that no other human could do.

    This opens up idea of God being changeable. If God can switch from being satisfied, to being unsatisfied, and then to being satisfied again, all based on human action, it sounds like God is the one doing the repenting in these atonement theories.

  202. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    i don’t think God needs to punish, or needs to be honored.

    This is really the crux of the matter. Is God free to forgive or is he bound to some higher law to which even he must submit? For example, if justice requires him to punish, then there is a higher eternal law/power than god.

    Let God be God. He is not bound by anything human.

  203. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
    it was more a matter of Jesus bringing glory and honor to the Father in a way that satisfied the Father, a way that no other human could do.
    This opens up idea of God being changeable. If God can switch from being satisfied, to being unsatisfied, and then to being satisfied again, all based on human action, it sounds like God is the one doing the repenting in these atonement theories.

    AMEN!

  204. linda wrote:

    Max, your comments about the church remind me what I learned in Sunbeams in the mid 50’s at that little oilfield Baptist church (SBC.)
    “A church is a voluntary association for the propagation of the gospel.”
    That is all it is. Just a tool for a believer to help him or her reach more of their community for Christ.
    The Church, on the other hand, is all those in a saving relationship with Jesus.
    And as Baptists, heaven help the preacher, teacher, deacon, or whatever that tried to use the church to get between The Church and Jesus. They would be chewed up and spit out, violating soul competency and the priesthood of THE believer:)

    Sunbeams! I forgot all about that. What a delightful memory.

    Totally agree with your comment. My experience, too. I think a lot of virtue signalers and those into denominational systems would think we were simpletons. Meanwhile, concepts like the priesthood of believer and soul competency were key to our training. Frankly, I look back and see we were more independent than they can fathom. We were trained to have no mediator.

    And yes, Church is voluntary!

  205. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    drstevej wrote:
    “God must tickle our willers.” — Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (Dallas Seminary)
    Why does your God not tickle all our willers? Why does he choose to save some when in fact he could save all? Should believers be glad or sad that not all are saved?

    I liken this to a sort of “sleeper cell” method. If God chooses people for salvation before they were born then they are walking around with some sort of activation mechanism God has to switch on. The sad part is even when God supposedly switches on the activation for what they call regeneration, They are still the same totally depraved sinners, just saved. Which means there’s really no earthy benefit to the Cross. I would have to assume this activation switch existed in people before the cross.

    I think the whole purpose for this is to remove the human from the process. That paves the way for superhumans to understand the process for us that we cannot. A sort of Philosopher king for the masses the Greeks bought into.

  206. drstevej wrote:

    FYI, Edwards preached more on the love of God than the wrath of God…

    TBH, I know a great deal more about Jonathan Edwards the triple-jumper than about Jonathan Edwards the preacher. I’ve heard of “sinners in the hands of an angry god” (SITHOAAG), of course, but I haven’t read it. If indeed he testified mainly to the love of God, and his experience of God’s love and compassion, then it’s a great shame that he is remembered so strongly for a one-off sermon on how much God hates us.

    Perhaps the mythic status of SITHOAAG says a great deal about the fundagelical culture that has mythologised it. I can imagine that churchmen who thirst for conversion statistics being greatly excited at the thought of multitudes falling to their knees, crying out for permission to pray the sinner’s prayer, and being afraid to miss another church meeting or withhold their tithes and offerings ever again.

    But if such a thing were to happen in Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, or somewhere else with the wrong doctrinal stance, I don’t doubt that the SITHOAAG manifestations would be dismissed as hysteria or a demonic counterfeit. Or both.

  207. @ Thersites:
    I agree with this. I fear the attempt to make Jesus into some sort of cuddly virtue signaling teddy bear has been a huge mistake. I view Him as Truth in the flesh. Truth can be kind, merciful, harsh and even negative —depending on the human. I don’t think He is pleased when we use Him for cover.

  208. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Perhaps the mythic status of SITHOAAG says a great deal about the fundagelical culture that has mythologised it.

    Good point. I think it’s more than just a one-off sermon for him, but it does say something that this became America’s most famous sermon. Edwards was born, lived, and died in this former British collection of colonies. Does that make him British?

  209. linda wrote:

    steve240–your comment about leaders reacting differently when it is their own child echoes the comments of the same sex marriage and gay and transgender rights activists. They just assume that if a conservative Christian parent finds out a child is gay they will quickly change their minds about gay rights.

    Maybe it is just a recognition of the human tendency to chuck our deeply held beliefs if they bring consequences difficult for our kids to face?

    I see your point but in this case with Sproul Jr. apparently being an alcoholic I would think it was more about Sproul Sr. being embarrassed and Sproul Jr.’s actions being a reflection on his father. Thus easier to hide the sin vs. expose it. I am sure that was even more the case with his one son having his same name.

    I did hear that within Sovereign Grace C.J. Mahaney very quietly changed some of his views on consequences for pastors for the actions of their children after Mahaney had problems with his own son. From what I have seen there was never a public acknowledgement of this change. It is always easy when you haven’t yet raised your own children (or not having boys) to set one standard.

    With Sproul Jr. his actions clearly disqualified him from the various position he was in but sadly that didn’t happen for quite a while.

  210. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    “who or what defines the standard for heresy? Is the standard set by a church council, or by an individual, or by many individuals? One could say that the Bible defines it, but there would not be thousands of Christian denominations if the Bible was unambiguous in every point of doctrine.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    seems to me the words “biblical” and “heresy / heretical / heretic” are propaganda devices.

  211. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    These discussions are so helpful for me, personally. In our little corner of the world, most Christians are unaware of different atonement theories. Including the pastors. “Deep theology” usually involves an explanation of PSA. Other theories don’t exist in their world.

    Same here!

  212. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Why does your God not tickle all our willers? Why does he choose to save some when in fact he could save all? Should believers be glad or sad that not all are saved?

    Wondering what your response would be if these same questions were simply reframed from a temporal/physical POV (instead of an eternal/spiritual as you did), such as, why does your God not create every one with the same levels of intelligence/health/wealth or equal levels of opportunity? Why does he choose to give more of these things to some people when in fact he could give them to all? Should the most fortunate people be glad or sad that not all are most fortunate?

    Or perhaps you believe God isn’t involved at all on this level?

  213. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This leads to a very important question: who or what defines the standard for heresy? Is the standard set by a church council, or by an individual, or by many individuals? One could say that the Bible defines it, but there would not be thousands of Christian denominations if the Bible was unambiguous in every point of doctrine. It seems to me that in the Protestant world each individual believer decides for themselves by aligning with churches that agree with them. In any case, the word gets thrown around quite a lot, but I don’t get the sense that many who use it have questioned the standard by which heresy is measured.

    Interesting that I read this last night:

    “Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from this blaspemy…Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures.” Tertullian (AD 155-230).

    Maybe you guys are related? 🙂

  214. kin wrote:

    Should the most fortunate people be glad or sad that not all are most fortunate?

    This is a very different question. My question was whether people should be glad that some suffer eternal conscious torment due to God passing them over for salvation. In other words, since (according to Calvinsim) it pleases God to deny salvation to many, should it also please us?

  215. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This is a very different question. My question was whether people should be glad that some suffer eternal conscious torment due to God passing them over for salvation. In other words, since (according to Calvinsim) it pleases God to deny salvation to many, should it also please us?

    Several years back I got into it with a Calvary Chapel guy over the doctrine of eternal torture by fire (which they teach with absolute certainty) and how it relates to not believing in a certain way.
    Round and round we went, clobber verse and parry, so it did.
    When I finally asked him if he’d be disappointed if there was no traditional inferno as in Dante, he balked and said his feelings are irrelevant over what the Bible teaches.

  216. Max wrote:

    dee wrote:

    I have told many people who call us about difficult churches that the doctrines of grace are not about grace.

    When the New Calvinism bubble breaks, one of the greatest mission fields on the planet for the real Gospel will be among the disillusioned exiting those churches.

    I am reminded of the bumper sticker that says, “Dear God, Save me from your followers.”

  217. kin wrote:

    Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
    Why does your God not tickle all our willers? Why does he choose to save some when in fact he could save all? Should believers be glad or sad that not all are saved?
    Wondering what your response would be if these same questions were simply reframed from a temporal/physical POV (instead of an eternal/spiritual as you did), such as, why does your God not create every one with the same levels of intelligence/health/wealth or equal levels of opportunity? Why does he choose to give more of these things to some people when in fact he could give them to all? Should the most fortunate people be glad or sad that not all are most fortunate?
    Or perhaps you believe God isn’t involved at all on this level?

    Inequality can be a springboard for the fortunate folks to minister to the less fortunate. That is often exhibited by Jesus in the Gospels.
    Now, as to the subject of those spending eternity in hell because they weren’t chosen for heaven, I don’t see life here on earth as any given comparison to life in hell.

  218. Refugee wrote:

    I am reminded of the bumper sticker that says, “Dear God, Save me from your followers.”

    The New Calvinists refer to themselves as “Christ Followers” … yet, they don’t speak much about Him, nor the Holy Spirit. It’s all about sovereign “God”, at the expense of Jesus.

  219. K.D. wrote:

    The organization I left was pushing that we taught( many members were SBC deacons, Presbyterian elders, Sunday School teachers ) this belief.
    I grew up in a SBC church and heard this in SS class.
    My junior high to early high school SS teacher told us that ” babies in China or India went to hell if they died without Christ. Because of the orginal sin.”
    It took years later and me forgetting everything I learned at SWBTS to come to my senses.

