Guest Post: Wade Burleson Responds to The Founders Taking Him to Task: It’s a Gender Ball Game.


Not Arizona! The Murray Buttes on Mars. NASA

“We are all trying to let our mind and heart go their own way—centred on money or pleasure or ambition—and hoping, in spite of this, to behave honestly and chastely and humbly. And that is exactly what Christ warned us you could not do.” ― C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity


Awhile back, I spoke with Wade about his views on women and the church. At that point, he had not written extensively about his perspectives on women and giftedness. He also explained in depth how his church lived out their beliefs. At the time, I knew that he would speak about it and the inevitable pushback would occur.

There is turmoil in the SBC as various groups are coalescing and challenging various initiatives. There is the Conservative Baptist Network. This groups is essentially Paige Patterson and friends.

Wade Burleson identified another interesting group which I hadn’t noticed. He wrote an illuminating post: A Chilling Crisis of Power, Control, and Authority: An Open Letter to the Southern Baptist Convention. Here is what he said.

That same Executive Committee, behind closed doors, created a task force to investigate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. That’s a polite way of saying they are going after Russell Moore’s job. Members of the Executive Committee don’t like that Russell Moore has spoken truth to power, and they want Russell to conform to their demands and be silent about Trump.

The Southern Baptist Convention needs Russell Moore. No leader should have absolute power. All leaders, whether religious or political, should tremble at the thought of accountability to people. That’s true liberty.

It’s a dark day when a Convention allegedly built on cooperation around missions demands conformity on political views. The Fundamentalist Forum has been advocating an “investigation of Russell Moore” since 2017. The FF is not even SBC, it’s an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Forum.

I have been expressing concerns about The Founders for quite some time. I even featured a post about the Founders written by Wade Burleson. So it came as no surprise to me when The Founders, once again, decided to go after Wade. I knew they would and so did he.

As usual, Wade is a gentleman. Notice how he called Tom Nettles a *friend.* Wade has taught me much about responding in love to difficult situations. I still have far to go but he is my role model in that department and I am thankful for the conviction I feel when I read his writings.

Wade is moving the bar when it comes to allowing women to participate in leadership in the church. I would imagine there are a few SBC leaders who are hoping that his thoughts don’t get much play since he is challenging some dearly held memes and sticking his toes over some tightly held SBC boundaries.

I might suggest you read his open letter to the SBC linked above prior to reading this post. There are some interesting days ahead for the SBC and I look forward to being an outside observer to the free for all. I will be curious to see where the boundary lines are drawn in the next few years. I know I will have plenty to write about.

Once again, I thank Wade for allowing me to post his writings. He is a stand up sort of guy who never lets his theology trump his love for others.

PS: I think The Founders were tacky for not allowing Wade to respond on their website. Or are they afraid of healthy dialog? It’s hard to tell.


Welcome to the Gender Ball Game Dr. Tom Nettles


Today, Founders Ministries published an article by my friend, Dr. Tom Nettles, where Tom takes me to task for writing that the Bible teaches leadership in the home, the church, and society is never gender-based.

I think Founders Ministries brought out the big gun (Dr. Tom Nettles) because the article I wrote this week entitled The 2000 BFM and the Theological Triage Tragedy struck a chord.

I learned a long time ago that when a big gun is fired, people are concerned. A writer only receives flak when flying over the target.

I seem to be successful in convincing Christ-followers within the Southern Baptist Convention what true, biblical, Christ-like leadership looks like, enabling them to lay aside the traditions of men.

Tom writes that “Burleson cites Scripture and condenses ideas that are false or have no relation to the position he wants to establish.” 

The position that I wish to establish is that leadership in Christ’s Kingdom (eg. “the church”) is always based on gifting, not gender; humble character, not hubristic control; and a spirit of service, not a position of power. In other words, gifted males and females are part of shared leadership in the church, the home, and in society.

Tom writes that “Burleson overlooked passages like Hebrews 13:17.” 

No, Tom, I haven’t overlooked it at all. This message I preached on Hebrews 13:17 was delivered to my church nearly ten years ago.

Tom writes that “with breathtaking confidence, Burleson asserts that it is a mistake to teach male leadership in the home and the church…(and) the idea of a ‘submissive attitude’ on the part of a woman is a violation of New Testament standard.”

No Tom, you misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s a mistake for females to have a submissive attitude toward males. I’m saying it’s a mistake for males not to have a submissive attitude toward females. I’m also not saying its a mistake for a gifted man to lead. I’m saying it’s wrong and sinful for a man to keep a gifted woman from leading.  As far back as 1998, two years before the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was adopted, I pointed out to Southern Baptists that the Bible teaches mutual submission of the husband and wife, mutual leadership of the man and the woman, and mutual love of men and women (see image below).

Tom writes that “(Burleson) should consider arguing that John Broadus’s argument against women…speaking in a mixed assembly…did not represent the general consensus of Southern Baptists at the time.”

Tom, I agree with you! I can’t disprove that John Broadus’s views on women did not accurately present Southern Baptists’ view of women “at the time” (eg. 1850s and 1860s). But John Broadus was wrong!  Just as he and the other FOUNDERS (pardon the pun) of Southern Seminary were wrong about slavery in terms of their interpretations of the Bible. Only the Bible is infallible;  man’s interpretations of it are not.

As Southern Seminary recently reported, Southern Founders John A Broadus,  James P. Boyce, Basil Manly Jr., and William Williams, all owned more than 50 slaves between them. Shame on them. Yet, they all used their faulty interpretations of Scripture to justify slavery.

I’m uninterested in debating Founders’ views on women. I’m only interested in telling others what the Scriptures teach.

Tom quotes the Philadelphia Association and says (in agreement with the Association) that “women in the church of God should be silenced (and that the Bible)... excludes all women whomsoever from all degrees of teaching, ruling, governing, dictating, and leading in the church of God.”

Hogwash. That is not what the Bible teaches. The overwhelming teaching of Jesus and the New Testament is that men and women as gifted by Christ (the Head of the church), and as led by the Spirit, and as called by the church, should serve others without restrictions.

But what about I Timothy 2:9-15? (see Artemis and the End of Us: Evangelical Errors Regarding Women).

But what about I Timothy 2:12?  (see ‘The’ Woman of Error in I Timothy 2:12).

But what about I Corinthians 14:34-36? (see A Free Speech Ekklesia for All Brothers and Sisters).

Now, I’m asking you a question. Why do you base your views on three passages of Scripture that at your first glance “prohibit women from speaking or teaching,” but you ignore the overwhelming and clear teachings of the Scripture that all men and women who follow Jesus are to serve as the Holy Spirit gifts them?

The Bible clearly teaches that both men and women are to minister and lead in Christ’s Kingdom and in our Southern Baptist churches.

For further reading, peruse A Biblical Primer on Women in Christian Ministry.

The problem in the SBC is men acting like “Gentiles” (Jesus’ words) and seeking to exert power, authority, and control over people. Power. Authority. Control.

PAC men (Power. Authority. Control. men) are running the SBC, but the days are soon coming when the Spirit will move and Christ will become the Head of His people and this infatuation with authority and control will come to an end.

Spiritual power trips typically end in twisted trysts of sexual submission.

When Jesus is the only authority over His people, then His people – that means every brother and every sister in Christ – are empowered to serve as Christ gifts and commissions us.

I tried to write a comment to Tom’s post on the Founders Ministries website. The Founders would not let it through. So, in closing, I ask you to read my full response to Dr. Tom Nettle’s article. The comment was written “off the top of my head” in about 2 minutes, and I post it here without edits, in case the Founders at some point in the future decide to take my out of ‘moderation.’

WADE’S RESPONSE TO DR. TOM NETTLES:

“Tom, I’m honored you would respond to my writings. The “office of pastor” may have a long and early pedigree in Baptist history and ecclesiology, but you may be missing my point. Slavery has had a long and early pedigree in Southern Baptist history and ecclesiology. Neither one of us would say it has precedent in Scripture (at least I don’t think we would). However, Southern Baptist preachers during the 1850s and 1860s would have defended tooth and toenail the right – those pastors would say the biblical right (I have their sermons) – for Southern Baptists to own, trade, and purchase slaves.

My point is that the BIBLE – nowhere – speaks of “the authority of a pastor to rule over people.” Period. The Bible refers to Christ as the one with authority over His church, and He gifts men and women as He pleases. We are His body, and there is only one Head. A multi-head church doesn’t exist, no matter how long and how often Baptists try to say a “Pastor” has authority over anybody. I’ve written a book called “Fraudulent Authority: pastors Who Seek to Rule Over Others.”

If “ordination” means that a person is bestowed some “mystical authority” over God’s people, then I am against ordaining women – and men.

Christ gifts His people – men and women – as He sees fit. There are no “render by gender” spiritual gifts. The men and women gifted with teaching should teach. The men and women gifted with prophesying should prophesy (preach). The men and women gifted with serving should serve. Those are the “roles” of the church.

Now, if a local body of Christ which incorporates as a 501 C-3 wishes to designate a man or a woman to be a “pastor” of that non-profit, then they must file papers with the state and declare who is the local 501 C-3 “pastor” – for tax purposes and for officiating marriage ceremonies. However, few people realize that “legal authority” in any church is not the pastor, not the members, and not even the congregation. Legal authority – as defined by the state – are those men and women listed as “trustees” on the Secretary of State Certificate of Incorporation, and those so designated in continuing By Laws.

Baptists have historically been “people of the book.” We wrote our Confessions first (1644), and in that London Confession, the “ordinances” (baptisms and the Lord’s Supper) were called “Christ’s ordinances,” not church ordinances, so any convert of Jesus had the privilege of baptizing others they led to Jesus, and any convert had the privilege of sharing the bread and the wine with other. By 1689, after the Presbyterians issued their Westminster Confession, Baptists in London wrote another Confession to more align with Cromwellians ruling England. It’s then that this mystical idea of “an office of pastoral authority” came into existence among Baptists. King James and the Anglicans, Cromwell and the Presbyterians, and other denominations all viewed “the office of bishop” as an office of authority, and only they (eg. “the bishops”) could handled “the ordinances.”

I know you read Gill (as do I), and this brilliant Hebrew linguist convinced me that the ordinances are Christ’s, not the church, and every follower of Christ is a minister.

Some just happen to get paid.

I’m pushing back against this awful doctrine that “Preachers” or “Pastors” (i.e. MALES) have some kind of inherent authority over females. The doctrine of eternal subordination of the Son was ruled heresy a long time ago, but it lives today in the hearts of many attempting to keep females eternally subordinate to males.

I appreciate the friendship with you and Tom Ascol, and I must say, I’m flattered that the big gun is now writing in opposition to what I write.

I must be making progress in raising the awareness of what I deem a more biblical view of women and leadership. Though you know history (as do I), the interpretation of the Bible can change to more accurately reflect the teachings of slavery.

Ask our Southern Baptist pastor friend, Dwight McKissic, or my fellow Teaching Pastor at Emmanuel Enid, Abraham Wright, if they are glad Southern Baptists changed our interpretations of Scripture on the issue of slavery.

Southern Baptist will also one day have a more biblical view of women.

The Holy Spirit will see to it (Acts 2:17).”

More to come…

Comments

Guest Post: Wade Burleson Responds to The Founders Taking Him to Task: It’s a Gender Ball Game. — 335 Comments

  1. King James and the Anglicans, Cromwell and the Presbyterians, and other denominations all viewed “the office of bishop” as an office of authority, and only they (eg. “the bishops”) could handled “the ordinances.”

    Just like before Henry VIII only “the bishops” and their delegated priests could handle “the sacraments”.

  2. It’s hard to know where to start when pointing out problems with Founders. Here is what they posted today:
    https://founders.org/2020/03/06/sbc-resolution-on-beholding-the-majesty-of-god/
    One piece of the resolution:

    WHEREAS, lack of awareness of the majesty of God is the root cause of so many serious issues churches and denominations face in the 21st century (Psalm 115:8), including, but not limited to, the lack of trust in the sufficiency of Scripture, being pro LGBTQ+ lifestyles, having women preaching to and teaching men in the church, participating in or ignoring and covering up sexual abuse, a lack of concern for evangelism, purporting a man-centered theology, engaging in carnal worship practices, the absence of biblical church discipline and concern for regenerate church membership in local churches,

    Where does one start?

  3. “There is turmoil in the SBC as various groups are coalescing and challenging various initiatives.” (Dee)

    “If you bite and devour one another in partisan strife, be careful that you and your whole fellowship are not consumed by one another.” (Galatians 5:15)

    Scott Shaver commenting on Pastor Burleson’s blog sums it up perfectly: “What is left of the SBC to split into?”

  4. The Founders are a scary lot … ghosts of their 19th century forefathers, striving to enslave souls to their aberrant theology. The original Southern Baptists were slaveholders in the South (including pastors and deacons!). They believed sovereign God was on their side in the Civil War, until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. After the War, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from the Founders’ Calvinist theology and remained distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice for 150+ years (those were good years with a strong evangelistic and mission effort around the world). Then along came Ascol with his Old Calvinists and Mohler with his New Calvinists to take the SBC back to its theological roots without asking millions of non-Calvinist SBC members if they wanted to go there. “Conservative” Resurgence? … nah, it was a Calvinist Resurgence!

  5. “Why do you base your views on three passages of Scripture that at your first glance ‘prohibit women from speaking or teaching,’ but you ignore the overwhelming and clear teachings of the Scripture that all men and women who follow Jesus are to serve as the Holy Spirit gifts them?”

    The practice of basing a practice/theology on certain Scripture… while ignoring other Scripture – is why it is important to read the entire Bible for oneself, not just hear what is chosen to be dished out from the pulpit or Bible studies or any other human “authority”.

    Case in point – the young seeking girl in “Legal Grounds” whose dad quotes Scripture, the 5th Commandment, to do evil. It is when she reads the entire Bible for herself, and gets a complete picture of Who God really is, that she plans her escape – not from God, but from the evil men do. She runs to God – as found in the entire Bible – for safety. Scripture is powerful; God is safe.

    Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, and Jesus answered right back with Scripture. Scripture explains and defends itself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to each individual, without “clergy” or patriarchal/hierarchical interference.

  6. Wild Honey: Where does one start?

    With the “carnal worship practices,” OBVIOUSLY.

    Yes, that is a good place to start because of what “carnal” means: “adjective – pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites.”

    The incarnation of Jesus was him forever taking on a body of flesh. So to worship Jesus is to engage in carnal worship. I don’t think that is what they mean by carnal worship though. The problem is they make statememts like this without defining the words they use.

  7. Wild Honey,

    Another good place to start is “purporting a man-centered theology.” Are they suggesting the solution is a woman-centered theology?

  8. Ava Aaronson: The practice of basing a practice/theology on certain Scripture… while ignoring other Scripture – is why it is important to read the entire Bible for oneself, not just hear what is chosen to be dished out from the pulpit or Bible studies or any other human “authority”.

    Amen and Amen! This cannot be stressed enough!

    The Holy Spirit is available to every believer to teach them Truth. Opting to accept every jot and tittle as truth that comes from the mouth of a preacher, without filtering it through the Spirit and the Word yourself, is the stuff that cults are made of. The whole of Scripture must always be taken into account when a minister, ministry, or movement keeps hanging their hat on the same cherry-picked verses.

  9. Wild Honey: Where does one start?

    With the “carnal worship practices,” OBVIOUSLY.

    Makes them sound a little jealous.

    Just sayin.

    The ole boys probably sneak into other churches under disguise to observe “carnal worship” on stage – praise and worship singers in tight pants swaying to the beat of drums.

  10. Ava Aaronson: is why it is important to read the entire Bible for oneself, not just hear what is chosen to be dished out from the pulpit or Bible studies or any other human “authority”.

    And in addition, it is good to challenge our preconceptions by learning how Christians from earlier generations interpreted tte Bible. I very much like CS Lewis’s introduction to an English translation of “On the Incarnationv by St Athanasius. This short excerpt catch a just a bit of the entire introduction:

    The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

    Here is the link to both his intro and the actual book by Athanasius:
    http://www.romans45.org/history/ath-inc.htm
    (It looks like the site is run by Phil Johnson – I wonder if he actually read it)

  11. https://founders.org/2020/02/06/gender-roles-before-the-fall-and-in-the-church/

    Okay …. goin’ on a rant, here. (Note: Each time my husband has decided that “we” need to change churches, — all of them SBC– he has chosen a church with even tighter restrictions on women “members”. )

    The Lord may have been David’s Shephard, but this article blatantly indicates that the Lord sure ain’t my Shepard……. looks like my husband is my shephard. Seems it’s my husband’s responsibility to lead me beside the still waters, and restoreth my soul.

    I’ve honestly wondered, for quite a while, if a lot of these menfolk believe women even have souls. Do they believe women even human, or are we just some advanced subspecies of Labrador retriever — created to fetch, lie down, and roll over on command? Do those men believe that we walk this earth just to serve, honor, and worship men??? I wonder…… really, I do.

    We are not truly members of the church. We are the kitchen help, the nannies, the housekeepers, the maids …… We are little more than unpaid hirelings. (Uhm, what would you call an unpaid hireling??? Think about it.).

    In my church world, women miss services and singings because we are busy preparing and setting up for fellowship meals (We are the Marthas!). We do clean up after the meals, while the men sit around and pontificate, brag about their trucks, and make stupid jokes about women drivers!

    Nope. I’m done. I haven’t withdrawn my membership. But if the church kicks me out, I may just send them a thank you card.

    Gifts…… hah! Our pastor gave a sermon about gifts in 2016. He focused on 4 specific gifts, none of which women are allowed to exercise. That was the straw that broke this camel’s back.

  12. Ava Aaronson,

    I think that Scripture suffers from the same two ills as Science; not giving it the credence it deserves at one extreme, and making way too much of it at the other.

  13. Huh. Carnal worship? Fleshly worship? You mean like worshipping your own body like Owen Strachan?

    Speck, meet plank. Mind the testosterone on it.

  14. Ava Aaronson: The practice of basing a practice/theology on certain Scripture… while ignoring other Scripture – is why it is important to read the entire Bible for oneself, not just hear what is chosen to be dished out from the pulpit or Bible studies or any other human “authority”.

    Ken F (aka Tweed): And in addition, it is good to challenge our preconceptions by learning how Christians from earlier generations interpreted tte Bible.

    I agree with these statements. I would make a couple of other additions, though, without claiming to be “right”, for sure not claiming that. These are just other ways that I am inclined to consider and factor in.

    In considering past “theologians”, I wonder about the minimized voices, or those not as highly regarded or promoted. Whoever authored scripture did not silence Hagar’s voice, or Ruth’s, or Leah’s, or Rachel’s, or Mary’s, etc, etc.. When I consider past&present theologians I am inclined to activate Paul’s(I think/not sure) suggestion to consider the outcome of their faith and, for me, that includes how they treated their spouse, others and how they spoke about, or exercised their power in service of/or power over/or indifference toward, women and children. It seems, to me, that theologians who especially demonstrate/ed the “service” of “building up (including women and children)” rather than seeking their own “building up” in their own creativity, are more like Jesus than others who want/wanted their own thoughts and opinions to be read by a wider audience.

  15. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): In my church world, women miss services and singings because we are busy preparing and setting up for fellowship meals (We are the Marthas!).

    …so the men are all Mary?

    I truly feel for you, and hope you can find peace inside, no matter where you are on a Sunday.

    One reason I point out decades of women’s ordination is for the sanity of others. I can’t go through life thinking that every church is a haven of abuse and misogyny.

    Tragically for the future of Christianity, the oppressive SBC, angry zealots like Steven Anderson, and grifters like Jim Bakker represent the faith through noxious actions and loudness.

  16. Magistos: Carnal worship?

    Yeah, I read a piece that included Sunday school that’s all fun as part of “carnal worship.”

    Well, of course it shouldn’t be all fun, but it should be engaging enough that kids tolerate and even enjoy it (sort of like piano lessons) and feel some genuine love.

    Folks who yammer against “carnal worship” most likely want every second of Sunday school to train children to obey instantly, without questioning, and otherwise to narrow their precious, developing minds.

  17. Ava Aaronson,

    “Scripture explains and defends itself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to each individual, without “clergy” or patriarchal/hierarchical interference.”

    Max,

    “The Holy Spirit is available to every believer to teach them Truth. Opting to accept every jot and tittle as truth that comes from the mouth of a preacher, without filtering it through the Spirit and the Word yourself, is the stuff that cults are made of. The whole of Scripture must always be taken into account when a minister, ministry, or movement keeps hanging their hat on the same cherry-picked verses.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    i don’t disagree.

    however, i’m exceedingly frustrated with the fact that it seems scripture explains itself totally differently to different people; and holy spirit tells totally different things to different people.

    so i find no safety or encouragement in the premise you both describe.
    .
    .
    it seems to me the problem is looking so closely at what’s written in scripture as to turn it all into prescriptive rules and commands.

    (i’ve heard fellow christians say things like “Jesus commands us to….”, followed by Paul’s advice on something, which he clearly said was his own opinion. first of all, Jesus wasn’t the speaker; and secondly,’advice and opinion’ are not commands)
    .
    .
    i think when people find God / religion / faith / spirituality (however to say it) an unfortunate result is they get bossy.

    –they feel they are now an emissary of esoteric truth, having been commissioned to tell everyone else the hidden things which God has made them privy to.

    –the next step is people are inclined to codify it all. turn it into divine mandates.

    Because it’s GOD.

    (sort of like God is plutonium — the movie Silkwood comes to mind — something so dangerous and serious that it requires many rules.)