    How interesting that North American babies were not mentioned…

  220. dee wrote:

    I have told many people who call us about difficult churches that the doctrines of grace are not about grace.

    I have found enough times that when “Grace” was used in the name of the church to be on my guard.

  221. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This is a very different question. My question was whether people should be glad that some suffer eternal conscious torment due to God passing them over for salvation. In other words, since (according to Calvinsim) it pleases God to deny salvation to many, should it also please us?

    I’m not really convinced it is all that different from your orignal.

    My response would be yes, and no. My biological father was a drunk and a womanizer, therefore, my 4 older siblings had to go to one foster care after another where they suffered physical abuse and did not feel/experience much love at all. On the other hand, I was adopted at an early age, and experienced a very decent, loving home void of any physical abuse.

    I am sad for the former, but glad for the latter. They can’t blame God in any sense for their poor circumstances, and I must thank God for my fortunate circumstances.

    What’s your response to the former two questions if you think the third was different?

    Mae wrote:

    Inequality can be a springboard for the fortunate folks to minister to the less fortunate. That is often exhibited by Jesus in the Gospels.

    Absolutely agree.

  222. kin wrote:

    I am sad for the former, but glad for the latter. They can’t blame God in any sense for their poor circumstances, and I must thank God for my fortunate circumstances.

    What’s your response to the former two questions if you think the third was different?

    They really are very different issues if one believes that god chooses some for heaven and all the rest for eternal conscious torment with no hope of reprieve or relief ever. Here on earth the differences do create opportunities for people to help others, even if we don’t know why the inequalities exist. But in the eternal question there are no potential opportunities to help others if Calvinism is true. If one is not chosen for salvation there is absolutely no hope at all for anything but constant torment. Should we be glad for that?

  223. @ Jerome:
    Backstreet Boys former member. Seems strangely appropriate. The Sproul conference I attended on the holiness of God had a certain flavor of a very large number of groupies flocking together to listen to their idol.

  224. kin wrote:

    GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    These discussions are so helpful for me, personally. In our little corner of the world, most Christians are unaware of different atonement theories. Including the pastors. “Deep theology” usually involves an explanation of PSA. Other theories don’t exist in their world.

    Same here!

    I never paid attention until PSA started creeping in. I was like, what the Dickens is this! Yikes.

  225. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Definitely are difficult issues to converse about, especially since there are so many loose ends, and/or assumptions that exist. Personally, I don’t think the ‘ism labels are helpful, but rather distract and divide, plus, there are so many variations of any ‘ism.

    I don’t adhere to the eternal conscious torment ideas, so i can’t argue against your conclusions, per se.

  226. @ kin:
    This is focused on environment we are born with and what we do with that. Years ago, my 5 yr old had surgery and a week stay in a children’s hospital here. I became friends with parents whose baby’s had cancer. Some were terminal. Six month, 1 year olds with cancer!

    Really got me to thinking about the type of and level of involvement of our Lord. Part of the process of coming to conclusions that don’t fit well in most of Christendom. I also don’t the answers are one size fits all.

  227. @ Ken F.

    Also, I don’t see a contradiction between God being pleased to show his favor (to any degree…mild to extravagant) on some, while finding no pleasure in withholding it from others.

  228. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    But in the eternal question there are no potential opportunities to help others if Calvinism is true. If one is not chosen for salvation there is absolutely no hope at all for anything but constant torment.

    Ultimately this is why I had to reject Calvinism out of hand. If Calvinism taught annihilationism as a solid truth, I’d not be anywhere near as bothered by it. But the idea that God actively creates billions and billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity is monstrous beyond words. It’s certainly not the God I worship, nor is it the God I see in the Bible. Though I have to wonder about the mindsets of those who would worship such a God. Let alone relish a God that would do such things.

  229. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Assuming they haven’t been vaccinated against the real Gospel by then.

    An interesting spin on predestination. They won’t be saved because they were vaccinated against the Gospel by hyper-Calvinists, Oh the irony.

  230. Donnie wrote:

    Though I have to wonder about the mindsets of those who would worship such a God. Let alone relish a God that would do such things.

    As I’ve opined here at this site on several occasions, it’s a sick and twisted religion.

  231. Lydia wrote:

    Really got me to thinking about the type of and level of involvement of our Lord. Part of the process of coming to conclusions that don’t fit well in most of Christendom. I also don’t the answers are one size fits all.

    For sure. Our middle child had to stay in ICU for 7 to 10 days from birth(can’t remember how long). Now, he’s been battling cancer for over a year (R Chop might be winning temporarily, don’t know at this point). If it goes in remission he will most likely get other cancers. I don’t think he will finish out his chemo frankly, at least that’s what he’s currently indicating. He’s tired of being poisoned, tired of being lied to by the docs.

    Our oldest got multiple infectious diseases around age 8/9 (I got it a couple years earlier) which could have easily killed/crippled her in no time like so many other young folks. Still is struggling as an adult with remnants of it like me. Talk about day in and day out suffering along with a constant $ drain. Life can be very difficult, but that being said, there are many suffering worse. We have much to be grateful for – especially looking forward to when ALL things are made new. No more struggles. 🙂

  232. kin wrote:

    @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    Definitely are difficult issues to converse about, especially since there are so many loose ends, and/or assumptions that exist. Personally, I don’t think the ‘ism labels are helpful, but rather distract and divide, plus, there are so many variations of any ‘ism.
    I don’t adhere to the eternal conscious torment ideas, so i can’t argue against your conclusions, per se.

    What loose ends and ism’s ?

  233. @ Ted:
    But do the sermons get longer, as one of the noticeable changes? After all, the New Calvinists are adamant that the preaching is the high point (perhaps even the whole point) of worship.

    So the sermons of the couple churches we attended ran 45+ minutes. And they sometimes talked about the Puritans and their 3-hour (I think) sermons with some wistfulness, as if wishing they could get away with such a thing.

    Including the people wandering about with sticks or clubs to rap the heads of those who dozed off…

  234. @ Tree:
    kin wrote:

    Also, I don’t see a contradiction between God being pleased to show his favor (to any degree…mild to extravagant) on some, while finding no pleasure in withholding it from others.

    That does not answer my question. Whether or not it is true or consistent, should we be glad if it is true? Calvinists normally claim something along the lines of God doing everything for his good pleasure and glory according to the secret counsel of his will. That means he is pleased and glorified for many to suffer for eternity. So would it be ungodly for the elect to not also be pleased by the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved?

  235. Refugee wrote:

    @ Ted:
    But do the sermons get longer, as one of the noticeable changes? After all, the New Calvinists are adamant that the preaching is the high point (perhaps even the whole point) of worship.
    So the sermons of the couple churches we attended ran 45+ minutes. And they sometimes talked about the Puritans and their 3-hour (I think) sermons with some wistfulness, as if wishing they could get away with such a thing.
    Including the people wandering about with sticks or clubs to rap the heads of those who dozed off…

    And church attendance was mandatory!

  236. Thersites wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Assuming they haven’t been vaccinated against the real Gospel by then.

    An interesting spin on predestination. They won’t be saved because they were vaccinated against the Gospel by hyper-Calvinists, Oh the irony.

    And shame.

  237. @ Tree:
    Muff Potter wrote:

    As I’ve opined here at this site on several occasions, it’s a sick and twisted religion.

    To get back to Sproul, here is an article he wrote on double predestination: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

    In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves.

    I am so grateful that God does not require us to believe this about him. I cannot fathom how anyone can see the good in this theology. But maybe that’s because I am one of the goats.

  238. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    So would it be ungodly for the elect to not also be pleased by the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved?

    Sorry, I can’t provide a correct answer to what I perceive as a flawed question. 🙂

    Personally, I absolutely don’t think God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked (via the passage as mentioned in the comments above).

    Nor do I think there is eternal conscious torment of the wicked.

    Nor do I think God chose beforehand who would remain in unbelief.

  239. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    So would it be ungodly for the elect to not also be pleased by the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved?

    Here is how RC Sproul answers this:https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/tough-questions-christians-face-2010-national/can-we-enjoy-heaven-knowing-of-loved-ones-in-hell/? I recommend skipping to just the last few minutes. In his conclusion he states that when we are in heaven we will rejoice in the judgement of the reprobate, even if they were loves ones.

  240. kin wrote:

    Personally, I absolutely don’t think God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked (via the passage as mentioned in the comments above).

    Nor do I think there is eternal conscious torment of the wicked.

    Nor do I think God chose beforehand who would remain in unbelief.

    This means that you have not been ruined by Calvinism. 🙂

    Official Reformed theology (as stated in the Reformed confessions) affirms eternal conscious torment and in God choosing who will be saved.

  241. @ Thersites:

    elastigirl: “i think $hit happens is a force”

    Thersites: “Ha, great definition for entropy.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    hey, it really is a force, then! (if a general trend in the universe can be thought of as a force)

    let’s just say my life is the test case for it.

  242. elastigirl wrote:

    hey, it really is a force, then! (if a general trend in the universe can be thought of as a force)

    The Book of Ecclesiastes would agree with you.

  243. @ Muff Potter:

    re: $hit happens, entropy
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
    20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
    21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
    22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

    in my college and post-college days, when i believed i knew everything and had all the answers, i used to see these verses in Romans 8 as describing entropy.