    …it’s just that the rules change depending on the GOD-person and which God-processing-plant you’re at.

    but if you break any of them — if you trip any of the invisible wires — you’re immediately on someone’s heretic radar and purportedly in danger of God’s hot displeasure if not the fires of hell itself.

    it all really makes look christianity silly and foolish. let alone a frustrating and antagonizing pursuit.

  18. elastigirl,

    (sort of like God is plutonium — the movie Silkwood comes to mind — something so dangerous and serious that it requires many rules.)
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    rather than plutonium, i see God as “air”.

    God is as available as air, as everywhere as air, as natural as air, as constant-a-companion as air.

    it’s true that there are undeniable supernatural encounters and experiences with God, that are outrageously unlike anything else one has ever experienced. but at the time, they’re not foreign.

    i can compare it to when my first child was born. it was like suddenly stepping through a doorway into a totally different reality. my life was one way, then suddenly it changed forever.

    and this outrageous, life-altering change was also the most familiar thing that ever was.

    from the first moment i saw my son, it was like i had known him my entire life. like, he’d always been there — i was just finally seeing the materialized him.

    i think God is pretty much exactly like this.

    as familiar as the air we’ve always been breathing.

    and in a sense, as ubiquitous and garden-variety a thing as air.

    as we’ve raised our son (our kids), we read a little bit of advice from people who had more experience than we did, but then it was just common sense born out of love. it was not rocket science.

    God is not rocket science, something so outter limits like nuclear physics that it requires the elite few to explain it to us.
    .
    .
    but, getting back to the tendency of the human condition for rules (and to want the power & prestige of being the rules czar), i think the wise thing is to resist this.

    resist it by holding information in the bible loosely. not turning it into prescriptions.

    seeing it as descriptive.

    keeping the main thing the main thing. (and i’m repeating myself, here)
    .
    .
    (“What is the main thing?” would be an interesting discussion topic. and yet i would expect even in that discussion, we all would have to resist the urge to drill down into ‘tertiary things’ as and ever-growing ‘main thing’)

  19. elastigirl: if you trip any of the invisible wires — you’re immediately on someone’s heretic radar and purportedly in danger of God’s hot displeasure if not the fires of hell itself.

    I cannot count the number of times people have tried to push me onto that hamster wheel. Worse, I don’t know how many times I have done it to others. I know I did it when I was younger and I don’t know how to undo the damage. For me, the value in reading other perspectives, especially older ones, is helping me to hold my opinions more loosely. Along the way I found that the early church codified a few important beliefs in a few creeds, but left a surprising amount open for discussion. Modern Protestantism turned that upside down and ended up over-specifying just about every aspect of life.

  20. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    ” Along the way I found that the early church codified a few important beliefs in a few creeds, but left a surprising amount open for discussion. Modern Protestantism turned that upside down and ended up over-specifying just about every aspect of life.”
    +++++++++++++++

    that’s such an awesome and encourage piece of information!

    (i suppose it’s too long for a bumper sticker)

    there’s money to be made and careers to be had in ‘over-specifying just about every aspect of life’.

    ’70s christian singer Jaime Owens Collins wrote a song — the big punch in the refrain is the final plea,

    “Jesus, reduce me to love”.

    ha, there’s must no money in it.

    (as it should be)

  21. “ha, there’s must no money in it.”
    ++++++++++++++

    there’ just no money in it (good grief)

  22. Ava Aaronson: Snap.

    I’ve been wondering whether there is a connection between the turn toward silencing women and the turn away from blatant expressed racism among white Southern Baptists. Sometimes I think these guys just have to go around being superior to someone and they’ve just switched targets.

  23. elastigirl: “Jesus, reduce me to love”.

    This is arguably the most famous Christian sermon ever, and yet most Protestants have never heard of it (I only learned about it a few years ago). It fails all the standards of the New-Calvinists because it is extremely short, contains no personal anecdotes, and is not expository. But it captures the most important aspects of the resurrection. It is best read aloud and with energy.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Homily

  24. Ken F (aka Tweed): Yes, that is a good place to start because of what “carnal” means: “adjective – pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites.”

    In the original definition, before Screwtape redefinitions weaponized it and it’s synonym “flesh”. Much like how “Judgment” with a capital J got weaponized in Christianese.

  25. westerner: I’ve been wondering whether there is a connection between the turn toward silencing women and the turn away from blatant expressed racism among white Southern Baptists. Sometimes I think these guys just have to go around being superior to someone and they’ve just switched targets.

    “If I can’t be Better than One of Them, WHO DO I GOT TO BE BETTER THAN?”
    — trailer-trash Ku Kluxer of the Third Klan, with “One of Them” substituted for “a N*gg*r”

  26. Ken F (aka Tweed): This is arguably the most famous Christian sermon ever, and yet most Protestants have never heard of it (I only learned about it a few years ago). It fails all the standards of the New-Calvinists because it is extremely short, contains no personal anecdotes, and is not expository.

    And it comes from a “So-called ‘saint’ of Apostate Antichrist Popery (“NO POPERY!”), and includes Vain Repititons instead of SCRIPTURE(TM), and predates Calvin(pbuh) by some 1200 years.

  27. Ken F (aka Tweed): Modern Protestantism turned that upside down and ended up over-specifying just about every aspect of life.

    Liberating Christians from Romish Salvation by Works (and following rules) into jot-and-tittle micromanagment worthy of Talibani Sharia.

  28. elastigirl: –they feel they are now an emissary of esoteric truth, having been commissioned to tell everyone else the hidden things which God has made them privy to.

    “Esoteric Truth” —-> “OCCULT GNOSIS”.
    “Occult” refers to Hidden/Secret Things (known only to a special Inner Ring), “Gnosis” is “Knowledge”.
    “Gnostic” literally means “He Who KNOWS Things”.

  29. Friend: Folks who yammer against “carnal worship” most likely want every second of Sunday school to train children to obey instantly, without questioning, and otherwise to narrow their precious, developing minds.

    “How do they want me to live? What do they want me to do? Spend every minute on my face in a Mosque with my wife locked up in a harem?”
    — Iraqi blogger (early 2000s) regarding some of the Truly Islamic extremists he had to deal with

  30. Max: The ole boys probably sneak into other churches under disguise to observe “carnal worship” on stage – praise and worship singers in tight pants swaying to the beat of drums.

    Don’t forget the Cage Fights and the Pole Dancing.

  31. Headless Unicorn Guy: And it comes from a “So-called ‘saint’ of Apostate Antichrist Popery

    Same for the New Testament, which was not canonized before the late 4th century by the same “Apostate Antichrist Popery.” I have not heard a good Protestant explanation for how Protestants ended up with exactly the same New Testament as those “Filthy Roman Papists” (is ok to quote you?). It seems like having a book canonized by confirmed apostates would be a problem for that sola scriptura thing. Maybe it’s one of those things I am not supposed to notice.

  32. westerner,

    “Sometimes I think these guys just have to go around being superior to someone and they’ve just switched targets.”
    +++++++++++++

    i’ve read about the idea that memories may be passed down through generations in DNA.

    consider animals, and their natural fear of human beings. they are born with it.

    perhaps it’s similar with human beings & power.

    when people are granted power over generations, perhaps it feels part of them being human. as part of being human as having hands and being able to freely use them. or as having the right to sit wherever they want to on the bus.

    power…. seems to me power is inherently in relation to something powerless. shared power is no longer power but something else. maybe cooperation.

    (not sure about that one… something to ponder over some nice beverages, cigars [and cheese] at a table with a candle in a dark corner until the sun comes up)

    but if ‘power’ can be an inherited assumption for oneself, just as ‘powerlessness’ can also be an inherited assumption for oneself,

    once the ‘powerless’ say “THIS IS BOLLOCKS!”…

    …when they agree with the Declaration of Independence when it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

    …when they agree with “scripture” when it says “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”

    …when they listen to their own voice of common sense

    and actively seek to make this a reality in their own lives (inherently courageous because it is inherently dangerous)

    –the power of those with power is suddenly threatened.

    –And it feels unnatural. it feels subconsciously wrong. like, blue or green milk would feel so very wrong. (weird analogy).

    –Power is only power when there is something/someone to have power over (perhaps). And the powerlessness of that something/someone has been removed.

    –A variable in the equation of their experience being human was taken out, and it no longer computes.

    –and perhaps they subconsciously panic, looking for another variable to substitute for the one that was removed.

  33. elastigirl,

    “and perhaps they subconsciously panic, looking for another variable to substitute for the one that was removed”
    ++++++++++++++++

    in my musings, the funny thing is that “they” in their panic also agree with those statements in the Declaration of Independence and scripture. with head held high and hand on their heart.

    but as they subconsciously seek to fill the ‘powerless’ variable with someone else, they seem oblivious to the cognitive dissonance of it all.

  34. elastigirl,

    That pretty well sums up my hunches about it. I’m not one to think my hunches are always right, but there does seem to be something panicky in the fervor over women’s submission.

  35. westerner: Sometimes I think these guys just have to go around being superior to someone and they’ve just switched targets.

    Snap, snap.

    … being superior and getting someone else to do all the work, the heavy lifting, under the guise of correct “theology”.

  36. elastigirl: i think when people find God / religion / faith / spirituality (however to say it) an unfortunate result is they get bossy.

    When that is what some do with their “enlightenment” then IMHO, it is misplaced, and best to avoid such people – that weaponize Scripture for their own egos and to diminish others. The fruit of the Spirit is self-control, not control of others. The dominion given to Adam & Eve was over the Earth, never over other people, IMHO. My interpretation, FWIW. Again, it’s why we read the Bible for ourselves. Keep our own egos in check, as well as everyone else’s at safe distance. Boundaries.

  37. elastigirl: that’s such an awesome and encourage piece of information!

    Here is an article that helps to show this for just one important topic:
    https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2020/03/lets-talk-about-hell-better-or-if-youre-wrong-a-lot-of-people-will-go-to-hell-its-your-fault-brad-je.html

    BE HUMBLE, NOT DOGMATIC: Given the range of ways the Bible talks about hell, we should be a lot more humble about claiming to know what, where, when, why and for whom hell happens. Insist on one image of hell as “this is it, see!” and you’ll discover that your deal-killer proof-text is countered by ten other conflicting passages. I’m not saying ignore the dire warnings and frightening imagery. I’m just saying that our dogmatism is misplaced and unhelpful, especially when the church councils saw the wisdom in saying less in the great creeds.

    While this is an article specific to hell, the same principle applies to many other topics. As is this quote:

    Are we saved by belief in Christ or by belief in hell? I assume that objectors believe that the material cause of our salvation is Jesus Christ and the efficient cause of our salvation is faith in his name. Nowhere do the Scriptures demand belief in a particular doctrine of hell as a requirement for saving faith. It is not even a dogma that entered New Testament evangelism or our confession of faith at baptism. Again, check the sermons in Acts to verify this.

    Interestingly, the author is Eastern Orthodox, which shows there is a very old Christian tradition that allows quite a lot of leeway in some of the “doctrines” where many Protestant denominations require a very narrow interpretation. I am encouraged that there is such a variety of views that fall within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy.

  38. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Okay …. goin’ on a rant, here. (Note: Each time my husband has decided that “we” need to change churches, — all of them SBC– he has chosen a church with even tighter restrictions on women “members”. )

    Just curious… does he realize this?

  39. Ava Aaronson,

    “When that is what some do with their “enlightenment” then IMHO, it is misplaced, and best to avoid such people – that weaponize Scripture for their own egos and to diminish others.”
    +++++++++++++

    i think many people do it with good intentions, no weaponizing, no egos, or superiority.

    when i had my ‘amazing encounters’ (which were amazing), i felt i had something/knew something that everyone else needed, too. i felt ‘highly favored’ (sort of shades of Mary, mother of Jesus) — i felt special, specially chosen.

    i felt it was my duty to help others get there, too.

    (didn’t realize it at the time, but zillions of people the world over have similar encounters with God)

    (not unlike the time i went to asia many years ago and came home with the most beautiful and amazing things…. ha–found the exact same merchandise in Chinatown not long after.)

    but this kind of passion easily turns into formulas and steps to take… which easily turns into rules and mandates. which easily turns into in groups and out groups.

    christians take themselves so ridiculously seriously. (perhaps people of all religions do)

    i’ve been no exception.

    i’m over that now.

    (at least i think i am… could the same think happen in an unreligious direction? yikes)

  40. Ken F (aka Tweed):
    Wild Honey,

    Another good place to start is “purporting a man-centered theology.” Are they suggesting the solution is a woman-centered theology?

    That would be an interesting suggestion. Some might suggest a suggestion like that is long overdue 🙂

    I took it to mean that churches are focusing too much on the wants and needs of mankind, and not so much on the nebulous “glorifying” or “serving” God. Personally, I think there is a balance. Theology has a place in church. But a church that is all theology with no empathy… in my experience those are pretty cold. And Jesus met man(kind)’s felt, fleshly needs by healing the sick and lame, feeding the hungry, weeping with the bereaved, and playing with children, AS WELL AS preaching and teaching.

    A former pastor of mine used to say, “Jesus did not come to earth to found a religion. He came to earth to restore a relationship that was lost in the Garden of Eden.” (Thank you, Dave Shaw, if you happen to be reading.)

  41. Wild Honey: Just curious… does he realize this?

    I stopped attending church in Feb. ’16. Well before then, I said something to him about it. His reply: “Well, since I’m a man, I guess I just didn’t notice it.” Now that he knows, it apparently doesn’t matter, because nothing changed.

  42. Ken F (aka Tweed): Same for the New Testament, which was not canonized before the late 4th century by the same “Apostate Antichrist Popery.” I have not heard a good Protestant explanation for how Protestants ended up with exactly the same New Testament as those “Filthy Roman Papists” (is ok to quote you?). It seems like having a book canonized by confirmed apostates would be a problem for that sola scriptura thing.Maybe it’s one of those things I am not supposed to notice.

    With everything going on with the SBC, I’m just sitting back waiting to see what color smoke rises from the chimneys of the Baptist Conclave, anyway!

  43. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): I’m just sitting back waiting to see what color smoke rises from the chimneys of the Baptist Conclave, anyway!

    It will be smoke up your…, well, never mind…

  44. Wild Honey: A former pastor of mine used to say, “Jesus did not come to earth to found a religion. He came to earth to restore a relationship that was lost in the Garden of Eden.”

    Beautiful! This is it! If folks are against human-centered religion their complaint is with Jesus, who became a real human for eternity. It does not and cannot get more human-centered than that.

  45. Friend: Folks who yammer against “carnal worship” most likely want every second of Sunday school to train children to obey instantly, without questioning, and otherwise to narrow their precious, developing minds.

    This kind of “theology” makes absolutely no sense to me. What adult unquestioningly, instantly obeys all authorities? Curiosity is what propels us to learn new things, both as children and adults, I think. What’s really ironic to me is that many people who promote this idea often also have no problem protesting government authorities when it comes to certain political ideologies, but heaven forbid their children (or congregation, etc.) question them.

    And when the distractibility of young children is legendary, setting the unrealistic expectation that they should be capable of obeying instantly sets both them and parents up for failure.

    And sometimes parents SHOULD be questioned. True story – I was losing my patience when my toddler one evening was resisting getting her teeth brushed. Then my preschooler walked in and said, “Hey, that’s MY toothbrush, Mom!” Whoops.

  46. Wild Honey,

    I confess, I did try out the “children must obey instantly and without question” mindset for a short while with my oldest. She was two. I was extremely sleep deprived (we also had an infant), and the idea of a child who would obey instantly and without pushback was sounding really attractive in my foggy thinking.

    The turning point came when a situation escalated to my daughter sobbing uncontrollably. I kept telling her to stop crying, and of course she couldn’t, being only two. She finally screamed at me, “I want to stop but I can’t!” That (a) broke my heart and (b) made me realize there was something fundamentally wrong with this line of thinking.

  47. Ken F (aka Tweed): It seems like having a book canonized by confirmed apostates would be a problem for that sola scriptura thing. Maybe it’s one of those things I am not supposed to notice.

    Don’t you know?
    “That book” dropped down from Heaven written word-for-word by God.
    Like the origin story of the Koran, but in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of Meccan Arabic.

  48. Ava Aaronson,

    for real? (i hope so — or if something was bothersome, we could discuss it to a point of understanding. sorry — too many bad experiences with those words)

  49. elastigirl: let alone a frustrating and antagonizing pursuit.

    I hear you. I still find this very very difficult & do wonder if the Bible was meant to be read outside of a tradition as it splinters into so many potential interpretations, & with that, so many potential pictures of God. If a tradition – which one?

    I’d really covert your prayers Wartburg friends, the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me, & as I try to rely on Jesus I find myself troubled again by interpretational issues that the God of scripture may not be good as I understand it. These are tough days for me.

  50. Ava Aaronson: Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, and Jesus answered right back with Scripture.

    Thesis such a good point.

    Although, i’m not Jesus. I can’t be bothered anymore to point to the scriptures that proves women are whole people. I’ve just dismissed the lot of them until they figure it out.

  51. Friend: One reason I point out decades of women’s ordination is for the sanity of others. I can’t go through life thinking that every church is a haven of abuse and misogyny.

    Friend, this is why during many a rant about ‘calvinism’ and it’s ills, i point out that my presby church has women at every level and it is literally the first church I’ve ever attended that treats women as full equals. It is LOVELY. In a way that I think is impossible for men to understand, who do not have to listen to drivel about women’s place for their entire lives.

  52. Wild Honey: What adult unquestioningly, instantly obeys all authorities?

    This is not a wise or moral course, if they do. I feel the same away about generic submission being expected of women or children. IT’s stupid. And often immoral. And soul crushing.

    These people either haven’t truly thought through the problems in their theology or they don’t care, as long as they get to be in charge.

  53. Beakerj: If a tradition – which one?

    This is also my dilemma. I have yet to find a good Christian tradition/denomination without a dark side. I am wondering if finding the right one is less important than what I’ve been thinking.

  54. Beakerj: I’d really covert your prayers Wartburg friends, the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me, & as I try to rely on Jesus I find myself troubled again by interpretational issues that the God of scripture may not be good as I understand it. These are tough days for me.

    Honored to pray for you. You have chosen to do very challenging work with young people, and you offer valuable insights here.

    I’m not sure of the exact interpretational issues you find difficult. My own view is that God is love. When Christians lavish attention on, say, women’s head coverings, no time is left to instill the much clearer messages of the Sermon on the Mount.

  55. Lea,

    “These people either haven’t truly thought through the problems in their theology or they don’t care, as long as they get to be in charge.”
    +++++++++++++++

    i imagine they think of it as “faith”. (with self-congratulations)

    the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for… eliminates the need to think through the implications of one’s theology. (well, the painful & destructive consequences usually born by other people).

    how convenient. how happy-go-lucky.

    so ironic… ultimately, putting faith in theology means you can justify all manner of cruelty. would this qualify as evil?

  56. Ken F (aka Tweed): I have yet to find a good Christian tradition/denomination without a dark side.

    That’s because the devil goes to church, too. Learning to discern his presence and activity is key to surviving in the “church” as we know it. Jesus said to not forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. Jesus knew what He was talking about! The enemy of the Cross gets into the details of the teachings and traditions of men.

  57. Wild Honey: A former pastor of mine used to say, “Jesus did not come to earth to found a religion. He came to earth to restore a relationship that was lost in the Garden of Eden.”

    Amen and Amen! Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions! The Christian experience is truly about a relationship ‘with’ Him, not a religion ‘about’ Him.

  58. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Beakerj,

    “If a tradition – which one?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    how ’bout a hybrid?

    and is there anything problematic about deciding for oneself what that is, based on one’s own convictions?

    i don’t think it’s possible that God can be contained in any one tradition or system (which came about as a result of others’ convictions)… i figure my informed convictions are just as valid.

    …or, is it more about finding a church to be a part of?

  59. elastigirl: i don’t think it’s possible that God can be contained in any one tradition or system

    To attempt to put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before the Creator.

  60. Beakerj,

    ” the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me, & as I try to rely on Jesus I find myself troubled again by interpretational issues that the God of scripture may not be good as I understand it.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    very tough.

    seems to me that not even scripture can contain God. that Elohim, Jehovah, El Shaddai, Jesus Christ transcend(s) scripture.

    there isn’t even one name that can contain God.

    but thinking of all these names… is there any name that goes against human understanding of what is good?

  61. Ken F (aka Tweed): Along the way I found that the early church codified a few important beliefs in a few creeds, but left a surprising amount open for discussion. Modern Protestantism turned that upside down and ended up over-specifying just about every aspect of life.

    This is what takes some of us so many years to figure out. How is it it that we can condemn so many as ‘cults’ for twisting scripture and controlling lives, and never see it within our own Protestantism? It appears to be difficult to see from the inside.

  62. Ken F (aka Tweed): tried to push me onto that hamster wheel. Worse, I don’t know how many times I have done it to others. I know I did it when I was younger and I don’t know how to undo the damage. For me, the value in reading other perspectives, especially older ones, is helping me to hold my opinions more loosely.

    I did this too. Certain flavors of church tradition encourage this, considering it “strong faith” or “courage of conviction”. I think it’s one of the ways that a mis- or too narrow understanding of the NT concept of pistis (typically rendered “faith”) is set into opposition to the OT concept of “wisdom/understanding”. The young are especially vulnerable to this (or, at least, I was when young) and I think should not be encouraged to believe that they understand the Scriptures or God well enough to teach others. Perhaps “elders” should be older, old enough to have learned how fallible they are.

    And when one encounters an older teacher who is not deeply aware of how fallible he or she is … RUN!

  63. Beakerj: I’d really covert your prayers Wartburg friends, the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me, & as I try to rely on Jesus I find myself troubled again by interpretational issues that the God of scripture may not be good as I understand it. These are tough days for me.

    Beaks, you have my prayers and solidarity too.
    You’re not alone.