    And that Jesus’ death/resurrection/and gift of the Holy Spirit had ushered in a new era, in which God would do powerful things through us through the true and literal explosive power of the Holy Spirit. Powerful things in our every day lives, at work, at Wal-Mart, at home, wherever we might be and whatever we might be doing.

    And that these things would impact the earth as well, in some way mitigating entropy. moments of bringing in to the now the redemption of the not yet.

    i still get excited running through all that again. although grim realities of life have long ago tempered all that starry-eyed idealism.

    i had based my hypothesis on this information:

    *the veil torn in two;

    *”greater things than these shall you do because I go to my father”–Jesus;

    *”but ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you”;

    *God being able to do “exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think according to the power that works in us”

    *other things, as well.

  244. @ kin:

    hello, kin. i am deeply sorry for these circumstances. ohhh…. life can suck at times. many blessings, but extremely hard things, too.

    i wish for you all things good and peaceful.

  245. __

    “A False Representation Of God And His Holy Word?”

    hmmm…

    The Calvinist teach at their religion core, the sovereignty of god, and the doctrines of grace. All of which promote a five hundred year old Augustinian Gnostic trend to attack the immutability of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and negate the individual’s assurance of the possibility of God’s forgiveness of sin, and eternal salvation in Jesus Christ .

    Caution: Subscribe to this religious sect and it’s teachings at your own risk. (1)

    (Please see the bible for details)

    ATB

    Sòpy
    ___
    (1) A concise summary of Calvinism can be found here:

    “The Five Points of Calvinism
    Defined, Defended, and Documented”
    c.1963/updated 2004. Authors:
    S. Lance Quinn
    David H. Steele
    Curtis C. Thomas
    https://www.prpbooks.com/book/five-points-of-calvinism-the

    “What are the five points of Calvinism? What do they mean? Why should we believe them? This anniversary edition of The Five Points of Calvinism, now with Scripture quotations from the English Standard Version, contains updated source information and new appendices on such themes as “A Kinder, Gentler Calvinism,” “Perseverance and Preservation,” and “The Practical Applications of Calvinism.” – P&R Publishing.

    Listed Book Endorsements:
    “One could hardly wish for a better study resource to show the five points’ faithfulness to Scripture.”
     —J. I. Packer

    “Truly a classic—clear, concise, and warm in its presentation of historic Reformed theology. This latest edition is even better than the original.”
    —R. C. Sproul

    “It is a privilege to commend this enlarged and revised edition to a new generation. A model of clarity, full of biblical teaching.”
    —Sinclair B. Ferguson

    “Next to the doctrine of salvation, the sovereignty of God has, to me, been the most powerfully comforting truth. My thanks to P&R Publishing for issuing a new edition of this excellent book.” 
    —Joni Eareckson Tada

    “I am delighted to see this masterpiece in its new, revised edition. For anyone seeking to understand, teach, and enjoy the doctrines of grace, this book is quite simply a ‘must.’ ”
     —John Blanchard

    “The authors’ scholarship is extensive, they never fudge an issue, and they carry their readers along in an inoffensive way to their conclusions. A superb depiction of Calvinistic soteriology.” 
    —Robert L. Reymond

    “The appendices serve to deepen one’s understanding of what true Calvinism is all about.” 
    —Jerry Bridges

    “The best and the most complete short introduction to the doctrines of grace.” 
    —Philip G. Ryken

    *

    “The five points of Calvinism: The basic framework of God’s plan of salvation, or man-made dogmas? In this concise and compelling work, the authors clearly define each of the five points, defend them on the basis of Scripture, and document literature from the past which explains and supports Calvinism. Part One deals with the history and contents of Calvinism: why five points, when and how they were formulated, what they teach us, and how they differ from Arminianism. Part Two examines the biblical foundation for the five points from over 250 passages of Scripture. Part Three encourages further study by providing full source information and a brief review of the best older writings on the whole Calvinistic system and on each point.“ – Logos Bible Software Systems

    https://www.logos.com/product/9523/the-five-points-of-calvinism-defined-defended-and-documented?ssi=0

    *

    An outline of the book can be found here:
    http://www.northsidepcaonline.com/tulip.pdf

    😉

    – –

  246. Refugee wrote:

    K.D. wrote:

    The organization I left was pushing that we taught( many members were SBC deacons, Presbyterian elders, Sunday School teachers ) this belief.
    I grew up in a SBC church and heard this in SS class.
    My junior high to early high school SS teacher told us that ” babies in China or India went to hell if they died without Christ. Because of the orginal sin.”
    It took years later and me forgetting everything I learned at SWBTS to come to my senses.

    How interesting that North American babies were not mentioned…

    Years later, I wondered about what he said….all non-“white” children.

  247. Ah, yes, penal substitution. Believe it or not, there are actually two flavors. One fits more with the patristics, the other is a novelty from the Reformation. I have come to reject the latter. And I have a very interesting reason to that you probably have never heard. Namely, that it hyper-spiritualizes the Crucifixion, turning Jesus’ physical death into a dog and pony show for the real thing that is happening behind the curtain. And the thing happening behind the curtain? Well, that is none other than Emperor Palpatine (the Father) pouring out his lightning bolts (wrath) onto Luke Skywalker (Jesus).

    So much emphasis in PSA is on Jesus paying an infinite debt for our sins, which not even a perfect human could do. Only Jesus can do it, because His divinity is infinite and can thus bear infinite wrath. This makes Jesus’ humanity nominal, there only for the sake of identifying Him with Adam, and yet barely. Hence, Christ’s physical suffering becomes meaningless, a dog and pony show. His physical suffering cannot pay an infinite death. He might as well as stubbed His toe while the Father poured out His wrath. Christ’s very death is also meaningless. It is not what pays the debt. Only a spiritualized suffering of “hell” can do that, which does not require His physical death.

    This is one of those areas where Calvinism blatantly flirts with, and even dances with, Gnosticism. Christ’s death and resurrection devolve to a footnote in redemption, whereas they should be held as the most important aspect. Unless His body tastes both death and resurrection, our own bodies cannot be redeemed. But in Calvinism, the material redemption of the world is deepmhasized, almost nonexistant. Calvinists are impoverished of the fullness of redemption in the worst way.

    For the first kind of more Biblical, even patristic, penal substitution, I refer anyone interested to N.T. Wright’s “The Day the Revolution Began”. It’s amazing, and it really fits with a lot of church fathers on the subject. (No wonder Calvinists hate him!)

    And regarding Sproul’s charge that Arminianism teaches merits and leads back to Rome, I just…I find that really funny. Calvin drew heavily on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. There’s a reason I never bothered to swim the Tiber. Rome is very monergistic, in spite of whatever the laity are into. Thomism is alive and well. Just ask Jimmy Akin or the folks at Called to Communion. I can still tolerate Thomism better than full-blown Calvinism. At least it has some reasonable boundaries, such as a rejection of Limited Atonement and the pantheistic notion that God ordains every act, whether good or evil, and cannot do otherwise or else He won’t be sovereign anymore. Nevertheless, I find their predestination views still horrifying. Molinism may reign supreme for the time being, but a Thomistic interpretation of freewill (compatiblism) is perfectly allowed and used to be the majority opinion. As for “merits”, they believe God gives the grace for that anyway, and monergistically gives the grace of perseverance to the elect. So what was Sproul even freaking out about?

    Oh well, I’m sorry to his family for his passing. I’m more sorry for him that he has to give account for his slander before the Judge. God help him. God help us all. Every idle word….

  248. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    I recommend skipping to just the last few minutes. In his conclusion he states that when we are in heaven we will rejoice in the judgement of the reprobate, even if they were loves ones.

    This has a name:
    The Abominable Fancy.

    Another example of the Reformed(TM) taking something from the Dark Side of Medieval Catholicism and swapping the labels for their own.

  249. Refugee wrote:

    Including the people wandering about with sticks or clubs to rap the heads of those who dozed off…

    Like Praetorian Guards at one of Caesar Nero’s lyre concerts.

  250. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    Ah, yes, penal substitution. Believe it or not, there are actually two flavors. One fits more with the patristics, the other is a novelty from the Reformation. I have come to reject the latter. And I have a very interesting reason to that you probably have never heard. Namely, that it hyper-spiritualizes the Crucifixion, turning Jesus’ physical death into a dog and pony show for the real thing that is happening behind the curtain. And the thing happening behind the curtain? Well, that is none other than Emperor Palpatine (the Father) pouring out his lightning bolts (wrath) onto Luke Skywalker (Jesus).

    So much emphasis in PSA is on Jesus paying an infinite debt for our sins, which not even a perfect human could do. Only Jesus can do it, because His divinity is infinite and can thus bear infinite wrath. This makes Jesus’ humanity nominal, there only for the sake of identifying Him with Adam, and yet barely. Hence, Christ’s physical suffering becomes meaningless, a dog and pony show. His physical suffering cannot pay an infinite death. He might as well as stubbed His toe while the Father poured out His wrath. Christ’s very death is also meaningless. It is not what pays the debt. Only a spiritualized suffering of “hell” can do that, which does not require His physical death.

    This is one of those areas where Calvinism blatantly flirts with, and even dances with, Gnosticism. Christ’s death and resurrection devolve to a footnote in redemption, whereas they should be held as the most important aspect. Unless His body tastes both death and resurrection, our own bodies cannot be redeemed. But in Calvinism, the material redemption of the world is deepmhasized, almost nonexistant. Calvinists are impoverished of the fullness of redemption in the worst way.

    For the first kind of more Biblical, even patristic, penal substitution, I refer anyone interested to N.T. Wright’s “The Day the Revolution Began”. It’s amazing, and it really fits with a lot of church fathers on the subject. (No wonder Calvinists hate him!)

    And regarding Sproul’s charge that Arminianism teaches merits and leads back to Rome, I just…I find that really funny. Calvin drew heavily on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. There’s a reason I never bothered to swim the Tiber. Rome is very monergistic, in spite of whatever the laity are into. Thomism is alive and well. Just ask Jimmy Akin or the folks at Called to Communion. I can still tolerate Thomism better than full-blown Calvinism. At least it has some reasonable boundaries, such as a rejection of Limited Atonement and the pantheistic notion that God ordains every act, whether good or evil, and cannot do otherwise or else He won’t be sovereign anymore. Nevertheless, I find their predestination views still horrifying. Molinism may reign supreme for the time being, but a Thomistic interpretation of freewill (compatiblism) is perfectly allowed and used to be the majority opinion. As for “merits”, they believe God gives the grace for that anyway, and monergistically gives the grace of perseverance to the elect. So what was Sproul even freaking out about?

    Oh well, I’m sorry to his family for his passing. I’m more sorry for him that he has to give account for his slander before the Judge. God help him. God help us all. Every idle word….

    Man, can I borrow this?

  251. @ Clockwork Angel:
    I am going to come back when I have time to really read this thoroughly. Just a skim shows there is a ton to mine here. You hit on something I could never articulate. Thanks.

  252. “This makes Jesus’ humanity nominal, there only for the sake of identifying Him with Adam, and yet barely. Hence, Christ’s physical suffering becomes meaningless, a dog and pony show. His physical suffering cannot pay an infinite death. He might as well as stubbed His toe while the Father poured out His wrath. Christ’s very death is also meaningless. It is not what pays the debt. Only a spiritualized suffering of “hell” can do that, which does not require His physical death.”

    Yes. Yes. This has always bothered me. As if the real show is so spiritual it has to go on behind a curtain only the philosopher kings can interpret for us. I think we get tripped up on the language genres of metaphor, literal, hyperbole, historical understanding, etc.

    Anything I write is simply what I have been thinking about or I think needs to be thought about by people smarter than me.

    One is that I don’t see where in scripture everyone is convinced Jesus is God in the flesh while He is walking this earth. The Pharisees wanted to kill him for even mentioning it (John 5). We also have the historical backdrop that Caesar referred to himself as a son of god(s). Jesus is riffing that off for a reason? But we don’t see the coming Messiah referred to as a “Son” of God in the OT. (There is more but I don’t want to write a treatise—you get the-idea) Jesus was God in the flesh whose humanity is real and an important part of the package. It doesn’t diminish His deity. He did it on purpose. But He felt every bit of it.

    The Trinity was not divided into ‘wrathful God punishing perfect Son so He could be satisfied’. Jesus was not the first human of the occupied era to declare he was a messiah of Israel. He wasn’t the first Jewish man crucified for that, either. Yet, He wasn’t a typical zealot and was very different from the others. (That might have put Judas off)

    The resurrection is everything. And it’s the one thing they play down as in, “After a horrific punishment Gods wrath is satisfied so my Son can now come sit by me”. My research showed the “right” hand was considered a position of equal importance back then.)

    So what is the deal? Wasn’t His humanity of the utmost importance as a model and His subsequent conquering of death by the resurrection THE sign all things CAN be new? (Kingdom here and now) . All sin derives from death which is decay, too. Conquering death is the metaphor that we CAN conquer sin.

    They take away the meaning of it all and even insult The Trinity.

    See, told you I cannot articulate this stuff well. I lean toward a big sky picture of “death and life” and not a medieval court room drama of torturing the innocent for other wrong doing then the satisfied judge revives the corpse.

  253. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    For the first kind of more Biblical, even patristic, penal substitution, I refer anyone interested to N.T. Wright’s “The Day the Revolution Began”. It’s amazing, and it really fits with a lot of church fathers on the subject. (No wonder Calvinists hate him!)

    First off, thanks for taking the time to post…very helpful to me!

    Secondly, realizing people’s theology evolves over time (mine is) I wonder if NT Wright is still actually disliked by people who hold to the blatant PSA theory? This article is from ten years ago: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/dont-tell-me-nt-wright-denies-penal-substitution/

    Lastly, thanks for your blog post on this subject…very helpful as well. I’ve asked my wife to order the NT Wright book. So do you see absolutely no hint of wrath/penalty/guilt involved in the crucifixion? Seems like Wright does to some degree, but it’s not forefront and center like PSA teaches.

  254. kin wrote:

    Clockwork Angel wrote:

    For the first kind of more Biblical, even patristic, penal substitution, I refer anyone interested to N.T. Wright’s “The Day the Revolution Began”. It’s amazing, and it really fits with a lot of church fathers on the subject. (No wonder Calvinists hate him!)

    First off, thanks for taking the time to post…very helpful to me!

    Secondly, realizing people’s theology evolves over time (mine is) I wonder if NT Wright is still actually disliked by people who hold to the blatant PSA theory? This article is from ten years ago: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/dont-tell-me-nt-wright-denies-penal-substitution/

    Lastly, thanks for your blog post on this subject…very helpful as well. I’ve asked my wife to order the NT Wright book. So do you see absolutely no hint of wrath/penalty/guilt involved in the crucifixion? Seems like Wright does to some degree, but it’s not forefront and center like PSA teaches.

    There is wrath/penalty/guilt in Wright for sure, but of a different sort. It’s not the Father pouring it out in a direct fashion. It is rather Jesus undertaking our exile and death voluntarily, as a deep repentance done on our behalf. Wright interestingly covers the long-neglected Maccabees writings that Protestants have ejected from their canon. It’s not that he is embracing them as canon now, but that he uses them to provide context for what Jews were expecting in a Messiah figure, as well as how their exile was supposed to come to an end. He uses this as a launching pad to blend the Passover/Exodus with the Day of Atonement, all handled together at the Crucifixion. The idea is that martyrdom/voluntary suffering as repentance exhausts God’s wrath, causing an end to exile. It’s more Anselmian than Calvinist. All of this is framed within the Christus Victor atonement model.

  255. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    Ah, yes, penal substitution. Believe it or not, there are actually two flavors. One fits more with the patristics, the other is a novelty from the Reformation. I have come to reject the latter. And I have a very interesting reason to that you probably have never heard. Namely, that it hyper-spiritualizes the Crucifixion, turning Jesus’ physical death into a dog and pony show for the real thing that is happening behind the curtain. And the thing happening behind the curtain? Well, that is none other than Emperor Palpatine (the Father) pouring out his lightning bolts (wrath) onto Luke Skywalker (Jesus).

    So much emphasis in PSA is on Jesus paying an infinite debt for our sins, which not even a perfect human could do. Only Jesus can do it, because His divinity is infinite and can thus bear infinite wrath. This makes Jesus’ humanity nominal, there only for the sake of identifying Him with Adam, and yet barely. Hence, Christ’s physical suffering becomes meaningless, a dog and pony show. His physical suffering cannot pay an infinite death. He might as well as stubbed His toe while the Father poured out His wrath. Christ’s very death is also meaningless. It is not what pays the debt. Only a spiritualized suffering of “hell” can do that, which does not require His physical death.

    This is one of those areas where Calvinism blatantly flirts with, and even dances with, Gnosticism. Christ’s death and resurrection devolve to a footnote in redemption, whereas they should be held as the most important aspect. Unless His body tastes both death and resurrection, our own bodies cannot be redeemed. But in Calvinism, the material redemption of the world is deepmhasized, almost nonexistant. Calvinists are impoverished of the fullness of redemption in the worst way.

    For the first kind of more Biblical, even patristic, penal substitution, I refer anyone interested to N.T. Wright’s “The Day the Revolution Began”. It’s amazing, and it really fits with a lot of church fathers on the subject. (No wonder Calvinists hate him!)

    And regarding Sproul’s charge that Arminianism teaches merits and leads back to Rome, I just…I find that really funny. Calvin drew heavily on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. There’s a reason I never bothered to swim the Tiber. Rome is very monergistic, in spite of whatever the laity are into. Thomism is alive and well. Just ask Jimmy Akin or the folks at Called to Communion. I can still tolerate Thomism better than full-blown Calvinism. At least it has some reasonable boundaries, such as a rejection of Limited Atonement and the pantheistic notion that God ordains every act, whether good or evil, and cannot do otherwise or else He won’t be sovereign anymore. Nevertheless, I find their predestination views still horrifying. Molinism may reign supreme for the time being, but a Thomistic interpretation of freewill (compatiblism) is perfectly allowed and used to be the majority opinion. As for “merits”, they believe God gives the grace for that anyway, and monergistically gives the grace of perseverance to the elect. So what was Sproul even freaking out about?

    Oh well, I’m sorry to his family for his passing. I’m more sorry for him that he has to give account for his slander before the Judge. God help him. God help us all. Every idle word….

    This is a fantastic post. I like your blog too.