  64. Beakerj,

    You got it, Beak ……. I’m in a vaguely similar place.

    But this – THIS – is what it is all about …… just friends leaning on one another.
    No gender, no race, no ethnicity, no “religion”, no boundaries to divide and conquer us.

  65. Samuel Conner: I think it’s one of the ways that a mis- or too narrow understanding of the NT concept of pistis (typically rendered “faith”) is set into opposition to the OT concept of “wisdom/understanding”. The young are especially vulnerable to this (or, at least, I was when young) and I think should not be encouraged to believe that they understand the Scriptures or God well enough to teach others.

    In the words of the prophet Robert Zimmerman:
    “Ah, I was so much older then;
    I’m younger than that now.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4
    (The most widespread version, the cover by the Byrds)

  66. Samuel Conner: I did this too. Certain flavors of church tradition encourage this, considering it “strong faith” or “courage of conviction”.

    Which drifts and curdles into a game of Spiritual One-Upmanship.

  67. Ken F (aka Tweed): Beautiful! This is it! If folks are against human-centered religion their complaint is with Jesus, who became a real human for eternity. It does not and cannot get more human-centered than that.

    Great comeback for fundagelical nonsense about ‘humanism’ ruining the church!

  68. Lea: Friend, this is why during many a rant about ‘calvinism’ and it’s ills, i point out that my presby church has women at every level and it is literally the first church I’ve ever attended that treats women as full equals. It is LOVELY.

    Kicker is, the Presbyterians started out as More-Calvinist-Than-Thou, Elders of the Kirk praising God cheering on massacres in Scotland’s Reformation Wars.

    But they aged, and mellowed with age. (Hard to keep such levels of fanaticism going generation after generation.) The only beef I used to hear about Presbyterians is that their prayers are long and formal and they tend to live in their frontal lobes kinga like Mr Spock.

  69. Samuel Conner: The young are especially vulnerable to this (or, at least, I was when young) and I think should not be encouraged to believe that they understand the Scriptures or God well enough to teach others.

    I got sucked into The Navigators during my college years. It was not until my early 30s that I started seeing all the problems with that model. I still have friends from those years. Some have mellowed. Some have not. A few went to The Masters Seminary. If I did not create my own wake of destruction during those years I certainly contributed to some.

  70. TS00: It appears to be difficult to see from the inside.

    As Max sometimes points out, people being deceived don’t know they are being deceived. By definition.

  71. elastigirl: how ’bout a hybrid?
    …or, is it more about finding a church to be a part of?

    These questions are deep and touch on quite a lot of interconnected topics. Such as, what is Christianity? What does it mean to be a Christian? What are Christians expected to do? Etc. I have to do some thinking on this.

  72. Beakerj: I’d really covet your prayers Wartburg friends, the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me … troubled again by interpretational issues …

    Beakerj, I think every believer goes through a crisis of belief at some point in their Christian experience … sometimes it’s a dark night of the soul where one’s faith is doubted and questioned. I prayed just now that you would be able to sort out Truth from interpretations of it as the Holy Spirit leads you through the maze of teachings and traditions of men.

  73. Headless Unicorn Guy: But they aged, and mellowed with age.

    I think there is something to this. I also think there is something to be said for older traditions seeing the unique pitfalls of their own theology and self correcting. You don’t have that when Bob hangs up his ‘non-denominational’ church shingle and invites half the town. There is much more room for errors that have already been fixed elsewhere.

    Not to say that older traditions don’t have their own issues and an occasional reformation can remedy some of that? I don’t think there is a perfect system that avoids all potential errors but we must do our best I suppose.

  74. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “These questions are deep and touch on quite a lot of interconnected topics. Such as, what is Christianity? What does it mean to be a Christian? What are Christians expected to do?”
    ++++++++++++++

    these are great questions to ask oneself.

    (just thinking about them gives me a great feeling… like the feeling i imagine i’ll have when i actually start cleaning out the hall storage closet — which is now spring-loaded, full of years of living stashed deep and wide)

    no one can answer these for us but ourselves (we have to deliberately silence all the other voices hitting us with the God card).

    what a great feeling to have a faith practice we can be 100% honest about. (no matter how it deviates from the current christian party line.)

  75. elastigirl: what a great feeling to have a faith practice we can be 100% honest about. (no matter how it deviates from the current christian party line.)

    The thing I did that contributed the most to my current state was investigating church history. It was much easier when I knew less. After reading the writings of the apostolic fathers, doing some cursory investigations of the ecumenical councils, reading some works of Irenaeus and Athanasius, looking a bit at the works of ancient Eastern Christians such as Chrystosom, reading Eusibius’ church history, and reading some modern books on church history, I have concluded there is a reason that Protestants tend to avoid church history: it looks way to Catholic for Protestant sensibilities.

    It seems that the bare bones basics of what Christians must believe are captured in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds (with other canons from the first seven ecumenical councils also having weight).

    It looks like the early Christians gathered primarily to celebrate the Eucharist and to encourage one another in the faith. As far as I can tell, for the first 1500 years of Christianity it looks like all Christians everywhere believed to one extent or another that the bread and wine somehow changed into the real body and blood of Jesus (it was and is called “the medicine of immortality). Zwingli appears to be the first to argue otherwise, and he and Luther fought viciously over this.

    The other thing that bothers me is all the surviving records indicate Christianity was liturgical and sacramental from the very beginning, with the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon well established by the end of the first century. This is not at all what I was hoping to find.

    The 5th century St Vincent of Lerins said, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” If I go down that path, I fear where it will go…

  76. Ken F (aka Tweed): It seems that the bare bones basics of what Christians must believe are captured in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds (with other canons from the first seven ecumenical councils also having weight).

    Do you think the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles’ Creed were too skimpy? They are already Trinitarian, very early in church history.

  77. Friend: Do you think the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles’ Creed were too skimpy? They are already Trinitarian, very early in church history.

    The challenge with them is I don’t think we know exactly what was in the early forms of those creeds. More importantly, it was the Nicene Creed that united most Christians everywhere until the schism in the 11th century. Because it was developed and approved during ecumenical councils while the Apostles creed was not, it makes it more official. It’s not that the Apostles creed is bad (it isn’t), we just dont have as much clarity on what it looked like in its early forms.

  78. elastigirl: for real?

    For real.

    I always appreciate what you have to share. We have different experiences, so I learn from you.

    IMHO, sharing is more church than sitting in a pew and listening for decades, – ah yes, with popping $$$ in the plate, volunteering in the nursery, and bringing a dish to the potluck – all with the silence of being a woman in church.

    Not that any of those activities are wrong. But there’s more to church than that, IMHO.

    Jesus never took up a collection; he provided the food (way beyond what was donated) at the great picnics; he seemed to listen and respond as much as he talked. There was no nursery duty at his meetings. He never had tax exemptions because he was not running a business, non-profit or otherwise. He paid taxes. Just about everything we do as church did not seem to be on his agenda.

    OTOH, sharing experiences is learning. Thanks for your generous sharing – and you don’t pass a collection plate. So please accept my gratitude. God bless.

  79. Headless Unicorn Guy: In the words of the prophet Robert Zimmerman:
    “Ah, I was so much older then;
    I’m younger than that now.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4

    (The most widespread version, the cover by the Byrds)

    Thanks for the link. McGuinn’s voice – excellent, as well as Byrd harmony. Perfect listening for tonight. His voice is still clear & wonderful – heard him more recently.

    This is suggested in the comments: “For another great Dylan cover try Love Minus Zero by The Walker Brothers”.

  80. Thanks all – whenever I am really stressed or sick I always seem to end up having to struggle with the the question of whether High Calvinism (5 points etc) is true, & whether I have an issue with it because God doesn’t actually want me. It’s such a tough one because obviously there’s no absolute proof either way, & this question will be around until I die. I’m very aware that God could have settled this question for me by now if He wanted to.
    So I’m very grateful for your prayers & this question plays havoc with my long-term anxiety disorder, & my current unsettled life circumstances. I’m off work with long-term work stress, & putting in a grievance claim against my employer. The young people I’ve worked with are great, my employer not so much.

  81. GMFS

    (Though actually it’s almost afternoon!)

    On an unrelated note, Wartburgers will be pleased to note that a) Liverpool returned to winning ways at the weekend (though we are almost certainly be out of the GiveUsYerMoney Cup by the end of Wednesday), and b) I went in early to the climbing wall today as they’re route-setting this morning, and I managed to send the 6c+ I looked at but didn’t really dare to try for quite some time. So that was good.

  82. Ava Aaronson,
    Yeah. I used the Byrds cover because it’s the best-known.
    There was a video with Dylan singing it, but let’s face it. Dylan had a truly awful singing voice. You listened to his originals for the weave of his words, not his voice. (The guy is a REAL wordsmith, not a poser like so many of the “wordsmiths” under scrutiny on this blog.)

  83. Beakerj: struggle with the the question of whether High Calvinism (5 points etc) is true … It’s such a tough one because obviously there’s no absolute proof either way, & this question will be around until I die.

    The tenets of reformed theology have been debated for 500 years, with 90% of Christendom worldwide rejecting it. Here’s the way I look at it … Scripture speaks much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture speaks much about the free will of man. Salvation works in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before the Creator. My counsel: read the red and steer clear of teachings and traditions which cause doubt and confusion.

  84. elastigirl: …however, i’m exceedingly frustrated with the fact that it seems scripture explains itself totally differently to different people; and holy spirit tells totally different things to different people.

    I look at it slightly differently. I love the fact that the Holy Spirit tells different things to different people in any context, and specifically that he (apparently) encourages them to a) select different collections of scripture fragments, and b) interpret them differently.

  85. Muff Potter: Ken F (aka Tweed): Beautiful! This is it! If folks are against human-centered religion their complaint is with Jesus, who became a real human for eternity. It does not and cannot get more human-centered than that.

    Great comeback for fundagelical nonsense about ‘humanism’ ruining the church!

    I’ve been telling people that Humanism began as a CHRISTIAN movement in the Late Middle Ages — an attempt to restore balance at a time when Over-Spiritualized theology had resulted in Worm Theology of “Spiritual Good! Physical Baaaaaaad!” Where God had become so Godly and so Spiritual and so Other that physical people may as well not exist.

  86. elastigirl,

    Elastigirl, I just have to tell you how much I like your whole comment there. I feel the same way, but never found words like you did to explain it.

  87. Nick Bulbeck: I look at it slightly differently.

    I like that, too, at least for discussion purposes. But for me, the frustration comes when people claim that God couldn’t have led me to interpret a certain way because He gave them something opposite. My frustration goes into full-blown anger when people use their interpretation to control other people’s lives rather than their own.

  88. Headless Unicorn Guy: “Old Roman Symbol”?

    Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem;
    et in Christum Iesum filium eius unicum, dominum nostrum,
    qui natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine,
    qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus,
    tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
    ascendit in caelos,
    sedet ad dexteram patris, unde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos;
    et in Spiritum sanctum,
    sanctam ecclesiam,
    remissionem peccatorum,
    carnis resurrectionem.

    Is that Roman enough for you? 😉

    More seriously, it’s an earlier creed based on even earlier creeds, summaries of belief developed to prepare people for baptism. Ken F points out that we don’t know exact content before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

    It’s painfully clear that we need to avoid heresy, but it also seems we go completely nuts with Quality Assurance.

  89. Nick Bulbeck,

    “I love the fact that the Holy Spirit tells different things to different people in any context”
    +++++++++++++

    yes — me, too. kind of like seeing images in cloud formations with a friend. or pondering outter space. and of course there’s always sasquatch and UFOs. it’s fun and intriguing.

    with God, it’s more than fun, of course. deeply satisfying, helpful, productive…

    i’m just SICK of…. being in a….not anti-gravity chamber but a changing-gravity chamber.
    .
    .
    handcuffs on, handcuffs off, handcuffs on, handcuffs off,

    God does not permit you to…. God does permit you to….

    All are welcome… (well, not you)

    Come discover your spiritual gifts! except you in the 65% are only allowed to use the “service” one — the one we in the 35% do every now and then for 10 or so minutes when we want to show off our servant leadership.

    they don’t get to wear the members-only-jacket but you do. oh, sorry — no, you have to take it off now. and i’ll take your tie and suspenders, too, as you make your way out.

    (did you ever see Bernard and the Genie with Allan Cummings, Lennie Henry, & Rowan Atkinson?)

    you were sinfully sarcastic.

    it’s fun to shame women for their appearance make them think they’re ‘letting themselves go’. it’s just as fun to shame them for getting dressed up.

    it’s fun to make women think that God wants them to be sexual appliances. then it really gets fun when we shame them for having breasts and deem them unworthy of eye contact — because we’re entitled to.

    God likes us but not you.

    God loves you, but God hates you…it’s weird.

    God’s sending you to hell because you didn’t get a sticker to put on your lapel.

    oh, you got a sticker? well, that’s the wrong sticker. but i’d never say you’re going to hell all the while i imply and insinuate you’re going to hell.

    We love you and we’re going to ruin your life because we love you.

    Love Works. See how angelic our faces are? let us love you with hypocrisy, apathy, cruelty, and hate.
    .
    .
    being yanked around by all these mini-popes in their fancy hats. gaahhhd, america’s crawling with them, spreading their virus around the globe

    (i think america infected the uk — how do you see it?)

  90. Nick Bulbeck: I love the fact that the Holy Spirit tells different things to different people in any context,

    I think I’d like that too, if it didn’t end up with consequences in terms of the character of God – the 5 point God is VERY different, & wants very different things to the God of Wesley, or the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why it’s important to me, & why it gets me down.

    And your comment sounds a little bit like you’re heading back to belief, or am I reading too much into that?

  91. Max,

    Thanks Max, those are wise words. I just would like to feel the same about all the possible versions of God, but I don’t. I struggle to find a way forward that includes me wanting to stay near to God & the Bible at times like this.

  92. Nick Bulbeck,

    This brings to my mind the children’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Blind-Mice-Reading-Railroad/dp/0698118952

    What I like about the “air” metaphor is its fluidity, like that of “wind”, like that of “water”: those seem “not static/stagnant”

    IMO a really sweet ending to the children’s book could have been, instead of a 7th holistic individually offered perspective, the 6 perspectives and 7th all willing and able to listen to and share all various perspectives and something good growing from that movement. Maybe each little 1/6 guiding the 7th to their context and continuing on together to the next context, so that learning all happens together – something like childlike curiosity and sharing.

  93. Beakerj: It’s such a tough one because obviously there’s no absolute proof either way, & this question will be around until I die.

    If it helps, there is proof that there was no such thing as 5-Point Calvinism until the Synod of Dort 400 years ago (after John Calvin (pbuh) had passed on – and it’s not entirely clear that he would have been a 5-Point Calvinist).

    One of the fancy words that is foundational to Calvinism is monergism (one energy). I have heard claims that monergism was condemned as a heresy in one of the ecumenical councils, but I have not been able to confirm this. However, it’s opposite, synergism, is what the vast majority of Christians have always taught and believed. Only a very small sliver of Christians have believed in the system of thought commonly called Calvinism. So if Calvinism is true, then Jesus has some explaining to do in light of his promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church into truth. If belief in that kind of God is required, then there were no authentic believers until a few hundred years ago. That makes no sense.

  94. Friend: It’s painfully clear that we need to avoid heresy, but it also seems we go completely nuts with Quality Assurance.

    Errors normally exist in opposing pairs. In the case of QA, too little is just as bad as too much. It looks to me like the first two ecumenical councils did a good job in combining and clarifying the earlier decrees. Interestingly, the Arians were very effective in proving their points from the Bible. But in the end the tie-breaker was tradition – what had always been taught and believed.

  95. Max,

    I definitely agree with the concept of arrogance with respect to having it all figured out in a nice tidy box! As I have said before, spent my life studying/teaching science/engineering, and I know enough to know that the more I learn, the less I seem to understand…. I could go on and on with example after example…

    If one assumes G$d created the physical world, isn’t it logical that since G$d, and correspondingly theology, is even more complex?

  96. Patti: My frustration goes into full-blown anger when people use their interpretation to control other people’s lives rather than their own.

    The theologies of mere men have been used by centuries to manipulate, intimidate, and dominate the people of God. The Truth sets you free. If you feel bound by a certain theological interpretation of Scripture, it’s a sure sign that it’s not the Truth, whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

  97. Ava Aaronson,

    i’m so glad, ava. thank you. yes, honest sharing is learning. i value the TWW community very much – the last thing i want to do is offend or alienate these friends who i’ve never seen (& chances are probably never will — although it would be amazing if it ever happened)

  98. Ken F (aka Tweed): If it helps, there is proof that there was no such thing as 5-Point Calvinism until the Synod of Dort 400 years ago (after John Calvin (pbuh) had passed on – and it’s not entirely clear that he would have been a 5-Point Calvinist).

    One of the fancy words that is foundational to Calvinism is monergism (one energy).I have heard claims that monergism was condemned as a heresy in one of the ecumenical councils, but I have not been able to confirm this.However, it’s opposite, synergism, is what the vast majority of Christians have always taught and believed. Only a very small sliver of Christians have believed in the system of thought commonly called Calvinism. So if Calvinism is true, then Jesus has some explaining to do in light of his promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church into truth. If belief in that kind of God is required, then there were no authentic believers until a few hundred years ago. That makes no sense.

    Ken, I had it explained to me one time, ( monergism vs synergism ) it doesn’t really matter that much, whether I was drafted, or if I enlisted, just work for Christ….

  99. Benn: Max——- it is all RED

    Yes, indeed … there is a scarlet thread woven throughout the whole fabric of Scripture … for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

  100. Beakerj: I think I’d like that too, if it didn’t end up with consequences in terms of the character of God – the 5 point God is VERY different, & wants very different things to the God of Wesley, or the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why it’s important to me, & why it gets me down.

    Beakerj,

    What, in your view, is the difference between what “the 5 point God,” “the God of Wesley,” and “the Eastern Orthodox” want.

  101. Benn: I had it explained to me one time, ( monergism vs synergism ) it doesn’t really matter that much, whether I was drafted, or if I enlisted, just work for Christ….

    Was it a Calvinist who explained it this way? I don’t at all agree with this explanation because the emphasis is all wrong. The point of the incarnation was to bring humanity into relationship with Father, Son, and Spirit. The point of it was not to just to make us slaves who “work for Christ.” It would be like getting married as nothing more than a business decision, or as a way to get more work done. Or having kids because only because of the work they will someday be able to do for you. Or having friends only for financial gain. Will people in close relationship with Jesus work for him? Absolutely yes, but the emphasis is on relationship rather than the work that will be a result of the relationship.

    I belelive it matters very much whether or not we have a true choice to enter into relationship.

  102. Beakerj,

    I take great comfort in the thought that even Jesus, in a moment of extreme anguish, seems to have been troubled with doubt about the goodness of the Father’s intentions toward him — “my God, why have you forsaken me?”

    I suspect that our frailty is not surprising or offensive to the heavenly Father.

  103. Headless Unicorn Guy: I’ve been telling people that Humanism began as a CHRISTIAN movement in the Late Middle Ages

    I hate to disagree with you, but I am pretty sure it began as a God movement late in the creation week. 🙂

    But I actually agree with you. Christians who oppose humanism might not know what they are opposing.

  104. Benn: it is all RED

    By this do you mean every verse is equally applicable, important, literally true…?

    I just don’t put the dog vomit verse on the same plane with the Sermon on the Mount. Sure, both are part of the canon, but can’t we assign more value to some verses than others?

  105. Friend: literally true…?

    This is a huge problem with that approach, but even the stuff Jesus said is full of parables to be sussed out. You can’t just read ever sentence the same. IT doesn’t work.

  106. Friend,

    And can we talk about how the gospels don’t even always agree? This story happened at one time in one gospel and a different one in the synoptic ones…Oh well. I don’t see how you can reckon with that stuff (although i looked up one ‘explanation’ and they’re just like, oh this just happened twice lol)..

  107. Coming out of my usual lurking to say I’m praying for you Beakerj. While I was praying, I said, “I pray for Your friend.” I pray that the present circumstance/conflict would not outweigh God’s great love for you, or any of us. I’m encouraged by your thoughtful comments, this community, and Dee.

  108. Robert: What, in your view, is the difference between what “the 5 point God,” “the God of Wesley,” and “the Eastern Orthodox” want.

    The basic differences are about why we need saving & who has a chance to get saved:
    – 5 pointers we all need saving due to Adam, but only a select group saved irresistibly
    -Wesley we all need saving due to Adam, God wants all to be saved & as many choose not to resist God are
    -EO we are born with the consequences of Adam’s sin, but not its guilt, we are guilty only of our own sin, God wants all to be saved & as many as choose not to resist God are

    The first is far harsher & less fair than the second two.

  109. Lea:
    Friend,

    And can we talk about how the gospels don’t even always agree? This story happened at one time in one gospel and a different one in the synoptic ones…Oh well. I don’t see how you can reckon with that stuff (although i looked up one ‘explanation’ and they’re just like, oh this just happened twice lol)..

    Lea & friend, most of the dust up about the gospels not being in seemingly full agreement, ( at least the major dust ups) go to the apparent disagreement on the actual day Christ was crucified. Bart Ehrman makes a lot of hay out of this.

    If you ever get time take a look at inclusive reckoning, to study the crucifixion, I.e. was the three days in the heart of the earth, did it have to be a full 24 hour day x three. Or did just catching a part of the first day, and the third day count. Easter is coming amen….