    You hit on a couple of really important points I want to piggyback on. First, the fathers would never characterize their view of atonement as “penal” anything. For them (Augustine excepted once in a while) , the sin problem, though important, always took a back seat to the bigger issue – giving humanity the real fellowship of the Trinity. From Irenaeus through Athanasius to Cyril to Maximus, the refrain rings (my paraphrase): “God the Son became the Son of man in order to make the sons of men sons of God.” For them, salvation is participation in the divine life. It was the end to which we were originally created, and the Son’s incarnation was the permanent dwelling of Immanuel – God with us. His resurrected body now sits at the right hand of the Father and there is truly exalted humanity in the Godhead. That causes our mental circuits to short out.

    Another of your points was spot on, which is the close kinship between Thomism and reformed Protestantism. The Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth century carried on their wars with Thomist Rome in Thomist language. You are absolutely right that Rome and Geneva (and Wittenberg and Nashville) are all equally monergistic. Rome downplays Aquinas’ (and Augustine’s) monergism, but even acursory read of either Summa or any of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings will reveal their strong monergism. A really interesting point is whether or not the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s rejection of monoenergism in Christology implies that we should reject monergism in salvation on the same grounds. That would be a worthwhile point to pursue in my opinion.

    Jim G.

  256. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    The idea is that martyrdom/voluntary suffering as repentance exhausts God’s wrath, causing an end to exile. It’s more Anselmian than Calvinist. All of this is framed within the Christus Victor atonement model.

    Awesome summary….very helpful!

  257. Well, I’m a Catholic Molinist, a perfectly acceptable position. Rome has never issued a dogmatic pronunciation on the predestination question. Au contraire, she has pointedly refrained from doing so, because, as the nuns of my childhood used to say, “It’s a mystery.” Those 17th-century Thomists actually went beyond Aquinas himself. And when they started anathematizing the Molinist, the pope himself smacked them down.

    Sometimes it’s good to get the Catholic perspective from, you know, an actual Catholic. Occasionally we papists even have some clue what we are talking about.

    Merry Christmas, y’all!

  258. Sorry for the slight bit of snark, but one of my pet peeves is non-Catholics telling Catholics (and others) what Catholics believe. We have this thing called the Catechism. It kinda sums it up. Thank you! God bless!

  259. kin wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Really got me to thinking about the type of and level of involvement of our Lord. Part of the process of coming to conclusions that don’t fit well in most of Christendom. I also don’t the answers are one size fits all.

    For sure. Our middle child had to stay in ICU for 7 to 10 days from birth(can’t remember how long). Now, he’s been battling cancer for over a year (R Chop might be winning temporarily, don’t know at this point). If it goes in remission he will most likely get other cancers. I don’t think he will finish out his chemo frankly, at least that’s what he’s currently indicating. He’s tired of being poisoned, tired of being lied to by the docs.

    Our oldest got multiple infectious diseases around age 8/9 (I got it a couple years earlier) which could have easily killed/crippled her in no time like so many other young folks. Still is struggling as an adult with remnants of it like me. Talk about day in and day out suffering along with a constant $ drain. Life can be very difficult, but that being said, there are many suffering worse. We have much to be grateful for – especially looking forward to when ALL things are made new. No more struggles.

    So, so sorry. Praying for you!

  260. Jim G. wrote:

    God the Son became the Son of man in order to make the sons of men sons of God.” For them, salvation is participation in the divine life. It was the end to which we were originally created, and the Son’s incarnation was the permanent dwelling of Immanuel – God with us. His resurrected body now sits at the right hand of the Father and there is truly exalted humanity in the Godhead. That causes our mental circuits to short out.

    That is a beautiful summation. Salvation is participation in divine life.

  261. elastigirl wrote:

    in my college and post-college days, when i believed i knew everything and had all the answers, i used to see these verses in Romans 8 as describing entropy.

    I see it pretty much the same way (the entropy thing). When a system is left to its own devices, the slide from order to disorder is inexorable.

    Maybe this is why we age, grow old, and die. The hugely complex information system of our genome, can no longer perform as it did in our youth. So it settles for 2nd, 3rd, 4th… and nth replications of corrupted information.

    Like you, I take hope that the death which spread to all men will be defeated in the final end.

  262. Darlene wrote:

    Odd. I looked up the history of the Backstreet Boys on Wiki and elsewhere and cannot find any information that he was an original member of the band. It turns out he never made one recording with this group. He never accepted the offer to join.

    Yeah, while looking into all these stories by Sproul’s successor Burk Parsons about being a favorite of band manager Lou Pearlman, I ran across this video with the real members of the group parodying a poser claiming to be the “sixth” Backstreet Boy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfoDk3Kx98c (first two minutes)

  263. Lydia wrote:

    I think we get tripped up on the language genres of metaphor, literal, hyperbole, historical understanding, etc.

    There’s a reason why The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy disavows hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture.

  264. Jim G. wrote:

    His resurrected body now sits at the right hand of the Father and there is truly exalted humanity in the Godhead. That causes our mental circuits to short out.

    It doesn’t cause my circuits to short. In fact, it excites my circuitry to no end that my genome may one day be repaired to tip-top condition.

  265. Muff Potter wrote:

    There’s a reason why The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy disavows hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture.

    IMO – a sinister move.

  266. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Well, I’m a Catholic Molinist, a perfectly acceptable position. Rome has never issued a dogmatic pronunciation on the predestination question. Au contraire, she has pointedly refrained from doing so, because, as the nuns of my childhood used to say, “It’s a mystery.” Those 17th-century Thomists actually went beyond Aquinas himself. And when they started anathematizing the Molinist, the pope himself smacked them down.

    Sometimes it’s good to get the Catholic perspective from, you know, an actual Catholic. Occasionally we papists even have some clue what we are talking about.

    Merry Christmas, y’all!

    I hope I have not offended. I truly respect my Catholic friends, and if my Anglican parish were to burn up overnight, I’d have to take the proverbial fork in the road, and Catholicism is on the short list. (I am a westerner, after all.) I do realize Molinism is allowed and is even a majority opinion among the laity. However, at the time of the Reformation, Molinism was the new kid on the block. There were some humanists like Erasmus who believed in a true free will, as well, but Thomism was the backbone at that time. I’m personally glad Molina came on the scene. He offered a very brilliant corrective.

    But my bigger point to make is that the charge that Calvinists make against Rome as being “Pelagian” is stupid, and the charge against Arminians as being on the “Road to Rome” as equally wrong. The presence of Thomism in the Catholic Church proves both charges to be wrong, if outright slanderous. I hope you find my observation useful in telling Calvinists off next time they try to convert you. Even Molinism teaches that it’s all of God’s grace, as does Arminianism. The false charges get old after a while. I’m sure you’ll agree.

  267. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    As another clarification, the reason why I even brought up the whole Thomism thing is because I don’t actually see a point in swimming the Tiber as an escape from monergism. I’m already in an Anglican parish that allows Arminianism, Calvinism, Thomism, Molinism, and whatever other ism you can think of. My priest is a Calvinist (which is weird, because we’re a moderately Anglo-Catholic parish, and sometimes he strikes me as more Thomist than anything, in spite of the Calvinistic “Table Talk” excerpts he slips into the weekly flyer). Nobody’s going to kick me out for being more on the Arminian/Molinist side of things. They’d have to kick C.S. Lewis out if they did that! So what would be the point of changing? I’d be in basically the same boat. Unless, of course, I became truly convinced of the Pope’s universal supremacy over all other bishops. Eastern Orthodoxy is presently the only true escape, but I am still a westerner at heart. Oh, wretched parishioner that I am!

    But, yeah, Arminianism is hardly the “Road to Rome” when Rome has much of the same diversity that Protestantism has. Though I think Thomists and Molinists seem kinder towards each other. Calvinists have a tendency to throw food and say mean things. 🙁

  268. @ Clockwork Angel:
    When it comes to RCC or any other denomination, my beef is mostly the closed heirarchical systems with no vote from the lowly peasants who pay for it all- in a “spiritual” organization, no less. I think not for me. No telling what goes on with all that power and mineyand how would anyone know unless someone has courage to speak up? At megas no one actually worked! I just don’t see the point in huge closed religious organizations.

    Sadly, I have had to add the SBC to the list, now. It’s become top down. It used to be bottom up. The local church people decided for the convention.

    Doctrinal discussions are interesting. I have found it important to read outside my denominational focus.

  269. Lydia wrote:

    @ Clockwork Angel:
    When it comes to RCC or any other denomination, my beef is mostly the closed heirarchical systems with no vote from the lowly peasants who pay for it all- in a “spiritual” organization, no less. I think not for me. No telling what goes on with all that power and mineyand how would anyone know unless someone has courage to speak up? At megas no one actually worked! I just don’t see the point in huge closed religious organizations.

    Sadly, I have had to add the SBC to the list, now. It’s become top down. It used to be bottom up. The local church people decided for the convention.

    Doctrinal discussions are interesting. I have found it important to read outside my denominational focus.

    You’d be amazed how much power the laity have. For good and for I’ll. Again, Lydia, why not listen to actual Catholics instead of relying on your preconceptions, which may reflect deeply ingrained prejudices rather than empirical reality?

  270. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    Calvinists are impoverished of the fullness of redemption in the worst way.

    As we reflect this season on the most precious gift ever given, it should be noted that the tenets of reformed theology do not bring “good news of great joy that will be for ALL people.” It is another gospel.

  271. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    I’m personally glad Molina came on the scene. He offered a very brilliant corrective.