  110. Ken F (aka Tweed): Was it a Calvinist who explained it this way? I don’t at all agree with this explanation because the emphasis is all wrong. The point of the incarnation was to bring humanity into relationship with Father, Son, and Spirit. The point of it was not to just to make us slaves who “work for Christ.” It would be like getting married as nothing more than a business decision, or as a way to get more work done. Or having kids because only because of the work they will someday be able to do for you. Or having friends only for financial gain. Will people in close relationship with Jesus work for him? Absolutely yes, but the emphasis is on relationship rather than the work that will be a result of the relationship.

    I belelive it matters very much whether or not we have a true choice to enter into relationship.

    Ken, I can’t be certain, but I suspect he was a Calvinist, by other comments that he made.
    But, I do think he said it somewhat in jest..
    My interpretation of the comment was to try to soften the chasm/ divide between Cals and non Cals

  111. Benn: Lea & friend, most of the dust up about the gospels not being in seemingly full agreement, ( at least the major dust ups) go to the apparent disagreement on the actual day Christ was crucified.

    this isn’t what I was talking about actually. There are other differences.

  112. Beakerj: The basic differences are about why we need saving & who has a chance to get saved:
    – 5 pointers we all need saving due to Adam, but only a select group saved irresistibly
    -Wesley we all need saving due to Adam, God wants all to be saved & as many choose not to resist God are
    -EO we are born with the consequences of Adam’s sin, but not its guilt, we are guilty only of our own sin, God wants all to be saved & as many as choose not to resist God are

    The first is far harsher & less fair than the second two.

    I think you are overstating the differences.

    1. All three groups agree that ultimately we need saving because of what Adam did. The disagreement is over how exactly we participate in Adam’s sin and how those consequences make it necessary for us to be saved. But ultimately, sin is here because of Adam and we are sinners on account of what he did. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem very fair, but all three groups are going to agree that it is perfectly just and fair even if they differ on how Adam’s sin affects us.

    2. All three groups are going to agree that while in one sense God wants to save all people, in another sense he actually wants something more. And I’m pretty sure that all are going to agree that what God wants most of all is His glory. At least the good Wesleyans and good Calvinists will. The difference will be over what each group thinks will give God the most glory. Wesleyans will say it is the exercise of libertarian free choice that gives God more glory. Calvinists will say it is the exercise of God’s (finally) irresistible converting power. I assume the EO give a similar answer to the Wesleyans, though they don’t tend to present their theology as systematically as Western Christians do.

    3. As a Calvinist myself, I’m perfectly happy to say that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all people according to His revealed will (which can be defied) but not according to His secret will of decree (which can’t be defied.) But this isn’t terribly different from distinctions that Wesleyans and other Arminians make between God’s perfect and permissive will. In this case, His perfect will would be that everyone be saved (but this will can be defied) but that His permissive will is that some not be saved (which can’t be defied).

    4. At the end of the day, only universalists and Open Theists (who tend toward universalism) believe that God truly wants everyone to be saved (in every sense of the Word desire). Historic Arminians/Wesleyans and Calvinists are going to agree that it is perfectly within God’s capability to save everyone but that He chooses not to (for differing reasons, via differing modes, etc.)

    5. Since Dee is a Lutheran, let’s not leave them out. Historic Lutheran theology affirms predestination in a manner that isn’t all that different from how mainstream Reformed thinkers have—God chooses out of the mass of sinners to save some, passing over the rest. Lutherans just tend to reject some of the logical conclusions of that view, such as irresistible grace.

    Now having said all that, the simple Calvinist answer as to whether God ultimately wants to save you is this: If you want Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the gospels, then God wants to save you. Look to the cross. (That’s the ultimate Lutheran and Wesleyan answer as well).

  113. Lea:
    Friend,

    And can we talk about how the gospels don’t even always agree? This story happened at one time in one gospel and a different one in the synoptic ones…Oh well. I don’t see how you can reckon with that stuff (although i looked up one ‘explanation’ and they’re just like, oh this just happened twice lol)..

    If you have followed any preacher for any length of time, they all say some of the same things but in slightly different ways over time. If preachers can do it, why not Jesus?

    Very clearly, the Gospels are not necessarily intended to follow a strict chronological order, at least not all of the Gospels. Matthew, for instance, has quite a thematic ordering of his materials. But this was common in all ancient biographies. It’s not fair to demand chronological agreement if one Gospel is focused on getting the chronology exactly right and another is trying to arrange things more thematically.

    I won’t overstate this, but I don’t see why at least some of the episodes in the Gospels couldn’t have happened more than once. Haven’t you done the same thing many different times?

    Even today, police officers can interview multiple witnesses of the same event. These same witnesses will report things differently and yet truthfully, sometimes in ways that the police officer can’t fully reconcile, at least until more facts are known. That does not invalidate any of the witnesses or call their truthfulness into question.

    The historic Christian church happily included 4 Gospels in the canon even while knowing of differences between them. But the historic church has also believed all differences are ultimately reconcilable. In every generation, dating at least back to Augustine, these issues have been addressed.

    All of that is to say is that alleged discrepancies between the Gospels are really overblown and based on standards we don’t tend to apply to other historical reports.

  114. Benn: My interpretation of the comment was to try to soften the chasm/ divide between Cals and non Cals

    The New-Calvinists have been doing quite a lot to harden the chasm with all their rhotoric. A good example is the DeYoung/Duncan/Mohler interview where Mohler says there is no other option. And RC Sproul saying Arminians are saved but just barely. Of course there are still the old Calvinists like CH Spugeion who claimed that Calvinism is the gospel and that the word “Calvinism” is just a nickname for the gospel. I don’t recall good examples of New-Calvinists trying to soften the chasm.

  115. Beakerj,

    Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, Beaks :-(… I think the best answer I can give to your original question is that I don’t believe the bible is anywhere near as good the God it hints at. The same Paul who was actually writing scribsher wrote, in the very process of doing so, that “we see dimly, as though in a mirror”. That’s we, plural, and mirrors in those days were just polished pieces of bronze and didn’t create a very good reflection.

    I’ll pick this up again in a minute, but Lesley has just summoned me to come for a walk (lovely moon up here in Scotland at the time of writing).

  116. “infatuation with authority and control” – what a perfect way of putting what is happening, not just in the SBC, but in many evangelical churches today. This attitude does not come from Christ, it does not come from faith, it does not come from trust. Grasping for control of the world system is not something Jesus taught or encouraged and no good will come of it. It has been done before!

  117. Robert: And I’m pretty sure that all are going to agree that what God wants most of all is His glory. At least the good Wesleyans and good Calvinists will.

    I’m neither a good Wesleyan nor a good Calvinist. Not that it matters, because I’ve long referred to christians in the third person anyway. I’m content to let them conduct thought experiments on how much, or in what sense, or by what mode, their god hates me, if that’s what they need to do. (By no means all of them need to do that, BTW.) But I retain a hope that I believe surprisingly many christians share, and that is that the gospel accounts point towards a man who is knowable, and who is in very nature God. That being the case, it would seem that what God wants most of all is to express his love.

    The God who emptied himself for love’s sake is as far removed as it’s possible to get from the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction.

  118. Friend: By this do you mean every verse is equally applicable, important, literally true…?

    I just don’t put the dog vomit verse on the same plane with the Sermon on the Mount. Sure, both are part of the canon, but can’t we assign more value to some verses than others?

    Friend, I hear what you are saying, but who then decides what to to accept
    If it is not all inspired, then we all become a law unto ourselves, and if I know anyone, I know me, and I would make moral what I thought was moral in my eyes, and I would make immoral what I wanted to be immoral
    And tell me that isn’t what is happening in every single segment of our society, and every society across the globe

    We have to have a moral standard higher than ourselves, that never changes

    We can relate much more easily to the Old Testament times i.e. an agrarian dig sustenance out of the ground, never travel more than 10 miles from home in ones lifetime, we can somewhat relate to a farmers life.

    But can you try to think what Old Testament folk would think of our culture, drones, amazon prime groceries in less that two hours, 3 D printing a gun, cancel culture, in vitro, on and on, and on.

    But the sprint of God gave us a blue print, a road map, for all time, that all generations, and cultures could live by. The Bible couldn’t be written to our level of intelligence, ethics, medical insight, no one prior to us would have the slightest clue of any of our culture
    Is it always perfectly explained for us, of course not
    One of my bible teachers said it best, the Bible always gives us what we need, but not always what we want

    But anyone can say what they will, but yes I believe it is all red, all inspired, God breathed, ( theopneustos)

  119. Robert: I assume the EO give a similar answer to the Wesleyans, though they don’t tend to present their theology as systematically as Western Christians do.

    4. At the end of the day, only universalists and Open Theists (who tend toward universalism) believe that God truly wants everyone to be saved (in every sense of the Word desire).

    I get the sense that you have not looked much at EO beliefs. I find that their perspective is often very different from the Western Christian perspective. Digging into what they believe is a very good way to challenge your preconceptions.

    This EO article is one example that relates God’s glory, salvation, universalism, and heaven and hell:
    http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2015/4/17/paradise-and-hell-according-to-the-orthodox-church

    God loves all human beings equally, He loves everyone without distinction. From God’s point of view, God saves everyone. He wants the salvation of all human beings, and he has preordained salvation for all.

    There are many more similar articles. There are a tremendous amount of EO resources on the internet if you dare to look.

  120. Nick Bulbeck: The God who emptied himself for love’s sake is as far removed as it’s possible to get from the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction.

    No argument from me. We seem to be in solid agreement.

  121. Nick Bulbeck: The God who emptied himself for love’s sake is as far removed as it’s possible to get from the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction.

    But “the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction” keeps everyone in line with public piety, acceptable public moral behavior, and Tithing.

  122. Nick Bulbeck: I don’t believe the bible is anywhere near as good the God it hints at.

    But doesn’t the Bible say somewhere, “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to some books that you and some of your friends will write someday.”?

  123. Benn: If you ever get time take a look at inclusive reckoning, to study the crucifixion, I.e. was the three days in the heart of the earth, did it have to be a full 24 hour day x three. Or did just catching a part of the first day, and the third day count.

    What was the Jewish custom of the time for counting days? I do know the Jewish calendar measures “day” from sunset to sunset instead of midnight to midnight; do they also round up fractional days?

  124. Headless Unicorn Guy: What was the Jewish custom of the time for counting days? I do know the Jewish calendar measures “day” from sunset to sunset instead of midnight to midnight; do they also round up fractional days?

    Hug, if he caught any part of a day it counted as the full day
    That why ( imho) they had to get him off the cross, and prep the body so he would be in the tomb before sunset. To catch the tail end of the first day

  125. Nick Bulbeck:
    The God who emptied himself for love’s sake is as far removed as it’s possible to get from the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction.

    In Calvin’s “epic work of horror fiction” God empties himself for love’s sake. He just happens to love His children in a way that He doesn’t love those who aren’t his children. Interesting how we think that’s acceptable for human beings but not for God.

  126. Ken F (aka Tweed): I get the sense that you have not looked much at EO beliefs. I find that their perspective is often very different from the Western Christian perspective. Digging into what they believe is a very good way to challenge your preconceptions.

    This EO article is one example that relates God’s glory, salvation, universalism, and heaven and hell:
    http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2015/4/17/paradise-and-hell-according-to-the-orthodox-church

    There are many more similar articles. There are a tremendous amount of EO resources on the internet if you dare to look.

    Sure. I have studied EO some, though not as much as other traditions.

    Bottom line is this, if God allows some to experience hell, however, conceived, then he wants something more than he wants to save everyone. Either that or it’s impossible for him to save everyone.

    God would rather, in the EO scheme, have a person retain libertarian freedom and experience his presence as consuming fire than intervene to change their will and take away libertarian freedom. It’s really libertarian freedom that he wants more than all else, ultimately because it is more “good” or “glorifying” to him than compatibility. It’s not substantially different from Arminianism.

  127. Benn: One of my bible teachers said it best, the Bible always gives us what we need, but not always what we want
    But anyone can say what they will, but yes I believe it is all red, all inspired, God breathed, ( theopneustos)

    That first point is excellent. The second is the only way one can legitimately avoid making God in one’s own image. If you think only some parts of the Bible are inspired, you’re going to end up following the parts you like.

    It’s interesting how to me that most people whom I have known who don’t think the whole Bible is inspired end up with the God of Protestant liberalism.

  128. Robert: Bottom line is this, if God allows some to experience hell, however, conceived, then he wants something more than he wants to save everyone. Either that or it’s impossible for him to save everyone.

    Did you read the whole link I posted? Your reply sounds like you did not read it. You should also investigate Christian Universalism. They believe that God eventually gets what he wants, which is the free conversion of everyone. That God is more powerful than Calvin’s God, who doesn’t even try to save everyone.

  129. Robert: It’s interesting how to me that most people whom I have known who don’t think the whole Bible is inspired end up with the God of Protestant liberalism.

    There is a big difference between believing the whole Bible is inspired and believing that some parts have priority over others. A common teaching among people who believe it is inspired is to interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. Isn’t that giving the clear passages more weight? Is it wrong to follow such teaching?

  130. Robert: He just happens to love His children in a way that He doesn’t love those who aren’t his children. Interesting how we think that’s acceptable for human beings but not for God.

    What about all those Old and New Testament passages saying God is not partial?

  131. Robert: the God of Protestant liberalism.

    What is Protestant Liberalism? What is different about its God from yours?

  132. A few thoughts, that might have some value, or not —

    The argument about prioritizing clear texts over obscure ones does IMO have merit, and is a fundamental part of interpretive practice at least in Protestant traditions that attempt to adhere to a sola scriptura principle.

    But …

    I think this principle betrays what might be a deeper flaw in one’s approach to Scripture in that it (as it appears to me) treats the Scriptures as a data source for the construction of theological system (with the “clear” and “obscure” texts being the data that are mined from the books, ranked by clarity and then employed in system construction). Historically, this practice has had the effect of detaching the theological system from the narrative arc of the story that the texts in their entirety tell. Thus, for example, Jesus’ “Gehenna” sayings, that are (in the context of 3rd or 4th decade AD occupied Israel that is facing an “under the sun” national calamity reminiscent of the one that overtook Jerusalem in the 6th Century BC) most likely an echo of OT warnings about mass slaughter in a coming siege, have been re-interpreted in later historical contexts as timeless warnings about post-mortem punishments. (NT Wright calls this “the Platonization of eschatology”; it is IMO a big deal )

    One could multiply examples; for me the biggest “huh?…” moment was the realization that Romans, which has provided the bedrock core of Protestant thinking about “justification”, doesn’t mention post-mortem punishments at all; “wrath against sin” in Romans is consistently “under the Sun” and in this respect Romans looks a great deal like the OT.

    Benn above cited a saying that the Bible always gives us what we need, not what we want.

    I’m not sure I agree. It might be that God does this, but our interactions with the Bible are, for better or worse, mediated and modulated by our own prior beliefs and desires, so that it is certainly the case that we tend get out of the Scriptures what we are already persuaded is there, and I have no doubt that those persuasions typically have a strong element of what we want to be there. It’s not hard to see this at work (probably on both sides) in the disputes that are the subject of the OP.

    This is not an argument for theological nihilism, but for humility and open-mindedness. For me, that has led in the direction of arguments like those of NT Wright and, more radically, Andrew Perriman; others may find themselves led in other directions.

    I hope that whatever the theological direction one’s interactions with the Scriptures take, their outcome will be “love and good deeds.”

  133. Ken F (aka Tweed): A common teaching among people who believe it is inspired is to interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. Isn’t that giving the clear passages more weight? Is it wrong to follow such teaching?

    I think this illustrates the elephant-in-the-room fallacy of
     I get my doctrine from the bible
     Everyone else is creating god in their own image

    … because it’s impossible NOT to be influenced by one’s own nature when one makes a sovereign judgement on what is “clear”. The protestant movement (I use the phrase for want of a better) to reject the idea of an invisible God and replace him with a bible that can be seen has never, in the slightest sense, prevented anyone from creating god in their own image. Quite the reverse; it has cloaked that desire in a very powerful and appealing deception. By choosing what fragments of the bible to interpret in what way, we are able to convince ourselves that our idols weren’t made by us, but represent the true nature of god.

    Most people are intrinsically reluctant to (for instance) commit murder, for a wide range of differing reasons. Thus, most people would be unlikely to go as far as using their bible god to embolden themselves to kill. That Calvin himself did so should give anyone more pause than it often does.

  134. Samuel Conner: I’m not sure I agree [that the Bible always gives us what we need, but not necessarily what we want]. It might be that God does this, but our interactions with the Bible are, for better or worse, mediated and modulated by our own prior beliefs and desires, so that it is certainly the case that we tend get out of the Scriptures what we are already persuaded is there, and I have no doubt that those persuasions typically have a strong element of what we want to be there.

    I have a quote in customs that expresses the same thing, but poorly and in three times as many words.

  135. Robert: In Calvin’s “epic work of horror fiction” God empties himself for love’s sake. He just happens to love His children in a way that He doesn’t love those who aren’t his children. Interesting how we think that’s acceptable for human beings but not for God.

    Well, of course Calvin’s god empties himself for love’s sake. Marq Driskle respects women, too. I worded the phrase “the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction” very deliberately.

    The god (or, indeed, the theologian) who is ultimately concerned for his glory, truly loves no-one but himself. But there’s a much bigger fallacy in your comparison of acceptability there. No human being single-handedly brings into being the entire human race, much less orders their destinies to the minutest degree. And it’s not the case that “we” (whoever “we” are in this context) are really that unfair to “god” on this. A human being who had even a humanly possible number of children, and decided beforehand to keep most of them locked up and starving in his basement in order to demonstrate some kind of “glory”, would probably not be widely admired.

    Of course it’s possible that, like a brain in The Matrix, I’m doing nothing more than being misled by my own wishful thinking. None of us can escape that possibility. But when I see in the person of Jesus a god who desires something far greater than mere power, and is able to create it, then something in me cannot help but think this is good news.

  136. Nick Bulbeck,

    That’s my feeling. I was going to write a reply to Robert above, about there being a world of difference between not saving those who wouldn’t be saved, as against those who couldn’t be saved, but ….given that he chose to answer what was clearly a painful issue as a theological lesson I really don’t see the point. I really think one of the most pressing arguments against Calvinism is the profound lack of love.

  137. Robert: All of that is to say is that alleged discrepancies between the Gospels are really overblown and based on standards we don’t tend to apply to other historical reports.

    We don’t apply the same reverence to every single word to other ‘historical reports’ either, which is kind of my point. We are aware of flaws, and accept the limitations.

  138. NickBulbeck: I’m neither a good Wesleyan nor a good Calvinist.

    I am presbyterian now, but hardly a ‘good’ calvinist or wesleyan likely in this way. I find some descriptions of god quite narcissistic and prefer others. YMMV.

  139. Robert: He just happens to love His children in a way that He doesn’t love those who aren’t his children. Interesting how we think that’s acceptable for human beings but not for God.

    If you believe in hell and punishment for not being god’s ‘child’ then this becomes a huge problem. No one cares if I love my nephew more than your nephew, but if I punished your nephew for not being mine, that would be a huge deal.

    I believe god loved the world, in total.

  140. Robert: It’s interesting how to me that most people whom I have known who don’t think the whole Bible is inspired end up with the God of Protestant liberalism.

    How interesting that you say that like it’s a bad thing. Better a protestant liberal than some of the options I’ve seen.

  141. Lea: inspired

    (also, inspired is doing a lot of work here. I think all traditions see it as inspired, but I think you mean something different really so I was responding to that)

  142. Beakerj: I really think one of the most pressing arguments against Calvinism is the profound lack of love.

    I see little difference between a Calvinist and a Communist. I’ve long said about the YRRs that 80 years ago they’d have been starry-eyed and on-fire for Communism instead of Calvinism.

    Similar (if not the same) dynamics in play. Both types of Righteous True Believer have their Perfect Theology/Ideology and Reality must be broken to fit it.

    Square peg, Round hole, bigger and bigger sledgehammer.
    “YOU’LL FIT!” (SMASH!)
    “YOU’LL FIT!” (SMASH!)
    “YOU’LL FIT!” (SMASH!)…

    Whether the Cosmic-level justification of Righteousness comes direct from GOD or The Inevitable Marxist-Leninist Dialectic of History.

  143. Beakerj: I really think one of the most pressing arguments against Calvinism is the profound lack of love.

    Not to mention the complete lack of ‘fairness’ too.

  144. HeadlessUnicornGuy: I see little difference between a Calvinist and a Communist.

    Ya’ll need to spend more time with the nice calvinists. I don’t see this stuff in it. I can see how it might trend that way in the wrong hands, but if you focus on the good deeds and love and all that it doesn’t really matter what your theology is to me. I think maybe the element of not knowing everything has been filtered out? It’s wild hearing the other takes, having had nothing but good experiences personally (although I certainly am not encouraging anyone to change over, I have heavy baptist background so maybe my theology is mixed anyways).

  145. Benn: Friend, I hear what you are saying, but who then decides what to to accept
    If [the bible] is not all inspired…

    The simple answer to the question “who decides what to accept” is that a series of pan-church councils in the late Roman empire decided. There were various texts that various people were putting forward as canonical, or referencing as authoritative. It was felt necessary to draw a line under the proliferation of core doctrines, sacred texts and the like.

    So the new testament canon was decided by the Church – at a point when the worldwide Church could at least to some approximation be gathered representatively into one place. Those present, albeit at several convocations over a number of years, decreed that this letter or gospel account was scripture whereas that one was not. Interestingly, they didn’t include a book of songs or poetry (there is no new testament equivalent of the book of Psalms).

    I can’t help but wonder what the process – were we to go back in time and view it – might look like.

  146. Nick Bulbeck: I can’t help but wonder what the process – were we to go back in time and view it – might look like.

    It’s a very interesting thing to look at how the church gave birth to the Bible, not vice versa, & how they ‘recognised’ what they were already using as scripture & rejected the rest. Also extremely interesting to note that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist, & they didn’t see the Bible as functioning alone outside of the interpretive community it grew out of.