    To me, Molinism looks like nothing more than Calvinism with lipstick. The set of all possible/feasible worlds has to be infinite, otherwise the creator of the set of all possible worlds would have to be finite. The problem with Molinism is logic breaks down at infinity. The set all all possible/feasible worlds includes an infinite number of worlds where you exist as 1) an amazingly righteous person, 2) an amazing evil person, 3) anything in between, and 4) you don’t exist at all. There are an infinite number of worlds where you are saved, and an infinite number where you are not. Of all those possible worlds, God could have chosen one where you were saved, but he chose one where you were not. Likewise, he could have chosen a world where everyone is saved, but he apparently did not. So in the end, Molinism is no different than Calvinism because God chose an outcome for many even though they would have chosen otherwise in an infinite number of different possible worlds. In fact, it might be even more cruel than Calvinism because it specifically rejects an infinite number of possible worlds where things would have been very much better for many people. Interestingly, Piper is a 7-point Calvinist, and his 7th point is God chose the best of all possible worlds (see https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist). This means that one can be both a Calvinist and a Molinist. That alone should cause one to question Molinism.

    In the end, I don’t see any need to appeal to Molinism.

  272. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Occasionally we papists even have some clue what we are talking about.

    I’ll be sure to keep that in mind. I’ll also keep in mind that a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

  273. Molinism suffers from the same issues as all other forms of Augustinism/Thomism. It is inherently non-Christological. Who are we to say that there is an infinite number of possible worlds if creation is something that is, at its core, in, through, and for Christ? The opening shots fired in the gospel of John, and the epistles to the Colossians and Hebrews tell us that creation is intimately bound up in Christ, who is the divine Son/Logos and of the same being as the Father. Christ is the one in whom all things exist and consist, and the one in whom all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

    There is only one Logos, and any doctrine of creation/providence must reflect a true, orthodox understanding of Jesus. He is act one of creation and providence. I am a Baptist who finds Maximus extremely helpful.

    Jim G.

  274. Muff Potter wrote:

    There’s a reason why The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy disavows hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture.

    They hate their own father and mother?

  275. An infinite number of worlds? Say what? That is not what I believe. Please, could y’all just take a deep breath, step back, and let *Catholics* tell you what Catholics believe?? I do not presume to tell Baptists what Baptists believe. Kindly return the courtesy. Thank you!

  276. Quick question: Has anyone here actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is readily available online. Just sayin’.

  277. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Quick question: Has anyone here actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is readily available online. Just sayin’.

    I have. I considered converting at one point.

  278. @ Muff Potter:

    “Like you, I take hope that the death which spread to all men will be defeated in the final end.”
    ++++++++++

    but don’t you think the NT indicates that the HS makes provision for the not yet to be pulled into the here and now (as opposed to the final end)? on special occasion circumstances? miracles, healing, & such? molecules zapping to attention (physical molecules, & emotional, mental, spiritual ones, too)?

    i feel like these things want to happen…. HS wants to do these things. but it’s like…

    when a student is new at school and they seem foreign, from somewhere else, kids don’t know exactly what to make of the new kid. some ignore the kid, some stare, some are cordial, a few say hi, but no one gets out of their comfort zone to find out what they’re all about. to allow the person to open up the treasure chest of all their gleaming fascination & prismatic uniqueness.

    i feel like this (foreign) person others are unfamiliar with is walking around, hoping, waiting for people to open up to him/her, because this person has so much to share and do together…

    and this person is maybe a bit disappointed (not quite sad), or at least bemused at how closed off people are to him/her. waiting, milling around, waiting, elements of frustration, but patiently waiting,….

    i am someone who doesn’t make the effort to get to know this new person. Too busy, distracted. i used to know this person, peripherally at least. but frankly, i’m deeply tired.

    thank you for putting up with this extemporaneous thought-to-text episode, that didn’t really get anywhere.

  279. @ elastigirl:

    let me qualify all this — when a person or their loved one is going through physical catastrophe, i don’t feel it’s their job to be the holy spirit’s agent of miracle. of dunamis holy spirit power. their job is to endure the next minute with courage. it’s simply a practical matter. that’s how i see it.

  280. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    An infinite number of worlds? Say what? That is not what I believe. Please, could y’all just take a deep breath, step back, and let *Catholics* tell you what Catholics believe?? I do not presume to tell Baptists what Baptists believe. Kindly return the courtesy. Thank you!

    I was critiquing Molinism, not Catholicism. Molinism considers the set of all possible/feasible worlds. Unless God is finite, that set is infinite. If you don’t believe that God actualized one world out of an infinite number of possible worlds then you are not a Molinist. I don’t believe that Molinism is official Catholic doctrine. I don’t know that any denomination considers Molinism as part of its mandatory doctrine. I see it as a mis-guided attempt to harmonize sovereignty and free will. But in the end it is no better than Calvinism. It’s a human attempt to explain what is probably not explainable to our finite minds.

    Please let me know if I have misrepresented any official Catholic position in any of my comments in this thread.

  281. @ Lydia:

    of course i see it both ways. wish you wouldn’t make such assumptions.

    opposing ideologies have aspects that are valid and have merit. it’s reasonable to acknowledge those, rather than wholesale or near wholesale rejection because of the points of contention.

  282. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Quick question: Has anyone here actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is readily available online. Just sayin’.

    That may sometimes turn out to be the last thing that needs to happen for some people. I have read sections of the CCC but not all of it; and I got started on that while I was over at St. L’s catholic church spending two hours every Monday evening in RCIA. I was much more at peace with Catholicism when I knew less about some Catholic theology. I was pretty blissfully unaware of the much of the history of Christianity prior to that time, being however above average conversant with scripture.

    I got to the place where I almost totally rejected Christianity itself based on what I learned about ‘the rest of the story’ as it were. It took several years before I could process some things and move on. I think that perhaps looking at Catholicism through Protestant eyes is quite different from looking at it with Catholic eyes or with non-Christian eyes.

    I am more protestant now than I was before I went to RCIA, regardless of the fact that our Episcopal parish is anglo-catholic.

    Like I always say, it is quite complicated.

  283. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    An infinite number of worlds? Say what? That is not what I believe. Please, could y’all just take a deep breath, step back, and let *Catholics* tell you what Catholics believe?? I do not presume to tell Baptists what Baptists believe. Kindly return the courtesy. Thank you!

    I was critiquing Molinism, not Catholicism. Molinism considers the set of all possible/feasible worlds. Unless God is finite, that set is infinite. If you don’t believe that God actualized one world out of an infinite number of possible worlds then you are not a Molinist. I don’t believe that Molinism is official Catholic doctrine. I don’t know that any denomination considers Molinism as part of its mandatory doctrine. I see it as a mis-guided attempt to harmonize sovereignty and free will. But in the end it is no better than Calvinism. It’s a human attempt to explain what is probably not explainable to our finite minds.

    Please let me know if I have misrepresented any official Catholic position in any of my comments in this thread.

    I got that you were critiquing Molina. But most Catholics who identify as Molinists do not believe in multiple universes. They simply believe that God *foreknows* which people will respond to His Grace. Molinism has become a blanket term for: “We respect free will.” Of course, Thomists also respect free will. Which is why it’s a mystery. Which is why the Church has never dogmatically defined one particular view of predestination.

    TBH most Catholics wouldn’t know Molinism from a hole in the ground. I suspect this has always been true. Well, at least for as long as Molinism has been around.

    I was always taught that Jesus pursues everyone with His Grace. Right up to the nanosecond of death. As Saint Faustina Kowalska put it, Hell is self-chosen. God condemns no one.

  284. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I got that you were critiquing Molina. But most Catholics who identify as Molinists do not believe in multiple universes.

    Thanks for the clarification. Molinism is very different from the idea of multiple universes. In Molinism God actualizes only one world out of a potentially infinite number of worlds existing in his mind. By contrast,the idea of multiple universes is a way to explain why this particular universe exists. This idea deals with actual theoretical universes, not just potential unrealized worlds. It really has no connection with Molinsism, but the two are not incompatible.

    I find it interesting that people would identify as Molinists without understanding what it proposes. I don’t see how it equates to free will any more than Calvinism. In either case human free will is irrelevant because God ultimately chooses how things turn out.

  285. elastigirl wrote:

    but don’t you think the NT indicates that the HS makes provision for the not yet to be pulled into the here and now (as opposed to the final end)? on special occasion circumstances? miracles, healing, & such? molecules zapping to attention (physical molecules, & emotional, mental, spiritual ones, too)?

    I certainly do! I have long believed in the supernatural agency of the Holy Ghost. And no I don’t believe in some ‘pie in the sky’ ‘heaven’ which as I’ve noticed over the years, is always someplace you wanna’ ‘get to’ in Christian theology. It’s almost always someplace ‘other’ with little or no connection to this world.

    This is why I find the Jewish version of ‘heaven’ (Olam Ha-Ba) far more appealing. It focuses on the beauty and goodness to be found in this world as further enhanced and greatly expanded upon in the next world (or worlds).

    Finally, I’m totally on board with the idea that we’re supposed to be the agents of change in this present here and now. When bad $|-|it happens, we’re to be the balm and morphine to those hurting. Far in advance of the great ‘not yet’.

  286. Lydia wrote:

    There is something else that Ligonier is sort of famous for in legal circles. Back around 2006-7, Ligoneir filed suit against a blogger who was questioning their financial operations when Sprouls son-in-law, Tim Dick,was running the place.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2006-09-05/news/BLOG05_1_first-amendment-sanford-dick

    USA Today also covered it as did law Prof, Glenn Reynolds aka, Instapundit.

    It was a big deal because it was about the internet and the First Amendment. The media coverage backfired on Ligoneir and they told their donors they dropped it when they really didn’t. They kept it open but they could never find the Blogger. So they did lie to their donors. And boy did they troll for donations while living pretty high on the hog. The General Manager of Ligoneir at the time was Ligon Duncan’s brother.

    It also came out at this time that Ligonier stoled an old guys book business by duping him in the contract. (Can’t remember the name) but the old guy would not sue them. Made me think of Paul Debusman who just lived with Al Mohlers decision to hurt his retirement. Cruel men.

    It was also during this time that Sproul juniors online book was discovered. In it, he called the wealthy woman who bankrolled Ligoneir a “white witch”. He took it down, of course.

    The more one looked into the fruit of this “family business” it was not what one expected. At all.

    The person who was sued by Ligonier was Frank Vance (pseudonym) and the website was MinistryWatchman (the current sites seems hacked, but you can read all you need to at the WayBack Machine version here https://web.archive.org/web/20080917153847/http://ministrywatchman.com:80/?p=12)
    The person who allegedly was duped into selling his bookstore business was Don Kistler of Soli Deo Gloria Ministries (the link above gives the details).

    I was an employee for several years, but before all this went down. I also have many friends who worked there over the years (and some may still). It was a crazy place all the time — the volume on the crazy went up and down over the years.

    Also, in response to someone else who noted that R.C. never earned a PhD, all who worked there knew this factoid. When all the brouhaha arose over Ravi I thought of this, as R.C. was (and still is) referred to as “Dr.” https://www.ligonier.org/about/rc-sproul/

    That said, I do condole with the Sproul family over the loss of their father, grandfather, and husband.

  287. @ elastigirl:
    I didn’t make an assumption. you only called out one side. I found that strange. I don’t agree with either, btw.

    If you have a powder blue station wagon that you want to get rid of because it’s wrong, I know some poor single moms who would gladly take it.

  288. The “yes, barely” answer to the “Are (christians who don’t believe exactly as I do) saved?” question suddenly reminded me of an old joke.

    (I know Sproul was Presbyterian, but I heard this as a Baptist joke.)

    In the joke, St. Peter is giving someone a tour of heaven, and they visit various neighborhoods with different flavors of believers. Coming to the punch line, they arrive at a high wall, where Peter puts a finger to his lips and cautions silence.

    The reason for quiet turns out to be that the people behind the wall are “Baptists, and they think they’re the only ones here.”

  289. @ Lydia:

    i commented on a near whole-sale rejection of catholicism. that is all.

    powder blue station wagons don’t exist anymore, at least where i live. if they did, i would buy a newer car for a single mom instead of saddling them with a lemon.

  290. @ Lydia:

    i expect you’ll find something else to needle me with, so to set the record straight there is nothing wrong with a station wagon, in any color, with or without the wood paneling. i want a country squire myself (with wood paneling). the car would be a burden, though.

    powder blue with navy interior did not score well on the artistic scale. that is all.

  291. Clockwork Angel wrote:

    Calvinists have a tendency to throw food and say mean things.

    Besides having followers with those characteristics, Calvinist belief and practice has had a rough row to hoe in gaining acceptance within Christendom. After 500 years, those adhering to Calvinism represent less than 10% of Protestants worldwide. The greater Christian community has rejected reformed theology. At its core, it is just not good news for ALL people and its leaders are a strange lot (particularly within New Calvinism).

  292. Refugee wrote:

    The reason for quiet turns out to be that the people behind the wall are “Baptists, and they think they’re the only ones here.”

    This one is one of my faves:

    “Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
    — Mark Twain —

  293. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I got that you were critiquing Molina. But most Catholics who identify as Molinists do not believe in multiple universes.

    Thanks for the clarification. Molinism is very different from the idea of multiple universes. In Molinism God actualizes only one world out of a potentially infinite number of worlds existing in his mind. By contrast,the idea of multiple universes is a way to explain why this particular universe exists. This idea deals with actual theoretical universes, not just potential unrealized worlds. It really has no connection with Molinsism, but the two are not incompatible.

    I find it interesting that people would identify as Molinists without understanding what it proposes. I don’t see how it equates to free will any more than Calvinism. In either case human free will is irrelevant because God ultimately chooses how things turn out.

    Ken F, if you want to believe that either Thomists or Molinists are closet Calvinists (or whatever), I certainly can’t stop you. All I can say is this: I do not know one single Real-Life Catholic who thinks in the terms you’re describing. Not a single one.

    If you are trying to find a rationale for subscribing to the old “East Good, West Bad” paradigm, well, then I guess I can see where you are coming from. But may I respectfully suggest that you may be setting up a strawman here?

    I know okrapod found that the Catechism scared her away from Catholicism. But at least it (presumably) gave her a pretty accurate idea of what Catholicism actually *is,* so she knew what she was rejecting.

    In contrast, when I read the descriptions here of Thomism and Molinism, I think, “Who talks like this? Who thinks like this? Nobody I know in Real Life. Absolutely no one.”

    The Catholic Church does not ascribe infallibility to any one Church Father or Doctor or theologian. Even during the period when Aquinas was ascendant, his influence was far from absolute. And especially on the topic of predestination, the popes have always been careful to leave various options open. With full respect for the mystery, they have refused to allow the various schools to anathematize each other. As a result, the predestination question has simply not been a big deal for most Catholics “on the ground.” It doesn’t exercize us the way it does our Calvinist brethren. It doesn’t keep us awake at night. I dare say that most Catholics don’t even think about it, one way or the other, from one year to the next. If you don’t believe me, try attending a few Catholic Masses just to see whether predestination even comes up, either in homilies or in after-church discussions. If it comes up at all, I’ll be greatly surprised.

    It’s not that Catholics don’t care about theological controversies. Well, OK, yes it is. 😀 But seriously…the stuff that twists some Protestants into pretzels just doesn’t register on most Catholics’ radar screens. We have other things to worry about. Like whether the parochial-school tuition is going up. And whether we can meet our pledges for the Diocesan Support Appeal. And what to buy our kids for First Communion. And whether Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje. Mundane stuff like that. 😉

  294. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Please, could y’all just take a deep breath, step back, and let *Catholics* tell you what Catholics believe??

    Which Catholics?

    I find that is the Achilles heel of that kind of reasoning “Let ______ tell you what _____ really believe.”

    I have met a number of Catholics who believe the very things you say no Catholics believe. I have also met quite a number of Baptists who believe things other Baptists say no Baptists believe. I have also met a few Muslims who believe things other Muslims say no Muslims believe. (Ironically, I haven’t met many atheists who believe things other atheists say no atheists believe).

    Just because you’ve never met anyone in your creed who believes the things you say no one in your creed believes, doesn’t mean that no one in your creed actually believes those things.

    As for Molinism: It does not say there is an actual infinity of actual worlds, but simply an infinity of possible worlds, and God knows every possible action of every possible agent in every possible world. That, on a basic level seems to make sense — except for the mathematical rigidity that there is really not much choice in any world. And then it still boils down to the “secret will” as to why God chose this world, of all worlds, when it is conceivable that there is a possible world in which all people at every time choose him. It also makes the assumption that human choice is entirely predictable — which is certainly an irrational assumption.

    But, of course, you may claim “no true Scotsman” believes what I just wrote, in which case, I might wryly suggest, you will always be right. Sort of.

  295. (Dee, I forgot to mention, I am traveling for the holidays, and my flag correctly represents where I am right now.)

  296. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    In contrast, when I read the descriptions here of Thomism and Molinism, I think, “Who talks like this? Who thinks like this? Nobody I know in Real Life. Absolutely no one.”

    The article in wikipedia talks like what Ken is saying. Dr. Craig, much read by non-Catholics and a leading advocator for Molinism’s middle knowledge talks like that. I think like that.

    I have found that ‘popular Catholicism’, and by that I mean what that Catholic which might be characterized as ‘the man on the street’ or ‘the everyday person’ thinks is often not what a protestant like me would have expected to hear. In RCIA I also found, in addition to some disconnect between what was being taught in class and what I was reading in the CCC, there was a disconnect between the lead catechist and the new priest when he came to the extent that she ‘warned’ us about him basically because he was a by-the-book sort of person.

    So I ended up with a ‘who ya gonna believe?’ problem. This is similar to what goes on in protestantism with not everybody telling the same story exactly the same way. And I note the current issue within Catholicism of some traditionalists, including some bishops, disagreeing with some post-V II changes and disagreeing with the current Pope on some things.

    My problem with Christianity, which I first had to face head on in learning about historical Christianity, is the extent to which Greek (mostly) philosophy was mingled with Semitic religious thinking and the extent to which Roman styles of government were adopted resulting in the Judeo-Greek thinking and Roman style of governance of what became Christianity. And all I could think was– not I really have a huge issue of ‘who ya gonna believe’. Under the larger idea of ‘baptizing the idols’, a popular concept argued for example every Christmas by the ultra protestants, one has the larger picture of how much does one adapt to pre-existing cultures while pursuing evangelization?

    Is Christianity the bastard child of Jew and Gentile thinking, or is this mixture a legitimate approach to constructing a religious adaptation acceptable to a different culture-as when the original mission to the gentiles was done in Paul’s day. I tend to agree with the Muslims when it comes to actual statuary-destroy the old idols and make no compromise. But, in my admittedly limited observation, Catholicism tends to be more people-friendly than protestantisms tend to be.