    I also wanted to say how helpful it is that so many of you really get why I have a hard time with certain theologies. Makes me feel less alone & wrong.

  147. Ken F (aka Tweed): What about all those Old and New Testament passages saying God is not partial?

    God is not partial with respect to nationality, gender, etc. That is, he’ll take people from all groups. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t love some more than others or love some in a different way than others.

    The only way to get a God who is completely impartial is to be a universalist. God chose Israel, not Egypt or Babylon or Assyria. God saves Christians, not those who reject Christ.

  148. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Historically, Protestant liberalism reduces religion to religious feelings, denies the supernatural, and rejects the inspiration of the Bible, at least in all its parts. That’s quite different from the God of historic Christianity, whatever tradition one has followed.

  149. Muff Potter,

    Why must God offer everyone a chance to be saved? Historic Christian theology of all stripes has said that God would have been entirely just to give no one a chance.

  150. Lea: How interesting that you say that like it’s a bad thing. Better a protestant liberal than some of the options I’ve seen.

    Protestant liberalism traditionally rejects the supernatural (miracles, etc.), so there’s that.

  151. Nick Bulbeck: Thus, most people would be unlikely to go as far as using their bible god to embolden themselves to kill. That Calvin himself did so should give anyone more pause than it often does.

    But the Calvin supporters always say he did not actually direct the executions, or that he was just a man of his times. Both arguments are empty, but they don’t seem to be able to see them as empty. I suspect this is due to a combination of confirmation bias and loss aversion.

  152. Nick Bulbeck: Well, of course Calvin’s god empties himself for love’s sake. Marq Driskle respects women, too. I worded the phrase “the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction” very deliberately.

    The god (or, indeed, the theologian) who is ultimately concerned for his glory, truly loves no-one but himself. But there’s a much bigger fallacy in your comparison of acceptability there. No human being single-handedly brings into being the entire human race, much less orders their destinies to the minutest degree. And it’s not the case that “we” (whoever “we” are in this context) are really that unfair to “god” on this. A human being who had even a humanly possible number of children, and decided beforehand to keep most of them locked up and starving in his basement in order to demonstrate some kind of “glory”, would probably not be widely admired.

    Of course it’s possible that, like a brain in The Matrix, I’m doing nothing more than being misled by my own wishful thinking. None of us can escape that possibility. But when I see in the person of Jesus a god who desires something far greater than mere power, and is able to create it, then something in me cannot help but think this is good news.

    You chose the term deliberately to poison the well. It’s a typical tactic of non-Calvinists. Many Calvinists do the same thing to Arminians by accusing Arminians of not believing in God’s grace or God’s sovereignty. It’s not right on either side.

    You are also falsely assuming that Calvinism says that God has chosen to keep the vast majority of children locked up. Calvinism says nothing of the sort. In fact, a great many Calvinists have been postmillennialists, who say the exact opposite.

    Now it is right to say that the analogies we draw to God have their limits. I am pointing out the incongruity of automatically thinking we that can love some more than others and it be just dandy, but that God can’t. Most of the most intimate biblical designations of God’s relationship to his people are based on analogies wherein some are loved more or in a different way than others. Spouse, children, for example. The fact that God calls the church his bride but not the whole world has incredible ramifications for what the love of God means in the end.

    I do agree that there are bigger questions with God that we don’t have with humans, particularly under traditional views of hell, etc. But those questions aren’t solved merely by rejecting Calvinism. What kind of God creates people with even the possibility of eternal damnation when he could have done otherwise? Just create without the possibility of hell. Anyone who rejects universalism still has a question that can’t finally be answered to our full satisfaction, whether you are Calvinist or not.

    Calvinism is saying that we’re all locked in the dungeon and will die and don’t want to come out, but that God will break down the door for some, take them out, making them very grateful in the process. Non-Calvinists are saying that we’re all locked in the dungeon, have the been given the keys by God to let ourselves out, but that God won’t ensure that anybody will use the key. He’ll just stand there and watch people die. I’m not sure how that’s better than ensuring the salvation of some. If my kid was locked in the basement with the means to get out and refused to do so, you better believe I’m breaking down the door to get him.

    And also, Calvinism is not saying that God is all about power. But if God is the ultimate good, it’s good for creatures such as us for Him to magnify Himself. It’s the most loving thing He can do if he is the ultimate good and what is best for us is to see him as such. Non-Calvinists would not substantially disagree with this, but they might phrase it differently.

  153. Nick Bulbeck: I can’t help but wonder what the process – were we to go back in time and view it – might look like.

    I suspect it would look like a very large committee meeting without air conditioning and smart phones.

  154. Lea: If you believe in hell and punishment for not being god’s ‘child’ then this becomes a huge problem. No one cares if I love my nephew more than your nephew, but if I punished your nephew for not being mine, that would be a huge deal.

    I believe god loved the world, in total.

    I do agree that the introduction of wrath and hell does complicate things. I’m not trying to downplay that. That’s why the only way you get out of the supposed problem with Calvinism is to deny hell and wrath. Traditional Non-Calvinist Christians still have a God creating people who will certainly go to hell, or at least have the possibility of such. That seems awfully callous from this human’s perspective. He could have just not created at all.

  155. Nick Bulbeck: So the new testament canon was decided by the Church – at a point when the worldwide Church could at least to some approximation be gathered representatively into one place.

    Many Protestants believe the church fell into a great apostasy shortly after the original discples died. Or at the latest, the great apostasy started around the time of Constantine in the early 4th century. Since the NT was not canonized before the late 4th century, the Protestant NT must have been canonized by apostates. What is their explanation for how the apostates got it right with the canon but not much else? How can Protestants trust in sola scripture when the scriptura was chosen by apostates?

  156. Beakerj: Makes me feel less alone & wrong.

    You are MUCH less alone and wrong than you fear. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have rejected Calvinist theology.

  157. Beakerj:
    Nick Bulbeck,

    That’s my feeling. I was going to write a reply to Robert above, about there being a world of difference between not saving those who wouldn’t be saved, as against those who couldn’t be saved, but ….given that he chose to answer what was clearly a painful issue as a theologicallesson I really don’t see the point. I really think one of the most pressing arguments against Calvinism is the profound lack of love.

    I understand it’s a painful issue. I’ve been exactly where you seem to be. And that’s why I told you that the sign that Christ wants you is if you want Christ, because if you fear Calvinism that’s the Calvinist answer. I just don’t want you thinking that there’s some drastic difference between God, God’s fairness, love, etc. with respect to different traditions. The same questions exist in each, albeit in slightly different forms.

    Like I said above, it’s not at all clear to me why God is less loving because he guarantees the salvation of some than if he creates people knowing they will go to hell and creates them anyway.

  158. Ken F (aka Tweed): You are MUCH less alone and wrong than you fear. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have rejected Calvinist theology.

    I think that depends on what constitutes Calvinism. Augustinian and Thomistic theology have dominated the West, where most of the world’s Christians do and have lived, and the doctrine of election in both is not substantially different from the doctrine of election taught in the Westminster Confession. Aquinas is the official theologian of the RCC, for goodness’ sake, though Molinism is an acceptable option there as well.

    Unconditional election of some to salvation runs through much of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, and it is definitional of the Reformed and Lutheranism. That’s probably the majority of world Christians throughout history, though we’ll see how big the Pentecostals end up getting if the world goes on a few more centuries.

  159. KenF: Many Protestants believe the church fell into a great apostasy shortly after the original discples died.

    “Many”? I don’t think this is a significant part of protestants at all. As such, the rest of your assumptions seem off.

    It *is* interesting thinking about how the bible got put together, which was basically by a bunch of men having a meeting a long time ago. I think they did their best, but there were also some politics involved.

  160. ION, Liverpool’s (relatively) early exit from the Champions’ League will be confirmed in our second-leg match against Athletico Madrid, whom we are certainly unable to beat by two goals on current form and with our current personnel.

    There’s a wider question over whether there will actually be a Champions’ League this year, as sporting events steadily shut down due to what the WHO has today described as a pandemic.

  161. I have appreciated some of the EO articles that have been linked to in these comments, along with someone saying they tried EO and they acknowledge the dysfunction there, too…

    Even though this is hard, I seem to value considering this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwM8gOYPseM.

    Title “NT Wright Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion”

    Here’s a very loose summary: “3 mistakes in Westernized Christianity”:

    1. “We’ve Platonized our eschatology (assumed the aim is to go to heaven when we die, after we “get our ticket”). But New Testament is about heaven coming down to earth brought into reality by the royal priest himself- Jesus, sacrifice, Word made flesh. The Israelites were to become a Tabernacle People with the whole world becoming God’s promised land. So, this first mistake traded God’s promise of a new creation for humanity and new earth for ….mistaken understandings that are enshrined in our traditions. What matters is God’s order: creation ransomed, healed and forgiven.”

    2. “We’ve moralized our anthropology: If we think simply about souls going to heaven we shrink the human vocation to be image bearers, the royal priesthood into mere morality. Morality matters but it matters as the by product of being image bearers, summing up the praises of creation rather than worshipping and serving idols. Morality matters because only through properly functioning image bearers will God’s rescuing justice flow out into the world. But if we focus on morality like A&E, putting knowledge of good and evil at the center of everything then we’ve turned the whole large drama of new creation into a self centered play about me and my sin and what God’s going to do about it rather than about God and God’s creation and the vocation of human beings within that creation. Then we read Genesis not as a story of temple of the image, the tragedy of idolatry and the cultural mandate for humans but just as a story of humans failing a moral exam, deserving punishment and the punishment going elsewhere. In the Bible what matters is not sin, but idolatry that produces sin. That’s why Christus Victor theme takes priority to defeat powers of idolatry.”

    3. “We’ve paganized our soteriology(using redemptive violence). Penal substitution is distorted by Reformers rather than sticking with Paul’s theme of how humans are re-humanized to play their appointed role within the renewal of creation by the Spirit. It is penal substitution acted out, Romans 8(there is no condemnation in Christ because – God punished sin(not Jesus, but sin) in the flesh, demonstrated by Israel’s Messiah. It’s not driving a theology of how we get to go heaven but rather it is at the heart of Paul’s story of how humans are re-humanized…”

    I recommend listening to the whole sermon as my summary is pretty loosely put together, not sure I quoted him exactly right to convey his meaning.

    I would be interested in what others’ think about the ideas that NT Wright expresses.

  162. Ella,

    It’s basically what he teaches in Surprised By Hope & his other books, & is very near to what EO has always taught, as it’s based on the understanding of the earliest church from which the Bible arose.

  163. Lea,

    Erm, there has often been what’s called ‘the gap’ theory, which is certainly what I unwittingly learned, which is that shortly after the apostles & disciples something kind of went astray that was only put right by the Reformers. So there’s assumed to be a huge gap in Christian history with few or no ‘real’ Christians. However, there never was such a thing, because the Eastern Orthodox was all there was for the first 1000 years-ish, plus then the Catholic Church, prior to the Protestant Church arising.I was pretty taken aback when I learned a bit of church history. Why wasn’t I taught this stuff?

  164. Beakerj:
    Lea,

    Erm, there has often been what’s called ‘the gap’ theory, which is certainly what I unwittingly learned, which is that shortly after the apostles & disciples something kind of went astray that was only put right by the Reformers. So there’s assumed to be a huge gap in Christian history with few or no ‘real’ Christians. However, there never was such a thing, because the Eastern Orthodox was all there was for the first 1000 years-ish, plus then the Catholic Church, prior to the Protestant Church arising.I was pretty taken aback when I learned a bit of church history. Why wasn’t I taught this stuff?

    The Reformers regarded themselves as continuing what was started in the early church. From Calvin and Luther’s perspective, they were part of the church that was all there for the first 1000 years.

    There are some who have held to a “gap” theory—mostly Anabaptist types, later restorationist sects such as the Churches of Christ. On a popular level, some Protestants of the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican variety may think along the terms of a gap theory, but it’s certainly not what the Reformers themselves taught, and it’s not what the Protestant confessions teach. Luther, Calvin, et al, were continuing medieval discussions and debates, that themselves continued discussions and debates of the early church.

    History is messy. It doesn’t fall into a neat gap theory or the EO theory of the church has always looked like theirs. There has been development, with various streams going forth from the early church. Some converge into what we call EO, some into Roman Catholicism, and some into Protestantism.

  165. Lea: “Many”? I don’t think this is a significant part of protestants at all. As such, the rest of your assumptions seem off.

    It *is* interesting thinking about how the bible got put together, which was basically by a bunch of men having a meeting a long time ago. I think they did their best, but there were also some politics involved.

    That’s not exactly right. There wasn’t a council where somebody said, “OK, we’ve got 100 different books here, let’s pick the ones to follow.” There was a number of books that Christians everywhere used from the very beginning that no one had any question about. The Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, 1 John, James, 1 Peter. Some were known in one part of the church and some weren’t. Books like Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude, etc. There was some discussion over those; the others, not so much. Any conciliar decisions were just a rubber stamp on what was already being done. The first NT canon list that matches what we have today doesn’t come from a council.

  166. Beakerj,

    Thanks. I have read some of his other books. It’s hard to focus at times. I use to like to study books(still enjoy non-religious books) with others but have trouble navigating the places of wide difference in controversial spots. There are substantial questions I would have in the midst of EO groups, too, I’m sure, regarding division of responsibility and freedom of conscience before God. I, too, wonder why church history (or human history) hasn’t been well taught? Brings to mind Katherine Bushnell’s words, in regards to Bible translations. “maybe it was the best they could do, but it wasn’t the best that could have been done.”

  167. Robert, I’m happy it all makes sense to you & causes you no trouble at all. Maybe pray for me rather than just hammering on? Do you even know what I mean by that?

  168. Beakerj: Erm, there has often been what’s called ‘the gap’ theory, which is certainly what I unwittingly learned, which is that shortly after the apostles & disciples something kind of went astray that was only put right by the Reformers.

    Wow. Literally never heard this and grew up baptist when to christian elementary, etc. Not sure how widespread it is but it’s not part of any tradition I’ve been in.

    Regardless, I dont think it follows that everybody basically thinks they were all apostates, and therefore are hypocrites for using the bible as is…

  169. Robert: That’s not exactly right. There wasn’t a council where somebody said, “OK, we’ve got 100 different books here, let’s pick the ones to follow.”

    That’s not what I said so…

  170. Robert: Why must God offer everyone a chance to be saved?

    Because it’s simply the right thing to do.

    Robert: Historic Christian theology of all stripes has said that God would have been entirely just to give no one a chance.

    Many of us out here no longer care what old bearded dead guys have said, we’d rather go with our gut feelings and the dictates of our own conscience.

  171. Lea,

    I’m glad to hear that, I certainly had a big fuzzy gap where any church history should have been, & a bunch of others I was in discussion with admitted they do too.

  172. Robert,

    “Why must God offer everyone a chance to be saved? Historic Christian theology of all stripes has said that God would have been entirely just to give no one a chance.”
    ++++++++++++++

    i imagine you’d recoil into a hunched-over fig-leaf pose if you read the list of things i am entirely justified in doing to some men.

    why don’t i? largely because Jesus Christ as God incarnate set the example of not doing such things.

    hello….?

  173. Muff Potter,

    You know I’m with you here Muff. It seems that we’d be often being asked to be better than God is, given that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, & love does no harm to its neighbour, we are even to love our enemies, all of them. That would be trying to be Christlike.

  174. Muff Potter: Because it’s simply the right thing to do.

    Many of us out here no longer care what old bearded dead guys have said, we’d rather go with our gut feelings and the dictates of our own conscience.

    So apparently you reject the very idea of grace? By definition, grace is something offered by God that He doesn’t have to offer.

  175. Robert: And I’m pretty sure that all are going to agree that what God wants most of all is His glory. At least the good Wesleyans and good Calvinists will. The difference will be over what each group thinks will give God the most glory.

    Nope, not all will sign onto this.
    Some of us out here believe that only a cruel and petulant narcissist would make aggrandizing his own glory a top priority.
    The gods of Egypt? Yes. The gods of the Canaanites? For sure.
    The God of Abraham? No.

  176. Nick Bulbeck: The simple answer to the question “who decides what to accept” is that a series of pan-church councils in the late Roman empire decided. There were various texts that various people were putting forward as canonical, or referencing as authoritative. It was felt necessary to draw a line under the proliferation of core doctrines, sacred texts and the like.

    So the new testament canon was decided by the Church – at a point when the worldwide Church could at least to some approximation be gathered representatively into one place. Those present, albeit at several convocations over a number of years, decreed that this letter or gospel account was scripture whereas that one was not. Interestingly, they didn’t include a book of songs or poetry (there is no new testament equivalent of the book of Psalms).

    I can’t help but wonder what the process – were we to go back in time and view it – might look like.

    Nick, I just think that that the plan, ( Creator handing down the do’s and dont’s, will and won’ts to the creation)
    Was to be in written form, to keep what i’m About to say from ever happening, e.g. what if I said “the plan” was was to have humans write down what God moved them to write, ( that’s my feeling).
    And suppose a really witty bald headed guy from the UK ask me and said how can you be sure that was really God’s plan?

    And my response was, “ How do I know that the written onwners manual was from God”, because God told me it was…

    This has been my point of contention with Dee and especially Max, anyone can say God told me — fill in the blank.

    I’m not saying God doesn’t confirm things through the spirit, but if we don’t have a written word, to confirm what we feel the spirit is telling how can we possibly know if what the spirit says is correct?

    So back to the how do we know the cannon is correct, I just believe that God is big enough and powerful enough to pull that off…

    I also know many people struggle with this view…..

  177. elastigirl:
    Robert,

    “Why must God offer everyone a chance to be saved?Historic Christian theology of all stripes has said that God would have been entirely just to give no one a chance.”
    ++++++++++++++

    i imagine you’d recoil into a hunched-over fig-leaf pose if you read the list of things i am entirely justified in doing to some men.

    why don’t i?largely because Jesus Christ as God incarnate set the example of not doing such things.

    hello….?

    Not necessarily. If men deserve justice, they should get it. That’s why I agree with this blog’s critiques of how so many churches have dealt with abuse.

    But are you telling me that you reject grace? Every major Christian tradition has defined grace as God giving us something that is strictly speaking undeserved even if there are some differences between them. Once we start saying that God has to give everyone a chance at salvation in order to be fair, we’ve lost grace entirely. God may well choose to give everyone a chance, but He isn’t compelled to. That’s what grace means.

  178. Benn: So back to the how do we know the cannon is correct

    Maybe asking if it is ‘correct’ is the wrong question.

    What can we take from it. What should we not take from it. What is still seen through a dark mirror, and are we comfortable with acknowledging when we don’t have all the answers?

    Maybe we should look at broad themes and do our best to treat others with respect and kindness, instead of trying to nitpick everybody into our understanding…

  179. Muff Potter: Nope, not all will sign onto this.
    Some of us out here believe that only a cruel and petulant narcissist would make aggrandizing his own glory a top priority.
    The gods of Egypt?Yes.The gods of the Canaanites?For sure.
    The God of Abraham?No.

    Let me introduce you to the God of Abraham:

    Ex. 14:18: The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.

    Lev. 10:3: Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized[a] fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.

    Num. 14:21: Truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

    Isaiah 43:
    6 I will say to the north, Give up,
    and to the south, Do not withhold;
    bring my sons from afar
    and my daughters from the end of the earth,
    7 everyone who is called by my name,
    whom I created for my glory,
    whom I formed and made.

    Acts 12:23: Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.

    There’s so much more. The God of Abraham is quite concerned to magnify His glory. So concerned that He is willing to strike people dead if they do not glorify him.

    It’s pure grace that any of us draw a breath. None of us glorifies Him as we should.

  180. Lea: Maybe asking if it is ‘correct’ is the wrong question.

    What can we take from it. What should we not take from it. What is still seen through a dark mirror, and are we comfortable with acknowledging when we don’t have all the answers?

    Maybe we should look at broad themes and do our best to treat others with respect and kindness, instead of trying to nitpick everybody into our understanding…

    But in order to have a reason to treat people with respect and kindness (beyond the fact that it might make us feel good), don’t we have to be sure that the books in the canon that tell us to do that should be there?

  181. Robert: God may well choose to give everyone a chance, but He isn’t compelled to. That’s what grace means.

    Could it be that you like the idea of limited grace? You sound as if you rather enjoy discussing how God withholds His grace from quite a few. Thankfully, you are one shown His grace.

    I see a God who loves to share His grace with the many as opposed to the few. However, certain theologies seem to exalt a God who likes to be rather miserly in His gifts of grace.

  182. Beakerj:
    Robert, I’m happy it all makes sense to you & causes you no trouble at all. Maybe pray for me rather than just hammering on? Do you even know what I mean by that?

    It does not make perfect sense to me. At times it does trouble me. I just figure that if God never troubles us, we’re probably not having a very good view of God. This God struck Nadab, Abihu and lots of other people dead for what we might ordinarily consider to be minor offenses. He ordered the destruction of the Canaanites. He killed people for poor behavior in the Lord’s Supper.

    But sure I’ll pray for you. I’m not meaning to hammer you, so I won’t say more. I just know that finding lasting assurance comes with us coming to grips with who God is, not who we want Him to be.

  183. dee: Could it be that you like the idea of limited grace? You sound as if you rather enjoy discussing how God withholds His grace from quite a few. Thankfully, you are one shown His grace.

    I see a God who loves to share His grace with the many as opposed to the few. However, certain theologies seem to exalt a God who likes to be rather miserly in His gifts of grace.

    I don’t think so. But I suppose anything’s possible. I am a sinner, after all. I’m actually inclined to the view that says there will be far more people in heaven than there will be in hell when all is said and done. That’s not very miserly.