    It should be perfectly obvious at this point in this conversation the extent to which ‘Catholicism Today’ would not be my cup of tea, so to speak, and most of ‘Protestantism Today’ is not my cup of tea. that became for me the issue of whether ‘Christianity Today’ itself in any for was my cup of tea-anything which I could affirm as probably true. There is just waaaaaay too much in both that does not appear to be what Jesus was doing and saying. We have all built elaborate constructs of religion over time, and that for me is a mountain I have not been able to climb.

    I don’t dislike either Catholics or Protestants-we all face the sam everyday issues in life. I do not remotely reject the idea that God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. I do question mountains of stuff which has accrued to that over time.

  297. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Lydia:

    i commented on a near whole-sale rejection of catholicism. that is all.

    powder blue station wagons don’t exist anymore, at least where i live. if they did, i would buy a newer car for a single mom instead of saddling them with a lemon.

    Glad to know you are rich.

  298. @ Lydia:

    i’m not rich. i’m clearing up the things you’ve implied about me. why so antagonistic, lydia? why so nasty?

  299. @ Lydia:

    perhaps it was unfair. Ken P, i see much good and elements of truth in the catholic church. i felt that to portray it as wrong about almost everything was a dogmatic thing to say. but i apologize for expressing it the way i did.

  300. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Ken F, if you want to believe that either Thomists or Molinists are closet Calvinists (or whatever), I certainly can’t stop you. All I can say is this: I do not know one single Real-Life Catholic who thinks in the terms you’re describing. Not a single one.

    If you are trying to find a rationale for subscribing to the old “East Good, West Bad” paradigm, well, then I guess I can see where you are coming from. But may I respectfully suggest that you may be setting up a strawman here?

    I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your response. I have never in my life made any comments anywhere about Thomism. I made only one comment in this thread about what Catholics believe, and that was my statement that Catholics don’t believe in PSA (please tell me if I got that wrong). I never wrote anything about whether or not Catholics believe in Molinism. Nor did I equate Molinsim with Calvinism. What I wrote was my belief that with respect to free will vs sovereignty, Molinism is no better than Calvinism.

    I don’t believe that I misrepresented what Molinism proposes, but please let me know if I did. You said no Molinist thinks like this, but I pretty much quoted directly from Molinist sources. If you don’t believe that God actualized the best world out of all the infinitely possible worlds, then you are not a Molinist. If you disagree, please show me how I am wrong.

    I certainly did not intend to start any kind of an East vs West argument. Nor was I intending to insult Catholics. I merely pointed out a flaw in a particular point of theology. Are you suggesting that any disagreement with any Catholic theologian on any point is tantamount to Catholic bashing?

    Please let me know specifically how I misrepresented either Catholics or Molinists.

  301. Hi there,
    Can anyone please provide a transcript of what R.C. Sproul is mumbling in his non-existing beard that makes Al Mohler facepalm? English is not my mother tongue and to be honest, I can only understand “baptism”. Thank you very much in advance.
    Greetings
    Exing

  302. LOL, I give up. Please forgive me for misunderstanding or jumping to conclusions. Maybe it would help if I just ‘splain what I believe? I think it’s pretty close to what my fellow parishioners believe. We are not Wikipedia. We are ordinary people. But, from what I can see, we’ve got a pretty good *basic* grasp of our Faith.

    I consider myself a Molinist simply because I believe that God wants to save everyone and does everything He can to reach every person’s heart, short of violating free will. Following Saint Paul, I believe that God (Who exists outside of time) *foreknows* those who will accept Him and those who won’t. (He’s omniscient; He knows everything.) But He still extends salvation to every single person right up to the nanosecond of death. (He told Saint Faustina Kowalska that “the final hour abounds in Mercy.” Still, even then, some people reject Him. Not sure I understand that, but apparently it happens.

    I don’t presume to press the issue *any* farther than that. I don’t know from “possible universes.” It’s a mystery, that’s all.

    But the various theological schools are no reason to reject the Catholic Church. The Church’s claims rest on her claim to authority rather than on her adherence to one or another confessional school. Lutheranism is a confessional church. Catholicism is not. Apples and oranges.

    @Man Who Was Thursday: I am not a trained theologian by any stretch. The Catechism provides the most accurate, authoritative take on Catholic belief. I don’t. For answers to theological questions, see the Catechism.

    Right now, I am far more concerned about a control-freaky Word of Faith neighbor who is bullying me, because she apparently thinks that her status as a specially anointed and blessed “Daughter of the King” gives her the right to run the entire neighborhood. UGH. Don’t get me started. I think I’m pretty ecumenical, but control freakery of *any* sort gets on my last little nerve.

  303. Exing wrote:

    Can anyone please provide a transcript of what R.C. Sproul is mumbling in his non-existing beard that makes Al Mohler facepalm?

    Well I think the mumbling is “Apollos did what (you know what) to the best of his knowledge and told Priscilla and Aquilla (told them) to baptize babies.”

    It makes me facepalm trying to interpret what he said!

  304. @ Ken A:

    I never heard of any abuses in his ministry. No not one. I perceived him as a lover of God and a humble Christian theologian.

  305. D.M. wrote:

    humble Christian theologian.

    Let me weigh in on this. Any theologian who dismisses the majority of Christians who are Arminian-like in their theology by calling them *just barely* saved has begun to move out of the humble category and has taken on the role of editor of the Book of Life.

  306. dee wrote:

    Any theologian who dismisses the majority of Christians who are Arminian-like in their theology by calling them *just barely* saved has begun to move out of the humble category and has taken on the role of editor of the Book of Life.

    And everybody said Amen! (or should have)

    After 500 years, those who adhere to reformed theology represent less than 10% of Protestant Christians worldwide. To slam the other 90% in such a way is a display of extreme arrogance, not humility. Dr. Sproul did not have a corner on the truth – I suspect that he knows that now.

  307. @ Forrest:
    @ dee:Too bad.Arminians have been the false prophets the Apostles warned us of.
    Taking the beauty of grace & turning it into a works righteouness, perverts our Lord’s revelation into just another religion. R.C.was being too kind & you are offended?

  308. Steven wrote:

    @ Forrest:
    @ dee:Too bad.Arminians have been the false prophets the Apostles warned us of.
    Taking the beauty of grace & turning it into a works righteouness, perverts our Lord’s revelation into just another religion. R.C.was being too kind & you are offended?

    This is the reason why we have so many problems in the faith. Steven, you don’t understand Arminians worth spit. You are spreading lies about your brother and sisters in Christ and you should be ashamed. But being a Calvinista means never having to say you are sorry, right?

  309. Steven wrote:

    Arminians have been the false prophets the Apostles warned us of.

    Whew! Steven, Steven, you’ve been sitting under hyper-Calvinists far too long! It’s a dirty shame what such indoctrination does to folks.

  310. Max wrote:

    Whew! Steven, Steven, you’ve been sitting under hyper-Calvinists far too long! It’s a dirty shame what such indoctrination does to folks.

    doubleplusgoodthink INGSOC,
    doubleplusbellyfeel INGSOC,
    doubleplusduckspeak INGSOC.

  311. D.M. wrote:

    @ Ken A:
    I never heard of any abuses in his ministry. No not one. I perceived him as a lover of God and a humble Christian theologian.

    As HUMBLE(TM) as The Humble One himself?
    (chuckle chuckle)

  312. D.M. wrote:

    @ Ken A:
    I never heard of any abuses in his ministry. No not one. I perceived him as a lover of God and a humble Christian theologian.

    Almost every story we write about is the first time anyone has heard of such a thing. So you not ever hearing not.one.report is not convincing.

  313. dee wrote:

    Almost every story we write about is the first time anyone has heard of such a thing.

    How many times have we heard on the evening news: “I can’t believe he did something like that! He was such a nice guy!”

    Worshipers of Christian celebrities have blinders on.

  314. R.C.Sproul was a man faithful in his generation – faithful to the Bible, to the Gospel, to the truth, to Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity. He was given courage by God to teach and preach the truth of God’s Word in an age when the truths of God’s Word are opposed by many, even Christians such as the owners of this website and the many who come here to express their bitterness and resentment and to be reassured that they are right in what they believe or disbelieve, and that their attitudes are justified toward men such as Sproul and churches that believe and teach historic Christianity as did Sproul. Sproul’s great offences is that he believed and confidently and courageously the Word of God. He was a good man. God used him greatly and, when his work was done, called him home where he lives in the joy and glory of the Lord he loved and trusted.

  315. William H. Smith wrote:

    R.C.Sproul was a man faithful in his generation

    You mean the guy who called Jesus the “ultimate obscenity” and “the most intense concentration of evil”?

  316. William H. Smith wrote:

    He was given courage by God to teach and preach the truth of God’s Word in an age when the truths of God’s Word are opposed by many, even Christians such as the owners of this website and the many who come here to express their bitterness and resentment and to be reassured that they are right in what they believe or disbelieve, and that their attitudes are justified toward men such as Sproul and churches that believe and teach historic Christianity as did Sproul.

    In case you are still reading, I will add that I would have mostly agreed with you about Sproul until a few years ago when I started to investigate historical Christian theology. Sproul got many things right, but in some critical areas he taught things that would have been considered heresy in the first 1000 years of Christianity, and still considered heresy by the vast majority of Christians today. It’s very easy to get a narrow view that disagrees with historical Christian beliefs. Not everyone who disagrees is an enemy.