    I think the mistake is in thinking that the God of Calvinism is a miser for not electing everyone. That comes perilously close to saying that God is obligated to save us. That’s not grace under anyone’s definition, Calvinist or not.

    And Dee, you’re Lutheran. Your tradition teaches that God chooses to save only some. Isn’t that miserly according to your definition?

  184. Robert: But in order to have a reason to treat people with respect and kindness (beyond the fact that it might make us feel good), don’t we have to be sure that the books in the canon that tell us to do that should be there?

    No?

  185. Robert: And Dee, you’re Lutheran. Your tradition teaches that God chooses to save only some. Isn’t that miserly according to your definition?

    The Lutherans that I hang with seem to be more inclined to believe that the *some* tends to be broader than some of the hard core Reformed who occasionally seem to revel in those who are not saved (and who will be punished. (IMO). We see God as the One pursues us like the hound of heaven, wishing that none may perish. I was one of those who was pursued, a teen living in a nonChristian home, surrounded by nonChristian friends, and yet He graciously drew me in.

  186. Lea,

    Also, I just thought of something. You say He saves *some.* I think that He saves *many.* Our language can sometimes betrays how we see Him. I am off to work with the confirmation kids and then to Lent service or I would answer more thoroughly.

  187. Robert: God is not partial with respect to nationality, gender, etc. That is, he’ll take people from all groups. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t love some more than others or love some in a different way than others.

    This is your conclusion, but there is no strong biblical or historical argument for this position. It is somethong you project onto God – making him in your own image as humans have done throughout history. Your position is not the majority view among Christians. It does not mean you are wrong, but it increases the probability that you are.

  188. Robert: The only way to get a God who is completely impartial is to be a universalist.

    How much have you investigated Christian Universalism or Ultimate Reconciliation? I used to think it was heresy until I did more research on it. I now view it as plausible. Robin Parry is a good representative for this view. He wrote a book on it under the pen name of Gregory MacDondald (honoring St Gregory of Nyssa and George MacDonald). Here is a 30-min interview where he articulates a position that makes a lot of sense:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyhMNZYs1cI

  189. Robert: Historically, Protestant liberalism…

    Thanks for the clarification. There are many different definitions out there. I see that yours does not include issues like women preachers, old earth creationism, social justice, and other topics that often get labeled as liberal.

    On another note, why is it bad for a Christian to be liberal?

  190. Robert: I am pointing out the incongruity of automatically thinking we that can love some more than others and it be just dandy, but that God can’t.

    Perhaps because we are not God? There is no incongruity in thinking that God is better than us. Also note that Jesus told us to love even our enemies. Was he wrong?

  191. Robert: That’s why the only way you get out of the supposed problem with Calvinism is to deny hell and wrath.

    That is factually incorrect. The Orthodox soundly reject Calvinism while also maintaining a firm belief in hell and wrath. Did you not read the article I posted earlier in the thread on this? It does not help your arguments when you make statements that are demonstratably false. It makes me think you have not truly investigated the alternatives.

  192. Lea: “Many”? I don’t think this is a significant part of protestants at all. As such, the rest of your assumptions seem off.

    One of the aspects about TWW is all the different perspectives it brings. I have heard many times andd from many sources about the “Great Apostasy.” But your experience is different, which tella me I need to dig into this more. I did find this interesting EO article on it:
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/02/10/the-great-apostasy-john-calvin-and-the-fall-of-the-church/
    It’s very long – I purused it and it looks like it provides good background.

    I am glad that you picked up on my assumptions being off, because that was the point. By the time the NT was canonized in the late 4th century Christianity was universally liturgical and sacramental, the offices of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon had been well established for nearly three centuries, and all Christians everywhere believed in the transformation of the wine and bread into the true body and blood of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of Mary. It also looks like veneration of icons and relics was well established. Given how strongly so may Protestants have difficulty with some or all of these things, it’s remarkable that they don’t question why Protestants use exactly the same Bible as Roman Catholics. It’s a case of “one of these things is not like the other.”

  193. Ella: along with someone saying they tried EO and they acknowledge the dysfunction there,

    I think that was me. I very nearly converted to EO, but a number of issues prevented me from being able to take the plunge.

    Like you, I am becoming a fan of NT Wright. I am currently reading two of his tomes.

  194. Robert: Luther, Calvin, et al, were continuing medieval discussions and debates, that themselves continued discussions and debates of the early church.

    This is what Calvin said about the early church fathers in his Institutes:

    Further, even though the Greeks above the rest—and Chrysostom especially among them—extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.

    Does this sound like he built on their works?

  195. Ken F (aka Tweed): This is what Calvin said about the early church fathers in his Institutes:

    Does this sound like he built on their works?

    Calvin is talking about free will only in this quote, and it’s well known that Augustine is the forerunner (after the Bible) of Calvin’s thought. Calvin quotes Chrysostom approvingly on many other issues.

    Building on their works doesn’t mean accepting everything they said. It means taking what is biblical and rejecting what isn’t. Maybe Calvin was wrong in what he rejected, but he certainly thought he was building on the Bible and on the best thought of the early church. You don’t have a Calvin or a Luther without an Augustine. This is basic church history.

  196. Ken F (aka Tweed): That is factually incorrect. The Orthodox soundly reject Calvinism while also maintaining a firm belief in hell and wrath. Did you not read the article I posted earlier in the thread on this? It does not help your arguments when you make statements that are demonstratably false. It makes me think you have not truly investigated the alternatives.

    The problem to which I refer is how God can be good and just and still have people in hell. In EO, you still have God creating people whom He knows will certainly go to hell and since creation is not necessary, he did not have to do this. Having God make no choice in the matter but leaving it in the hands of the believer still gives you people who suffer for eternity whom God never had to make in the first place.

    Theodicy is a problem for every single Christian tradition. Once you have an all powerful, all knowing, and all good God, plus the presence of evil and hell, you are left with an answer that cannot fully satisfy. Every good apologist from every tradition admits this.

  197. Robert,

    Also, I just thought of something. You say He saves *some.* I think that He saves *many.* Our language can sometimes betrays how we see Him. I am off to work with the confirmation kids and then to Lent service or I would answer more thoroughly.

  198. Robert,

    I thought of you during the Lent service when I heard this Bible verse. Matthew 8:10-11 NIV

    When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
    Jesus uses the word many.here.

  199. Ken F (aka Tweed): Perhaps because we are not God? There is no incongruity in thinking that God is better than us. Also note that Jesus told us to love even our enemies. Was he wrong?

    You are definitely on to something in noting that there are some things that are appropriate for God but not appropriate for us. In this case, it seems you think God is better/different than us in that it is ok for him to love everyone in exactly the same way but it wouldn’t be for us. At least I think that’s what you mean. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    One important text that would lead me to think this can’t be the way God is different than us is John 17, where God specifically prays for His people and not for the world. He even prays that His people would share in the very same love that the Father has for the Son. But the Father has a special love for the Son that He doesn’t have for others in the eternal mystery of the Trinity, and Christians, by the grace of adoption get to participate in it. God loves the Son in a way he doesn’t love others, and if we get caught up in that love, that means he must love Christians in a way he doesn’t love others. That is ultimately all that Calvinism is trying to say.

  200. dee:
    Robert,

    Also, I just thought of something. You say He saves *some.* I think that He saves *many.* Our language can sometimes betrays how we see Him. I am off to work with the confirmation kids and then to Lent service or I would answer more thoroughly.

    Thanks for thinking of me. 🙂

    Don’t read too much into the language. We’re talking about predestination, so the question is whether or not all are chosen. So it is some versus all.

    But I could happily use the word many: “God chooses many, but not all.” That is the historic position of both Calvinism and Lutheranism on election unto salvation. He chooses to give effectual, saving grace to many people, but he does not give it to everyone.

    God is lavish with his saving grace. Really if he were to save just one person it would be lavish because none of us deserve it. But it is even more lavish and abundant in that he chooses to save millions, even billions. Even when none of us has all of our theological t’s crossed.

  201. Ken F (aka Tweed): One of the aspects about TWW is all the different perspectives it brings. I have heard many times andd from many sources about the “Great Apostasy.” But your experience is different, which tella me I need to dig into this more. I did find this interesting EO article on it:
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/02/10/the-great-apostasy-john-calvin-and-the-fall-of-the-church/
    It’s very long – I purused it and it looks like it provides good background.

    I am glad that you picked up on my assumptions being off, because that was the point.By the time the NT was canonized in the late 4th century Christianity was universally liturgical and sacramental, the offices of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon had been well established for nearly three centuries, and all Christians everywhere believed in the transformation of the wine and bread into the true body and blood of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of Mary. It also looks like veneration of icons and relics was well established.Given how strongly so may Protestants have difficulty with some or all of these things, it’s remarkable that they don’t question why Protestants use exactly the same Bible as Roman Catholics. It’s a case of “one of these things is not like the other.”

    I think you might be overstating things just a little bit here. The three offices were definitely well established. There was also a widespread belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, though there was no agreement on the mode of presence. Those definitions came later, and if I remember right, the EO still haven’t really defined the mode, or the Anglicans. All of that is to say that the Lutheran or traditional Calvinistic view agree with Christ’s presence in the Supper. Icons definitely weren’t universal, though they were growing in popularity. There would be fierce battles over icons up until the eighth century.

  202. dee: You say He saves *some.* I think that He saves *many.* Our language can sometimes betrays how we see Him.

    Here is some fun with Romans 5, where I made a few minor edits to make it better fit a certain way of thinking:

    18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to some. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One some will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded even less, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death to all, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life for some through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  203. dee: The Lutherans that I hang with seem to be more inclined to believe that the *some* tends to be broader than some of the hard core Reformedwho occasionally seem to revel in those who are not saved (and who will be punished. (IMO). We see God as the One pursues us like the hound of heaven, wishing that none may perish.I was one of those who was pursued, a teenliving in a nonChristian home, surrounded by nonChristian friends, and yet He graciously drew me in.

    That is a legitimate problem with some of the NeoCalvinists. I think it is probably an overreaction to a view of God that has no room for His justice.

    All I’m trying to say is that there is a real sense in which God desires that none should perish but that there is evidently something He wants more than that. We’re dealing with the omnipotent Creator who made the world out of nothing. He’s going to get what He wants most. The Bible says again and again that nothing can thwart His will. God has to want something more than the salvation of every person even if he does desire in some way the salvation of every person, otherwise you end up with a perpetually frustrated and depressed deity.

  204. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): But if the church kicks me out, I may just send them a thank you card.

    I’m sorry for what you have been through. It is all too common. I’m glad you took the initiative to say ‘Enough’!

  205. Beakerj: I’d really covert your prayers Wartburg friends, the last few months have been very very tough & unsettled for me, & as I try to rely on Jesus I find myself troubled again by interpretational issues that the God of scripture may not be good as I understand it. These are tough days for me.

    I am so sorry, and will remember you in my prayers. Maybe I’m a heretic, but I would toss out the whole bible before I would toss out my belief in a good God. Please don’t doubt his goodness, love, mercy and genuine desire to bless mankind just because men so constantly muck up the message.

    The real ‘Word’ of God was Jesus – and he demonstrated love, mercy, kindness, gentleness and selflessness. If the other ‘words’ contradict that, I know which I am going to believe.

  206. Robert: There’s so much more. The God of Abraham is quite concerned to magnify His glory. So concerned that He is willing to strike people dead if they do not glorify him.

    Well, you’ve certainly got all the pertinent proof texts in order.
    I don’t think our disagreement is with their ‘inspiration’, but more so with what they mean today relative to what they meant (in context) to whom they were written for in the way back then.
    In Judaism, disagreement over the Scriptures is a good thing and they welcome it in their tradition, not so in the Christian religion.
    In fact, their was a time when you could very well lose your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness for the slightest divergence from what those in power deemed essential in Scripture.

  207. Nick Bulbeck: The God who emptied himself for love’s sake is as far removed as it’s possible to get from the monster lurking behind Calvin’s epic work of horror fiction.

    Amen and amen!

  208. Ken F (aka Tweed): What about all those Old and New Testament passages saying God is not partial?

    Not to mention that the Law is summed up in loving God, and loving others as self. Not just our family and friends, but all men.

    The older I get, the more I realize that my children are no more valuable than anyone else’s children. No less, but no more. Would I choose to protect my own at the cost of countless others? I would hope not. I long to learn to see every single person I meet as being as valuable as my beloved children.

    Nor do I believe for a second that God commands us to love more than he does. We are, indeed, all God’s children. Yet, just as I could have a child who, as much as I love him, rejects and hates me, and I cannot change that reality. If I could tie my children up, keep them from knowing anyone or anything else so that they would love me alone, would I do such a horrid thing?

    No, because that is not real love. Nor is the predetermined, irresistible, love on command of Calvinism real love. God indeed values the freedom with which he created mankind, for it is what makes us in his image, and sets us apart from instinct-driven creatures.

  209. Robert: If my kid was locked in the basement with the means to get out and refused to do so, you better believe I’m breaking down the door to get him.

    You mean like taking on human flesh and giving your life? That is why Jesus calls himself ‘The Way’. If your ‘child’ was a full grown adult, who really did not want to come through the open door, do you really think your going in and trying to drag him out, even if you succeeded, would accomplish much?

    No, I do not rejoice in, nor would I put my trust in, a God who chose to irresistibly save only some, when he could just as easily have irresistibly saved all. Freedom of choice is the only logical, moral alternative to Universalism; and I would embrace deterministic Universalism before I would embrace the horror of Calvinism’s cruel, narcissistic demon.

    Yet Calvinists can unblushingly say ‘I don’t care what happens to you as long as he saves me.’ Just tell me one single place where scripture suggests such a ‘love’, let alone as describing God’s love.

  210. Robert: Traditional Non-Calvinist Christians still have a God creating people who will certainly go to hell, or at least have the possibility of such. That seems awfully callous from this human’s perspective. He could have just not created at all.

    More and more christians now question the concept of ‘hell’, at least when defined as eternal conscious torment. Hurray for that!

  211. Robert: God is lavish with his saving grace. Really if he were to save just one person it would be lavish because none of us deserve it. But it is even more lavish and abundant in that he chooses to save millions, even billions. Even when none of us has all of our theological t’s crossed.

    I disagree. If a man has billions in his pocket, and only offers one out of a large group of starving waifs a penny, no one would call him lavish.

    This is Calvinism’s God. His pockets are full, every single lost soul is allegedly in the same boat for the exact same reason (under Calvinism) yet, like a miser he hands out only one miserly penny. Even what he does hand out is not for the sake of the starving, but for the praise and glory he expects to get for his ‘lavish’ deed.

    I hope you do not too long consider this monstrous caricature worth sweating over, Beakerj – it could not be further from the truth. Rather, God is standing all day long with his arms open wide – but many refuse to come. Not using force to compel the unwilling to do respond against their will is not the same as not genuinely offering love, safety and blessing to all men, women and children.

  212. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Thanks for clarifying who the “someone” was that I was referring to in an earlier comment. I got lazy and didn’t look back to see who it was. And thanks for posting the EO links.

    I currently have official membership at a PCUSA church, although I haven’t attended in quite a while. I like all the people I’ve met there. It seems to me that their brand of Calvinism is that God “elects” humanity and initiates a Grace movement that is available to “whosoever will”. I could be wrong though because I haven’t asked the leadership specifically.

  213. Robert,

    “But are you telling me that you reject grace?”
    +++++++++++++++

    i’m puzzled… are you asking me if i reject God’s steadfast love which never fails and whose mercies are new every morning?

    can’t imagine what would have given you that idea, but no. a 100 times no. but are we speaking 2 different languages, here?
    —————–

    “Once we start saying that God has to give everyone a chance at salvation in order to be fair, we’ve lost grace entirely. God may well choose to give everyone a chance, but He isn’t compelled to. That’s what grace means.”
    ++++++++++++++

    you’re describing Zeus on a good day.

    i think we have 2 different religions, you & i.

  214. Robert: All I’m trying to say is that there is a real sense in which God desires that none should perish but that there is evidently something He wants more than that.

    I agree with you on this point. But I strongly disagree with you on what that something is. I believe the something he want more than that is freely given and unforced love from his children. The god you portrays is not able to get that, so so settles for Stockholm Syndrome love.

  215. Robert: All of that is to say that the Lutheran or traditional Calvinistic view agree with Christ’s presence in the Supper.

    Luther and Zwingli argued violently over this matter. As far as I have been able to find, all Christians everywhere believed, in one form or another, that the bread and wine were something more than bread and wine after they were prayed over. It was Zwingli who first insisted that they are mere symbols. The fact that there were differences in trying to explain the mystery of the Eucharist does not negate the fact that Zwingli proposed something that had never been believed widely enough to make it into the historical records. And now Zwingli’s view has become an essential belief in some denominations.

    I believe the main reason that Protestents tend not to emphasize church history is that it looks way too Catholic way too early. Augustine is the exception. But he was enough of an outlier that the Eastern Orthodox do not consider him a saint because of the many errors he made.

  216. Robert: Calvin is talking about free will only in this quote, and it’s well known that Augustine is the forerunner (after the Bible) of Calvin’s thought.

    True, but it is an incredibly important point. It is the difference between monergism and synergism. Without true free will the entire edifice of Calvinism falls apart. If there is anything central to Calvinism it is the rejection of synergism. Instead of trying to understand why all the church fathers throughout history (with the exception of Augustine) universally believed in synergism, he rejected them all as incoherent and irrelevent. What hubris. It does no good for us today to trust in monergism just because Calvin and Augustine said so. We can choose to believe it anyway, but we should not make the mistake of thinking it is orthodox.

  217. Robert: You don’t have a Calvin or a Luther without an Augustine. This is basic church history.

    This is an exceedingly narrow church history. I am discovering a trove of resources from the early church that I never even knew existed until I started coloring outside then lines. Augustine became very influential in the West but much less so in the East.

  218. Robert: The problem to which I refer is how God can be good and just and still have people in hell. In EO, you still have God creating people whom He knows will certainly go to hell and since creation is not necessary, he did not have to do this.

    Did you read what EOs actually believe about hell? You keep describing as a place where some people go and not others. But that is not what they believe. Here is a shorter version of their view in case the earlier version I posted was TLDR for you:
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/08/heaven-and-hell/

    “Paradise and hell are not two different places. (This version is an idolatrous concept.) They signify two different situations (ways), which originate from the same uncreated source, and are perceived by man as two, different experiences (Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlochos).”

    This view undermines the asumptions of your argument. And it agrees with the Bible in saying there is no way to escape God’s presence.

  219. Ella: I like all the people I’ve met there. It seems to me that their brand of Calvinism is that God “elects” humanity and initiates a Grace movement that is available to “whosoever will”. I could be wrong though because I haven’t asked the leadership specifically.

    Very interesting. I have not looked at them much, but you could be right. It would explain why they get labeled as “Liberal Protestantism” by more strict Calvinists such as PCA.

  220. Ken F (aka Tweed): Did you read what EOs actually believe about hell? You keep describing as a place where some people go and not others. But that is not what they believe.Here is a shorter version of their view in case the earlier version I posted was TLDR for you:
    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/08/heaven-and-hell/

    This view undermines the asumptions of your argument.And it agrees with the Bible in saying there is no way to escape God’s presence.

    Whether you call it a place or not, the point is the same. That is what I am saying. And of course there is no way to escape God’s presence. God is as present in hell as He is anywhere else.

    So let’s get rid of the notion of hell as a place. In EO God is still creating people that He knows will experience Him as wrathful judge for all eternity and that will experience suffering as a result. So you don’t escape the problem. Seems like if we are going to measure God by our definition of human goodness, a good God would just choose to create only those people who He knows who will experience Him as bliss. Yet He doesn’t do that. Why? Because He has a good reason that we can’t entirely fathom. It’s the same reason why a Calvinist says God chooses not to save everyone.

  221. Ken F (aka Tweed): This is an exceedingly narrow church history. I am discovering a trove of resources from the early church that I never even knew existed until I started coloring outside then lines. Augustine became very influential in the West but much less so in the East.

    Augustine is more influential in the West for sure. But it’s also important to note that other fathers don’t deal as much with the concept as Augustine does because he’s having to deal with Pelagius.

  222. Ken F (aka Tweed): True, but it is an incredibly important point. It is the difference between monergism and synergism. Without true free will the entire edifice of Calvinism falls apart. If there is anything central to Calvinism it is the rejection of synergism. Instead of trying to understand why all the church fathers throughout history (with the exception of Augustine) universally believed in synergism, he rejected them all as incoherent and irrelevent. What hubris. It does no good for us today to trust in monergism just because Calvin and Augustine said so. We can choose to believe it anyway, but we should not make the mistake of thinking it is orthodox.

    Monergism is perfectly orthodox, except perhaps according to the EO. Augustine is certainly considered orthodox by the Western church even if not all Western Christians agree with his doctrine of election. And the East, to my knowledge, has never condemned him as a heretic even if he is less influential. John Wesley was about as synergistic as one can get and disagreed vehemently with Whitefield over this issue. But he didn’t view him as unorthodox or as an unbeliever.

    You are assuming a definition of freedom where we have the equal ability/capacity/inclination to choose good or evil (libertarian freedom). The problem with that is that it denies true freedom to God Himself, who doesn’t have the ability or inclination to choose to do evil. And God is the most free being of all.

    True freedom comes with being a slave of Christ and with having the capacity to choose only good. That is why in heaven we’ll be more free than we are now, for we won’t have any desire to do evil ever. The view you are assuming, it seems to me, means that God lets us be free now but in heaven, and later in the new earth, he takes away our freedom.

  223. Ken F (aka Tweed): Luther and Zwingli argued violently over this matter. As far as I have been able to find, all Christians everywhere believed, in one form or another, that the bread and wine were something more than bread and wine after they were prayed over. It was Zwingli who first insisted that they are mere symbols. The fact that there were differences in trying to explain the mystery of the Eucharist does not negate the fact that Zwingli proposed something that had never been believed widely enough to make it into the historical records. And now Zwingli’s view has become an essential belief in some denominations.

    I believe the main reason that Protestents tend not to emphasize church history is that it looks way too Catholic way too early. Augustine is the exception. But hewas enough of an outlier that the Eastern Orthodox do not consider him a saint because of the many errors he made.

    Assuming Wikipedia is right, the EO do not universally reject him as a saint. And in fact, many of the early councils affirmed by the Orthodox include him as a saint: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo#Reception_of_Augustine_in_the_Orthodox_Church

    Zwingli’s view has become the majority in many areas of Protestantism. But the traditional Reformed view in the Reformed confessions, following Calvin, such as the Westminster Confession is that Christ is really present in the Lord’s Supper. It has as at least as much a claim to being the view of the church fathers, who talk about Christ’s presence without defining it specifically, as the Lutheran, RC, or EO view. The EO, to my knowledge, have affirmed the presence of Christ without ever defining the mode. In fact, one of their beefs with Rome is that Rome defined the mode via its doctrine of transubstantiation. The EO, as in many things, prefer to leave it a mystery.

  224. dee: You say He saves *some.* I think that He saves *many.*

    Oh Good, because I was a bit confused! I would be happiest on the path towards universalism, honestly.

  225. Robert: Protestant liberalism traditionally rejects the supernatural (miracles, etc.), so there’s that.

    Does it really? Maybe they’re just more skeptical of people who claim poorly sourced unproven miracles right now, or claim prophecies that seem to often not come true, right now? I can’t tell you how many times I heard the world was going to end next week or in a year as a kid and I am definately skeptical about these claims.

    Also you look down at ‘feelings’ in your other comment, which is not surprising.

  226. Ken F (aka Tweed): I agree with you on this point. But I strongly disagree with you on what that something is.I believe the something he want more than that is freely given and unforced love from his children.The god you portrays is not able to get that, so so settles for Stockholm Syndrome love.

    You are assuming that Calvinism teaches us that God forces us to love Him. That is a common misunderstanding. God doesn’t force the elect to love Him. He effectually and unfailingly persuades Him to love HIm. It’s as far from Stockholm Syndrome as one can imagine.

    God doesn’t force anyone to love Him. Yet He gets everyone whom He wants to save to love Him. How can He do that? Well, He is God after all. He speaks and creation springs into existence. Nothing is too difficult for Him.

    We assume this when we pray for God to save someone. We ask God to save a person. We don’t ask Him to try harder. If God is incapable of doing what I have said He can do, there’s no reason to ask Him to save anyone. If God can’t or won’t do what you are assuming He can’t or won’t do, there’s no reason to pray for anyone’s salvation. We’re asking God to do something He can’t or won’t do.

  227. KenF: It’s very long – I purused it and it looks like it provides good background.

    This article is awfully focused on saints, and why there aren’t enough saints at certain time periods? Like…before protestants existed? It doesn’t sound like they have a good perspective on what protestants actually believe, they’re just mad they dont’ teach ‘proper’ history of the church or something. It’s a very odd perspective to me.

    I don’t have time to go through the whole article but it sounds like Calvin didn’t like ornamentation in catholic churches and thought it probably didn’t exist in early churches. Likely that is true? They didn’t have the money and backing of a well established, ruling church that could take the money from the people to create gorgeous ornamental churches as they could do in later years. I think some of this should be taken in the context of the reformation. Likewise, just because somebody had some thoughts on things 500 years ago doesn’t mean people today have the same ideas.

  228. KenF: t’s remarkable that they don’t question why Protestants use exactly the same Bible as Roman Catholics

    I just think this keeps coming up as some sort of ‘gotcha’ and it doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you really saying here: if I agree to accept the bible as is without trying to go back and redo it all, I have to convert to catholic? Or EO? I don’t think so.

  229. Lea: Does it really? Maybe they’re just more skeptical of people who claim poorly sourced unproven miracles right now, or claim prophecies that seem to often not come true, right now? I can’t tell you how many times I heard the world was going to end next week or in a year as a kid and I am definately skeptical about these claims.

    Also you look down at ‘feelings’ in your other comment, which is not surprising.

    I don’t look down of feelings. I look down on reducing religion to feeling alone, which is what Protestant liberalism does.

    Protestant liberals historically aren’t denying only the claims of modern frauds, they’re denying that Jesus actually walked on water, that He actually multiplied food, that He actually rose bodily from the dead. Typically, they reduce Christianity to being all about being nice and kind to people. I’m all for being nice and kind to people. Christians should be nice and kind to people, but if that’s all Christianity is, there’s no point to being a Christian. Lots of atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are nice and kind to people.

  230. Ella: I currently have official membership at a PCUSA church, although I haven’t attended in quite a while. I like all the people I’ve met there.

    I am at PCUSA and regularly attend. I also like the people there and although there is a theology I read it a bit like you do – and find they are very accepting of wider views.

  231. elastigirl:
    Robert,

    “But are you telling me that you reject grace?”
    +++++++++++++++

    i’m puzzled…are you asking me if i reject God’s steadfast love which never fails and whose mercies are new every morning?

    can’t imagine what would have given you that idea, but no.a 100 times no.but are we speaking 2 different languages, here?
    —————–

    “Once we start saying that God has to give everyone a chance at salvation in order to be fair, we’ve lost grace entirely. God may well choose to give everyone a chance, but He isn’t compelled to. That’s what grace means.”
    ++++++++++++++

    you’re describing Zeus on a good day.

    i think we have 2 different religions, you & i.

    2 different religions? Possibly, but more likely that we’re talking past each other. And probably mostly my fault.

    What I’m saying is that grace means God gives His love and mercy to people who in no way deserve God’s love and mercy. And if you give people something they don’t deserve, that means you would be perfectly just not to give it to them.

    An illustration: At times I take my children for a treat even if they’ve been really bad. They’ve refused to get along with each other. They’ve disrespected me, my wife, or another adult. They haven’t done their chores. Would I be well within my rights not to give them a treat. Sure. The fact that I do is an act of grace. Grace by definition in all Christian traditions is giving people what they don’t deserve.

    With salvation we are obviously talking about something of much greater consequence, but the minute we think that God would be unfair not to give everyone a chance, we’re coming very close to saying we deserve the love and mercy and God. But mercy is not obligated. Non-Calvinists agree. The best Arminian theologians say that God doesn’t HAVE to save anyone. But He freely chooses to show grace, mercy, and love to all by giving everyone a more or less equal chance of salvation.

    The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not on the issue of whether grace is undeserved. All orthodox theological traditions have agreed that God doesn’t have to save anybody. The difference is over what grace is. Is grace a chance to be saved or is it something that inherently saves everyone who gets it. That’s the disagreement.

    The fact that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike can sing “Amazing Grace” shows that none of us believe God is obligated to save us. If we believed that, we would sing “God, give me what you I’m owed.”

  232. TS00: You mean like taking on human flesh and giving your life? That is why Jesus calls himself ‘The Way’. If your ‘child’ was a full grown adult, who really did not want to come through the open door, do you really think your going in and trying to drag him out, even if you succeeded, would accomplish much?

    No, I do not rejoice in, nor would I put my trust in, a God who chose to irresistibly save only some, when he could just as easily have irresistibly saved all.Freedom of choice is the only logical, moral alternative to Universalism; and I would embrace deterministic Universalism before I would embrace the horror of Calvinism’s cruel, narcissistic demon.

    Yet Calvinists can unblushingly say ‘I don’t care what happens to you as long as he saves me.’ Just tell me one single place where scripture suggests such a ‘love’, let alone as describing God’s love.

    If he’s about to be consumed by fire, I’d accomplish a whole heck of alot, especially if I then made it so that He could never get back into that burning basement again. Why is it better, if God is able to do that, to just stand outside the basement door yelling at the guy to get out, knowing full well that he won’t?

    Which orthodox Calvinist says, “I don’t care what happens to you as long as he saves me”? And why would that be unique to Calvinism anyway. Non-Calvinists are selfish at times too, you know.

  233. Muff Potter: Well, you’ve certainly got all the pertinent proof texts in order.
    I don’t think our disagreement is with their ‘inspiration’, but more so with what they mean today relative to what they meant (in context) to whom they were written for in the way back then.
    In Judaism, disagreement over the Scriptures is a good thing and they welcome it in their tradition, not so in the Christian religion.
    In fact, their was a time when you could very well lose your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness for the slightest divergence from what those in power deemed essential in Scripture.

    If a text means something entirely unconnected from its original context, then it can mean anything. We don’t apply this to each other’s words. Would you like it if I took what you just said and interpreted it to mean that 5 minutes ago it meant x and now it means that you really are a Calvinist?

    If you want to say God at one time cared about his glory but now doesn’t, that’s fine. But recognize you are far afield of anything remotely resembling orthodox Christianity, where all traditions say that God is unchanging. Again, that’s fine, but just be honest that whatever you’re believing, it isn’t Christian.

    But the point is that the God of Abraham very much is concerned with His glory. And no, its not in a self-aggrandizing or selfish way. If God’s glory is what is best for His creatures, then by being concerned with His glory, He’s being very much concerned with our ultimate happiness as well. But to accept that, you first have to accept that our end or telos is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

  234. TS00: I disagree. If a man has billions in his pocket, and only offers one out of a large group of starving waifs a penny, no one would call him lavish.

    This is Calvinism’s God. His pockets are full, every single lost soul is allegedly in the same boat for the exact same reason (under Calvinism) yet, like a miser he hands out only one miserly penny. Even what he does hand out is not for the sake of the starving, but for the praise and glory he expects to get for his ‘lavish’ deed.

    I hope you do not too long consider this monstrous caricature worth sweating over, Beakerj – it could not be further from the truth. Rather, God is standing all day long with his arms open wide – but many refuse to come. Not using force to compel the unwilling to do respond against their will is not the same as not genuinely offering love, safety and blessing to all men, women and children.

    They would call him lavish if everyone in that large group hated him and tried to murder him despite his generosity. Which is what the Bible (and Calvinism, and Lutheranism for that matter) are saying. Read Romans 3.

    We’re in the boat because of Adam (but that’s just Western theology of all stripes), but people compound the reason for being in the boat because of their sin. The child molester is more wicked than the pagan who is a good neighbor and who only tells a little white lie every now and again. It’ll be far worse for the molester if he doesn’t repent.

    What the God of Calvinism hands out is for the sake of His glory and for the sake of the starving, since the only way to satisfy the starving is for them to see the glory of God.

    And the God of Calvinism doesn’t force anyone to come against their will. None of the Reformed confessions teach that.

  235. Ok, I’ll stop after this comment.

    We’re not going to settle the Calvinism debate here. All I ask is that people understand what something is before they reject it. I am seeing so many caricatures of Reformed theology here. Some of that may be the fault of Reformed preachers who aren’t careful. But the onus is also on non-Calvinists to actually understand what the Reformed confessions teach.

    Most importantly:

    1. The Reformed confessions do not teach that God “forces” people to believe, or to love Him, or whatever.
    2. The Reformed confessions, in line with Christians of all traditions, at least in the West, teach that the greatest, most satisfying thing people can ever experience is the direct experience/vision of the glory of God (often called the beatific vision). If that is true, then God’s magnifying of His glory is the very best and most loving thing He could do for His children.

  236. Robert,

    “the greatest, most satisfying thing people can ever experience is the direct experience/vision of the glory of God”
    +++++++++++++

    have you experienced ‘the glory of God’?

    if so, can you describe it?

  237. Robert: All I ask is that people understand what something is before they reject it. I am seeing so many caricatures of Reformed theology here

    I have studied Calvinism extensively. I’ve discussed what that involved many times on this blog. I think you might be surprised how much I’ve read. What you say are caricatures in some instances may be thoughtful pushback on.. I do understand Calvinism, as do many folks, and we disagree. Saying that we *just don’t understand* is a typical rejoinder in this conversation when Calvinists, perhaps without realizing it, imply we are stupid and bordering on being unregenerate.

    Robert: The Reformed confessions do not teach that God “forces” people to believe, or to love Him, or whatever.

    It is quite clear in Calvinist theology that mankind is unable to come to God on our own. So, what happens when God *regenerates* someone? The person has no desire whatsoever. So, God changes that person who now will follow Jesus. In other words, Jesus changes a person and the person has nothing to say about that since they are unregenerate and cannot agree or disagree. The Spirit changes the individual to agree. Since the person is overwhelmed, then they cannot disagree . So, maybe you have a better word than force? There is no will involved.

    As for your point 2, the most wonderful thing I learned about God at the very moment of conversion is that He loves me and wants to be part of my life and wants me to be part of His kingdom. That magnificent God that you speak of wants to relate to this little, poor sinner. I don’t know what you mean about a *beatific vision* but I have always been drawn to the magnificence of his creation, especially the universe. I was drawn to that as a teen before I encountered Jesus. That is why you sees many pictures from NASA/Hubble, etc here.

    Be careful when you take the all too typical stance of Calvinists who visit here take. Do not make the assumption that I haven’t read as much or maybe that I don’t love God as much as you do because if I did, I would be a Calvinist.

    I suggest you read more of Wade Burleson’s writings. Wade is Reformed albeit he lives it out quite differently. He gets the love and grace thing and emphasizes that in his sermons and in his relationships with people. Think about it, Robert, I use his sermons on EChurch. He knows I’m not a Calvinist. We’ve discussed it and he has an incredible way of loving someone beyond a disagreement in theology.

    So, you may believe, as Sproul does that I may be a Christian but *barely.* However, I would suggest you be careful how communicate your thinking. Some of us are actually literate and have wrestled with the things of which you speak and some of us may know as much about it as you do.

  238. Lea: I am at PCUSA and regularly attend … find they are very accepting of wider views.

    I spent 70+ years in the Southern Baptist Convention (I’m “done” now). During that long tenure, I worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists although SBC was predominantly non-Calvinist in belief and practice. I found those “Old” Calvinists to be civil in their discourse and respectful of other expressions of faith. On the other hand, the “New” Calvinists are a totally different breed … they are arrogant and aggressive and wreaking havoc in the American church.

  239. Robert: I look down on reducing religion to feeling alone, which is what Protestant liberalism does.

    This is your interpretation of it, and it’s wrong. You should examine what makes you think that.

  240. Robert: I am seeing so many caricatures of Reformed theology here.

    Honestly, I think you’re one of the worst offenders on this point.

  241. dee: the most wonderful thing I learned about God at the very moment of conversion is that He loves me and wants to be part of my life and wants me to be part of His kingdom

    Amen and Amen! My personal experience with Jesus is not open to the arguments of men. What I see, I can’t un-see. What I know, I can’t un-know … it’s in my knower! Every born-again Christian understands this; every believer can identify with your statement, Dee.

  242. elastigirl: …but are we speaking 2 different languages, here?
    …i think we have 2 different religions…

    So, just to be clear, I HAVE taken your quotes very slightly out of context. But I often find that, when trying to discuss anything with proponents of the various shades of biblianity or calvinistism, there’s simply no way of communicating. I think that yes, indeed there are different languages and different religions; probably more than just two as well.

    Oddly enough, I don’t have any difficulty believing that the Holy Spirit did indeed inspire the bible. Since there’s no single meta-bible defining how to interpret it *, though, the question of whether it’s inspired is less important to me than it will be to a christian. What’s more important is: WHY would the Holy Spirit inspire the bible? Not just any bible, mind, but the one we’ve got – i.e. the one that centres around Jesus of Nazareth. But hey; this means I’ve “cast aside the scriptures” according to one former Wartburger. Yes, well, whatever.

    Believing that the bible points towards Jesus, and believing that the bible replaces Jesus, aren’t the only two possible religions. But I don’t think they’re compatible.

    * The writer of Ecclesiastes stated that “there’s no end to the making of books”. I think I know what he meant. Calvin rightly noted that lesser minds than his might not correctly understand the scribshers, so he had to write a giant long user guide to explain them. But his followers rightly noted that lesser minds than their own might not understand the true meaning of calvinistism, so they’ve had to write more books explaining away the contradictions in the book that explains The Book. And so on. Like zooming into the Mandelbrot set.

  243. Robert: I look down on reducing religion to feeling alone

    Spiritual life is better than hanging your hat on nothing but jots and tittle of the law. Relationship always trumps religion.

  244. Max: Spiritual life is better than hanging your hat on nothing but jots and tittle of the law. Relationship always trumps religion.

    Just make sure you don’t weaponize that Relationship. I’ve seen that happen.
    Remember the putdown line “You have a (sneer) religion. I have a (smirk) RELATIONSHIP!”?
    I do.

    And also beware of becoming so Spiritual you cease to be human. Like Platonic Gnostics.

  245. Lea: Robert: I look down on reducing religion to feeling alone, which is what Protestant liberalism does.

    This is your interpretation of it, and it’s wrong. You should examine what makes you think that.

    And it’s not just “liberalism”; Bible-based Fundagelicalism also reduces religion to feeling alone. The Charismatic wing is the most blatant, but in practice a lot of assurance of salvation comes down to subjective “shiver in my liver” feelings.

    Rich Buhler used to say “God Lives in the Real World”. Make sure your religion/relationship/whatever keeps one foot in the Real World for a Reality Check. The Doctrine of the Incarnation — where God entered and Lived in the Real World — is supposed to be our unique feature, keeping an Infinite God on a one-to-one human scale. We lose that, we’re no different from the Gnostics or New Agers.

  246. Max: Amen and Amen! My personal experience with Jesus is not open to the arguments of men.

    The downside of that is that it can become completely SUBJECTIVE.
    The Gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation is at heart a fairly selfish attitude — especially when Entropy sets in over time — and American Evangelicalism can encourage that. Remember, “God Lives in the Real World” and we should too.

  247. Lea: Does it really? Maybe they’re just more skeptical of people who claim poorly sourced unproven miracles right now, or claim prophecies that seem to often not come true, right now? I can’t tell you how many times I heard the world was going to end next week or in a year as a kid and I am definately skeptical about these claims.

    Yom Kippur War Rapture Scare, 1973.
    Comet Kohoutek Rapture Scare, 1974.
    Rosh Hashanah Rapture Scare, 1975.
    Jupiter Effect Rapture Scare, 1981.
    88 Reasons Rapture Scare, 1988.
    All “THIS IS IT!!!”, all proven Chapter-and-Verse from SCRIPTURE(TM).
    I too am skeptical about such claims.

    Also you look down at ‘feelings’ in your other comment, which is not surprising.

    Which can lead to the opposite of a faith driven by a chaos storm of Feelings.
    The Faith of The Cold Equations. Intellect to the point of Inhumanity.

    Chesterton described Christianity as a dynamic balance between opposing doctrines, “any one of which in isolation could lay waste to a world”. And both the above are out-of-balance, just in opposite directions.

    “The Devil sends sins in matched opposing pairs, so in fleeing one we embrace the other.”
    — attr to C.S.Lewis

  248. Nick Bulbeck,

    It is an interesting fact that even the most vociferous sola scriptura types create a tradition of their own which they use to settle disagreements – C’s The Institutes being one of them.

    I also have come to think that when the canon was first settled on, that they didn’t forsee it being divorced from the church tradition that had given it birth, & basically splintering Christendom into countless factions. That tradition, interestingly enough, paid no heed to many of Augustine’s most notorious writings (though he did retract some things in old age, not sure what yet). There were other more learned Church Fathers around at that point: Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom…I have no idea why the Reformers preferred him over the others.

  249. Lea: I would be happiest on the path towards universalism, honestly.

    Me, too. But I’m not quite there: happy(all the time) or universalist(all the time)…. Someone more left leaning than I am(I think) told me that some other theologian referred to the “gates of heaven” as not closed, but swinging open and those “in” could go out to minister to those “out” …my addition: If so, why wouldn’t everyone want to come in? And why wouldn’t many, many, triple many of those “in” have enough empathy to go “out” to minister? C.S. Lewis, I think, wrote something along the lines of “only those who want to be in hell will be there”, IDK, whether he was right or not. The liberal denominational leader (not PCUSA) that told me about the swinging heaven gate referred to Jefferson’s bible and I am sad and cautious around that idea because I seem to want to keep, or have, a high view of scripture. But I agree with what this person said in that people do interpret scripture with bias and/or lack of openness or awareness or unwillingness or empathy (or hurt and misunderstanding) to consider other people’s perspectives of that same bible.

    At this point, for me, it seems like a healthy dose of maybe? humanism done well(not necessarily “business model humanism”) would be fitting. (and, IMVersion, of humanism, for now, it does not exclude the supernatural, or things beyond our contemporary understanding of natural, but it does minimize emphasis on that (kinda, it seems to me, “according to the scriptures”, ….didn’t Jesus talk about this? that miracles aren’t the goal, but rather learning is the goal (to know the Father as He knew the Father, so that hopeful listeners could be with Them- John 17, or around there)? Admittedly, I am not a Bible scholar, far from it. Nor have I been as diligent, or available to be diligent, as many here seem to have been in working through their understanding of scripture. For over a decade I was a part of the leadership of a parachurch “in-depth” bible study ministry, which really was where I wanted to be for most of that time, especially when we studied Psalms together. Even though I don’t attend a local institutional church regularly I have people I’ve attended church with, or studied with, or fellowshipped with, that I connect with on at least a monthly basis. I don’t discuss controversial issues or politics with most of them, but do with a few.

    I’m glad to hear of your experience and thoughts on the PCUSA church that you attend.

  250. Ella:
    I’m glad to hear of your experience and thoughts on the PCUSA church that you attend.

    Well, I would probably say less about it, but they are SO nice and I feel so comfortable as a woman there…so when I hear people lambasting ‘Calvinists’ generically I guess I think people should know some of it actually lovely.

    I grew up baptist, so that’s probably a heavy part of my theology regardless, but I feel perfectly comfortable and no one has tried to direct my thoughts. Glad to hear someone else has had good experiences as well.

  251. dee: So, you may believe, as Sproul does that I may be a Christian but *barely.

    Dee I think I mentioned this before,but just in case – Edith Schaeffer wrote about how her & Francis turned down writing on Irresistable Grace for Sproul, because they didn’t believe in it, nor Limited Atonement. Their Son in Law Udo Middelmann wrote a book called The Innocence of God, where he basically slams meticulous determinism as making God the author of evil & robbing man of fighting evil without fighting God. She said that he expressed the views they also held.I was astonished to read that when I did, as it was at L’Abri that I first found books that taught 5 pointer stuff – many of their current workers also don’t hold to them at all, feeling they are too extreme, rationalistic, lack mystery etc.

  252. Beakerj: I also have come to think that when the canon was first settled on, that they didn’t forsee it being divorced from the church tradition that had given it birth, & basically splintering Christendom into countless factions.

    The whole topic of what was going on at the Canon Conference is a fascinating one. What were the different priorities and (for want of a better, less loaded word) agendas among the conference delegates? What kinds of following did each of the main speakers have? What like were the break-out discussions? And, as you mentioned, what did they suppose people would be doing with their output centuries later? What relative importance, for instance, did they give to the newly-formalised canon of scribsher on the one hand, and the newly-formalised Een Creed? * Why did they not include the canon in the Een Creed, for that matter? What level of unity was there? What new friendships were formed, and did emdy fall out or punch someone? Were any manifestations of the Spirit in evidence, or were they already dying out as the canon began to manifest? Was the holy spirit himself there, or was he already dead? What event marked the completion of the canon, and what supernatural sign accompanied it?

    All of it fascinating.

    * Yes, there is an Een Creed. And it’s nice.

  253. Robert: That is a common misunderstanding. God doesn’t force the elect to love Him.

    What you don’t understand is that this is taught under the Calvinist umbrella. Please go to the sources where this is taught and rebuke them.

  254. Lea: Ella:
    I’m glad to hear of your experience and thoughts on the PCUSA church that you attend.

    Well, I would probably say less about it, but they are SO nice and I feel so comfortable as a woman there…so when I hear people lambasting ‘Calvinists’ generically I guess I think people should know some of it actually lovely.

    The original Scots Presbyterians were as extreme and rigid as today’s Calvinistas. And positively Murderous when the Reformation Wars got north of Border Reaver country.

    Today’s PCUSA has had four-five centuries to age and mellow down. It’s hard to stay the Perpetually Angry Young Man over so many generations.

  255. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    Lea,

    I’m glad to know people both inside my family/village, or church, of youth and beyond. I also appreciate the sharing of those who’ve peered more deeply into church history and various denominations.

    I’ve experienced today’s hyper-TGC version of Calvinism and I don’t like it, nor do I want to “lock horns” with it for the rest of my days here on earth. This group, IMO, is different, more authoritarian and indifferent to social justice, from the church denominations of my youth and ELCA, PCUSA and Free Methodist groups that I’ve experienced more recently.

  256. Robert: You are assuming that Calvinism teaches us that God forces us to love Him. That is a common misunderstanding. God doesn’t force the elect to love Him. He effectually and unfailingly persuades Him to love HIm. It’s as far from Stockholm Syndrome as one can imagine.

    I personally see this as a distinction without a difference. The main difference between this and Stockholm Syndrom is the amount of time it takes to make the shift.

    If everyone is as unable and unwilling to turn to God as you hypothesize, and no one will voluntarily seek him without first being regenerated, then why does he not do this for everyone? The Calvinist answer is, of course, that consigning people to eternal conscious torment gives god more glory than he would have otherwise. One could argue that he could maximize his glory by saving no one. But I suppose the counter-argument is that the elect, in their appreciation for not being in hell, will maximize his glory as they watch the non-elect suffer (including their former loved ones). To me it’s a sick system. But that is probably because I am a goat.

  257. Robert: Ok, I’ll stop after this comment.

    Before you stop, can you tell me how you know for certain that you are not one of those reprobate whom god is deceiving with a false grace that he will one day withdraw from you, leaving you in a worse state than if you had never been given this temporary grace?

    This question is based on section 3.2.11 of Calvin’s Institutes.

  258. Lea: I just think this keeps coming up as some sort of ‘gotcha’ and it doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you really saying here: if I agree to accept the bible as is without trying to go back and redo it all, I have to convert to catholic? Or EO? I don’t think so.

    You rightly pointed out that I did not adequately explain my thoughts. No, I am not trying to convert anyone to EO or RC. Nor am I trying to undermine the authority of the NT. Rather, it was my attempt at something like Reductio ad absurdum.

    I started my Christian life in College with The Navigators, and for the next 30 years I mostly associated with people and ministries on the “conservative” side of Christianity. People in my circle either outright called Roman Catholics apostates, or they denied there was much of anything in the RC that could be called truly Christian. I have had lots of experience with people who define Christianity very narrowly. One thing that prevented me from fully going down that path was early opportunities to learn some things about what RCs actually teach and believe. But my belief that RCs could actually be Christians sometimes got me rebuked from time to time by my fellow conservatives.

    Fast forward about 30 years when I seriously started to dig into church history. I was shocked by how much I had never been taught as a protestant. Seeing how Catholic the early church was caused me to greatly expand the window for what I believe should be considered authentic Christianity. I was hoping to show the ridiculousness of maintaining such a restricted view on what should be accepted as orthodoxy. But I now see that I failed to do that.

    In any case, I now believe that God is much more inclusive than I had ever imagined, and probably much less concerned with doctrinal purity than we are.

  259. Nick Bulbeck: The whole topic of what was going on at the Canon Conference is a fascinating one.

    I read that one of the very influential church ffathers (don’t remember which one) absolutely hated church councils. His description of them indicated quite a lot of long, stressful, maddening, and divisive discussions. Sounds like church meetings on steroids. I guess some things never change.

  260. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    A lot of defences of calvinism can be mapped onto the following:

     Calvinism does not teach that 1 plus 1 equals 3.
     This is a common misunderstanding of calvinism.
     Calvinism actually teaches that 1 plus 1 is equal to 3. This is completely different from saying that 1 and 1 equals 3.

    Calvinism ultimately cannot be refuted because by definition it can only be proclaimed, and not examined. Any calvinistic teaching that is critically examined immediately, by definition, ceases to be what calvinism teaches. This state of affairs continues until the critical examination stops and calvinism goes back to being proclaimed unopposed.

    This makes a certain amount of sense. It’s often said that Calvin’s idol is primarily concerned with its own glory. I think it’s more correct to say that Calvin set out to create a god whose primary characteristic was absolute power. Moreover, that’s “absolute power” as conceived by a human despot, and taken to its logical conclusion.

  261. Nick Bulbeck,

    Incidentally, this is the great advantage of nickism. Nickism is defined as being that, about which any conceivable statement is a misunderstanding.

  262. Robert: And the God of Calvinism doesn’t force anyone to come against their will. None of the Reformed confessions teach that.

    Unilaterally, irresistibly, changing a person’s will – against his will – is the same as forcing him to come against his will. Of course, they don’t ‘say’ that; there are a lot of ugly truths Calvinism doesn’t own up to. Or, as my former Calvinist pastor always liked to say,’We wouldn’t put it like that.’

    However you try to mask it, under Calvinism, salvation is more like abduction and brainwashing than a voluntary two-way relationship.

  263. Robert: Which orthodox Calvinist says, “I don’t care what happens to you as long as he saves me”? And why would that be unique to Calvinism anyway. Non-Calvinists are selfish at times too, you know.

    Of course they would never ‘say’ it outright. But it sums up the necessary response to a God who only loves and saves some, while condemning the rest. The Calvinist must not ‘care’ that God created his mother, son or neighbor for destruction. He is only to rejoice in his lucky status of being ‘elect’ and never mourn or grieve over the many who were not so lucky.

    The non-Calvinist knows that every single human being ever born is loved by God, and freely offered mercy and life. Freely offered; yes, that means they can reject it, and we, along with God, hold out the offer all day long, hoping that they will come into his waiting arms.

    ‘Selfish’ is a grand understatement for people who are taught to not give a damn about the damned. God urges us to care about, and seek to spread the good news to the lost. Calvinists don’t have any ‘good news’ for most, and must shrug and say, ‘If God didn’t want them, why should I care? It’s all about his glory. He chose me, so I’m not going to cry over the poor, helpless souls which never had a chance.’

    Putting it starkly does not change the reality – it simply confronts the Calvinist with what he tries to ignore, deny or tiptoe around.

  264. Lea,

    Btw, the Calvinist world I was in for over a decade did not consider the PCUSA to be orthodox, or even genuine christians, but as complete, liberal heretics. Even PCA is not good enough for them. Truly, the further away from consistent Calvinism you get, the better off you are.

  265. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “In any case, I now believe that God is much more inclusive than I had ever imagined, and probably much less concerned with doctrinal purity than we are.”
    ++++++++++

    i don’t care if that too long for a bumper sticker. it’s going on my car.

  266. TS00: Unilaterally, irresistibly, changing a person’s will – against his will – is the same as forcing him to come against his will.

    After such a drastic changed to a person imposed from a force outside the person, it raises the question of whether the person saved is still the same person or someone entirely different. Sounds too much like The Stepford Wives.

  267. TS00: The Calvinist must not ‘care’ that God created his mother, son or neighbor for destruction. He is only to rejoice in his lucky status of being ‘elect’ and never mourn or grieve over the many who were not so lucky.

    Jonathan Edwards agrees:

    Positively: the sufferings of the damned will be no occasion of grief to the heavenly inhabitants, as they will have no love nor pity to the damned as such. It will be no argument of want of a spirit of love in them, that they do not love the damned; for the heavenly inhabitants will know that it is not fit that they should love them, because they will know then that God has no love to them, nor pity for them; but that they are the objects of God’s eternal hatred. And they will then be perfectly conformed to God in their wills and affections. They will love what God loves, and that only. However the saints in heaven may have loved the damned while here, especially those of them who were near and dear to them in this world, they will have no love to them hereafter

    See https://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/293.html

  268. TS: Btw, the Calvinist world I was in for over a decade did not consider the PCUSA to be orthodox, or even genuine christians, but as complete, liberal heretics.

    So much of that is about other things, though.

    It’s like taking the most conservative/fundamentalist baptists you could possibly find and saying that’s what baptist means.

  269. KenF: Christian universalists ask the question “Why should we not hope for the eventual salvation of all?” It’s a good question.

    Yes. I’m not saying that’s the answer or my belief, but it’s certainly something to hope for.

  270. Lea: I’m not saying that’s the answer or my belief, but it’s certainly something to hope for.

    I’m not sure where I stand yet. The fact that no ecumenical council ever discussed the nature and duration of hell means there is no such thing as a wrong opinion about it.

  271. Nick Bulbeck,

    well, it’s going to be a new kind of bumper sticker — like, 70″ long and at least 6″ high.

    it’s 159 characters, including the –Ken F at the end (because all good quotes should be attributed to the quoter)

    i could fit 3 rows of text, with a font size of 200…

    i bet these would sell…

  272. Ken F (aka Tweed): In any case, I now believe that God is much more inclusive than I had ever imagined, and probably much less concerned with doctrinal purity than we are.

    “Evil seems to be the side most obsessed with Purity.”
    — comment on an Internet Monk thread a few months ago

  273. TS00: Btw, the Calvinist world I was in for over a decade did not consider the PCUSA to be orthodox, or even genuine christians, but as complete, liberal heretics. Even PCA is not good enough for them.

    Remember it was Calvinist theologian A.W.Pink who actually achieved the ultimate end state of Protestantism: The One True Church of One.

    He ended up worshipping alone at home every Sabbath because EVERY church was Apostate, Heretical, and In Grievous Error according to his Perfectly-Parsed, Utterly-Correct, Truly Reformed Theology.

  274. Beakerj,

    “Augustine’s most notorious writings (though he did retract some things in old age, not sure what yet). There were other more learned Church Fathers around at that point: Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom…

    I have no idea why the Reformers preferred him over the others.”
    ++++++++++++++

    marketing and publicity?

    (no need for modern technology to accomplish these things)

    i suspect the marketplace of ideas then wasn’t much different than it is now.

    (all the more reason to hold ‘christian’ ideas & interpretations we’ve inherited loosely — and focus on philadelphia and protecting freedom of speech for our own voice of common sense)

  275. elastigirl: i suspect the marketplace of ideas then wasn’t much different than it is now.

    I would also suspect that in those times and places, the fact that you (generic you) could be tortured and burned alive for not believing a certain way had a large influence on the marketplace of ideas.

  276. Muff Potter,

    “the fact that you (generic you) could be tortured and burned alive for not believing a certain way had a large influence on the marketplace of ideas.”
    +++++++++++++

    done in the name of Jesus, no less…. the irony of it all

    well, i suppose the current state of female subjugation, totalitarian control over peoples’ life decisions, & community shunning is progress… 😐

  277. Muff Potter: I would also suspect that in those times and places, the fact that you (generic you) could be tortured and burned alive for not believing a certain way had a large influence on the marketplace of ideas.

    Depends on the century. Prior to 313 it was the government who was torturing and burning Christians. In the centuries when the major articles of faith were being hammared out there were excommunications and exiling, but not tortures and burnings by Christians. That came later. Athanasius, the guy who probably wrote the first version of the Nicene Creed and who also published the first complete listing of the NT in 367, was ordered into exile five times by various emporers. In the East he is called the father or orthodoxy.

  278. elastigirl:
    Nick Bulbeck,

    well, it’s going to be a new kind of bumper sticker — like, 70″ long and at least 6″ high.

    it’s 159 characters, including the –Ken F at the end (because all good quotes should be attributed to the quoter)

    i could fit 3 rows of text, with a font size of 200…

    i bet these would sell…

    I am certain Nick could both tighten and improve the wording to reduce the environmental impact.

  279. Beakerj: There were other more learned Church Fathers around at that point: Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom…I have no idea why the Reformers preferred him over the others.

    Probably confirmation bias. But I think it was also partly due to a language barrier since the predominate language in the West was Latin but in the East it was Greek. I read somewhere that the root of the great schism in 1054 was many centuries earlier when the Latin and Greek theologians started loosing touch with each other as fluency in both Latin and Greek became less common on both sides. It could be the reason the early Protestants favored Augustine – his writings were much more accessible to them.

  280. Ken F (aka Tweed): In the centuries when the major articles of faith were being hammared out there were excommunications and exiling, but not tortures and burnings by Christians.

    Constantine is purported to have had his wife Fausta boiled alive circa 326 A.D.
    Maybe we should cut him some slack? He was after all probably just a ‘baby Christian’ at the time?

  281. Muff Potter: Constantine is purported to have had his wife Fausta boiled alive circa 326 A.D.
    Maybe we should cut him some slack? He was after all probably just a ‘baby Christian’ at the time?

    Are you suggesting the Fausta was martyred for her Christian faith??? Also, it’s not clear that Constantine was actually a Christian. The fact remains that the bishops and priests who participated in the ecumenical councils were not at risk of being tortured and burned for having a dissenting opinion. But they were in danger of being exiled.

  282. Muff Potter: Constantine is purported to have had his wife Fausta boiled alive circa 326 A.D.
    Maybe we should cut him some slack?He was after all probably just a ‘baby Christian’ at the time?

    We should follow standard procedure in the case of someone prominent and wealthy. That is, we should celebrate all the amazing good that God powerfully accomplished through him and reflect that we’re just as much sinners as he ever was. Jesus is the answer. For Constantine. For all of us.

  283. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Good call, that sounds plausible. On an amusing note I was listening to probably The Areopagus, a podcast on Ancient Faith Radio, & they had a guest on who was EO & an academic, he’d been on a comment thread where someone had slammed the EO for not knowing latin, so he wrote them a long, involved reply. In latin. The west can be very patronising sometimes.

  284. Beakerj: The west can be very patronising sometimes.

    I don’t think any side has a monopoly on this (I am not saying you don’t already know this). EO has some terrible politics – a real mess.

  285. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    My comment was mainly tongue-in-cheek sarcasm (even Roger Bombast would agree). All religions, and Christianity is no exception, go through evolutionary stages influenced heavily by the cultural milieu they grow up in.
    So what is a Christian? Who’s in and who’s out?
    I think it’s a Gordian knot that not even Alexander’s sword can solve.

  286. Nick Bulbeck: That is, we should celebrate all the amazing good that God powerfully accomplished through him and reflect that we’re just as much sinners as he ever was.

    Holy sheep of height! You mean Muff’s jay-walking is just as bad as Constantine boiling his wife alive?

  287. Muff Potter: So what is a Christian? Who’s in and who’s out?
    I think it’s a Gordian knot that not even Alexander’s sword can solve.

    So true. Here is the real problem with all that happened in church history: what if the winners were wrong? If they were wrong, it means we probably cannot reconstruct whatever was right. At one point we just have to take a leap of faith for one alternative or another, even if that alternative is to avoid it all.

  288. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “At one point we just have to take a leap of faith for one alternative or another, even if that alternative is to avoid it all.”
    ++++++++++++

    or take selective small steps and finish it off with kindness, nothing more.

    (so, not an all or nothing prospect)

    this enables me to be an honest religious person. (and i sleep great, too)

  289. elastigirl: or take selective small steps and finish it off with kindness, nothing more.

    Not to be picky, but that is one of the possible alternatives that requires a leap of faith. Still, I think it is an outstanding alternative. For people with a background like mine, smalls steps loke this can be a bigger leap of faith than extreme steps.

  290. Muff Potter: So what is a Christian? Who’s in and who’s out?
    I think it’s a Gordian knot that not even Alexander’s sword can solve.

    If only Jesus were still alive…

  291. elastigirl: like, is it easier to believe the whole ‘agenda’ / campaign / system?

    Yes, actually. It’s much easier and less risky to follow a successful recipe that someone else came up with.

  292. Nick Bulbeck: If only Jesus were still alive…

    I believe that he’s still very much alive.
    Literal flesh, blood, and bone.
    Just not here at present…

  293. Muff Potter,

    That Jesus is alive is the beginning, middle and end of all my hope.

    If all that nonsense in the bible about “Christ in us” and/or “Christ in me” (Paul speaking there, but in context, then by sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he would be present as literal flesh, blood and bone * in the form of his followers.

    * Just to be clear: I quoted your exact words because I agree with all of them; this wasn’t meant as a parody.

  294. Nick Bulbeck: That Jesus is alive is the beginning, middle and end of all my hope.

    In trying to dig my way out of my past Christian training one of the people who makes a lot of sense to me is Baxter Kruger. Here is what he included in a Good Friday Sermon:

    There is no more stunning news in the universe than the news that a human being now exists inside the Trinitarian life of God. It was not an angel or a ghost that St. Stephen saw standing at the right hand of God in heaven. It was Jesus. It was the incarnate Son. What could be more astonishing than the news that the very communion of the Triune God has opened itself up, and that it now and forever includes a human being within it? Do you see that? Of all the things that we read about in the Bible, the most astonishing, the most shocking, the most mind-boggling is the ascension of the man Jesus, the incarnate Son.

    From: https://perichoresis.org/blogs/sermons/on-the-death-of-our-blessed-lord-jesus-christ

  295. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    “There is no more stunning news in the universe than the news that a human being now exists inside the Trinitarian life of God. ”
    ++++++++++

    that is so very kool!

    i’ve never heard it expressed that way. i think this fact just flies over most christians’ heads like wonder woman’s invisible jet.

    i love the fact that Jesus is human. it is so radically encouraging to me. i can relate to him. he can relate to me. our hands match. (like that scene in Disney’s Tarzan)

    i think that was largely the point.

  296. elastigirl: i’ve never heard it expressed that way. i think this fact just flies over most christians’ heads like wonder woman’s invisible jet.

    It’s as if it is hiding in plain sight. It makes so much sense, and is so obvious in hindsight. Earlier Christian generations were taught this, but it somehow got lost, at least in the circles I ran in.

  297. InjunJoe,
    Fun fact. constantine also killed his son!

    there is some story that he waited until he was about to die to get baptized in hopes of being covered. Cause that makes it all ok.

  298. KenF: Yes, actually.It’s much easier and less risky to follow a successful recipe that someone else came up with.

    Eh, I think this is a personality thing. I don’t feel the need to accept the ‘entire system’ to be ok with it in general. Many people are more comfortable with a broader, imperfect faith.

  299. Lea: Eh, I think this is a personality thing.

    Yes, exactly. I was not clear enough in saying that for a person like me, it takes less of a leap of faith to follow a recipe than to create my own gourmet meal (metaphorically speaking – I don’t follow recipes closely when I cook).

  300. Lea: there is some story that he waited until he was about to die to get baptized in hopes of being covered. Cause that makes it all ok.

    See? He got ‘saved’ and went to ‘heaven’.

  301. Aunt Polly: See?He got ‘saved’ and went to ‘heaven’.

    Lea, early in christianty people thought that all sins prior to baptism were forgiven automatically.
    And any sin that was committed after baptism would be forgiven, but the sinner had to make sure they prayed for forgiveness,after they had been baptized.

    I was studying 1st and 2nd century church history last week and read at length about this old custom

  302. Benn: Lea, early in christianty people thought that all sins prior to baptism were forgiven automatically.

    Yes, that is what I was referencing