John Piper, SGM and Gender: The Frozen Chosen

  ​Nothing burns like the cold.  George R.R. Martin                        

IMG_0218   

  IMG_0219

Singles series to commence Thursday.

104 days of shameful silence. 104 days of support for CJ Mahaney. 104 days of no support for the victims

There are many reasons why I love blogging. Almost all of them involve connecting with people all over the world. I still remember getting our first visitors from the UK and Australia. Do you know how much I want to visit them? Since then our TWW community has expanded to areas like Sierra Leone, Japan, and Romania. A couple weeks ago we received an e-mail from someone who said they followed our blog from the McMurdo Station in Antarctica! I told said person that I would be really, really mad if they were lying. So, I received a picture of said person standing on the a frozen runway and then the postcard, above, as proof. 

I joked with Deb that TWW serves the world-wide evangelical community Pole to Pole since we also have a reader in the Arctic Circle. I look forward to meeting him/her (keeping them anonymous as promised) when they return for a couple of months during the winter season. I am so excited because Antarctica is on my top 5 bucket list places to visit and now I know someone. How cool is that! Pun intended.

So, how is Dee going to morph that into today's post?  Well, when I realized that (s)he was telling the truth, I thought of a joke. I was sitting in church and started giggling, whispered it to my husband, and then we both kept snickering.  As many of you know, Presbyterians in bygone years have been called The Frozen Chosen. Well, I immediately wrote said Antarctican  (a U.S. citizen) an email with these words, "You are the Really Frozen Chosen!"  S(he) replied that it definitely had play because s(he) used to be Presbyterian. If you look closely on the card above, they wrote "So, So, So Very Cold."

Well, I believe that John Piper is "so, so, so very cold." In fact, he appears more deeply frozen than my new friend who lives part of the year at the bottom of the world. On Sunday, Piper had a starring role in the rehabilitation of the struggling SGM Louisville. I have embedded the video at the end of this post for you listening enjoyment. After CJ introduced Piper, Piper said the following 

 "I chose to be here. No one forced me. I snatched the opportunity to be here. I love SGM and what God is doing through it across the country and the world."

He remarked on SGM's church planting operation. I have two comments, neither of them complimentary (or complementary for that matter), that I want to address to John Piper.

The mass exodus of SGM churches Is NOT church planting. It is an unprecedented church "family" implosion.

John Piper failed to mention or ask a simple question, "What up with that?" Did it not cross his radar? What do they know that he doesn't know? I can assure you that churches don't leave because they are confidant in the godly leadership that Piper seems to love. Good night!

SGM may be planting churches but some of the plants, like in an episode of The X Files, are developing legs and getting the heck out of Dodge. SGM appears to have lost 20% of their churches, purportedly due to profound concerns about SGM as an oversight organization.

Were these former SGM churches all big or small churches? Many people do not understand that SGM churches are not huge. A few congregations are big but many are quite small in size. In fact, one of the most startling facts about this church exodus is that it is the high profile churches within SGM are leaving. This includes SGM's flagship church, Covenant Life Church, with former CJ groupie, Joshua Harris, at the helm. 

Not only that, according to many reports over at SGM Survivors, some of the remaining churches are losing members, and the financial reports are not strong. In the meantime, the SGM hierarchy has spent a good deal of money on travel expenses at a time when the organization is losing money as churches leave. Here is a link to an interesting report on SGM travel expenses … I call it "The Show Must Go On" report.

"So it appears that SGM operations were in the RED for $1,231,370 for 2012.  Perhaps they could trim the $560,660 in travel expenses.  (This amount is typical for both SGM and CLC.)

The SBC in 2009 had a budget of $9,481,903.  So did they spend a million, a million five?  Nope, $68,901.  That’s right, $68,901."

Quick memo to SBC/SBTS: You will need to greatly expand your travel budget if you take on CJ.

When 20% of churches leave SGM and the difference is not made up, it is NOT church planting. It is church contraction. Do these guys use dictionaries? I do not know what they teach in seminaries, but I do know what they teach in business schools. This is not a story of success — it is a story of decline. If I owned stock in SGM, I would be screaming "Sell!"  I am sure that Piper and gang are aware of this fact, yet this crowd chooses to present a rosy picture. Why? This could be perceived as helping SGM cover up the difficulties.

By choosing to support CJ Mahaney, Piper is actively choosing to ignore victims and the hundreds of reports of problems.

The Bible clearly states that 2-3 witnesses should be brought forward to testify to sin. But maybe, in Piper's world, the worst sin is not being a complementarian or a Neo-Calvinist. Is that why he ignores the many, many cries of the SGM wounded?  When he chooses to prop up Mahaney (the "girls" at Girltalk are ever so grateful), he heaps coals on the heads of the victims. He cannot, and does not, have it both ways. 

Not one word has come out of John PIper's mouth to bring comfort to the kids who were made to confront their pedophile and forgive them.  Apparently, Piper has not seen the need to reach out to hurting people. Instead, he does the tedious prop up of the usual suspects. Stop wasting your life, indeed!

Piper has hurt many, many people by his dog and pony show at SGM Louisville. He said wanted to go there. He"snatched" at the opportunity. Why no "snatching" to reach out to the victims. What did Jesus do? 

By this maneuver, Piper has given observers an insight into his soul (and priorities). And it is cold inside. Only cold people could ignore the many, many reports coming out of SGM. I think I now understand how the "frozen chosen" moniker developed. Piper is the poster child.

Here is my prediction. When the lawsuit goes to trial, there will be the "march of the patriarchs" who will be called to testify to the character of CJ Mahaney and the rest of his cohorts. On that day, the ministry of Jesus will take a hit. The Pharisees will be back in business.

I believe that John Piper has a rigid agenda and that is to preach Neo-Calvinism and complementarianism at all costs. In so doing, he has let his theology trump his love. 

Another bizarre example of Piper's view of gender. Die before you let her help you!

I have an example of another Piper moment in which he clearly shows his adherence to an agenda of strict complementarianism, even in the face of death or destruction. I saw this discussed on Rachel Held Evans' blog and found the link confirming his statement at Desiring God.

"Back in the seventies,…  my ideas on manhood were viewed as the social construct of a dying chauvinistic era. I had not yet been enlightened that competencies, not divine wiring, governed the roles we assume. Unfazed, I said no.

Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

And collectively that is what society does—unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly. God created man first in order to say that man bears a primary burden for protection, provision, and leadership." 

Look very carefully at this example.  Who is missing in this discussion? The woman called "Sarah." She is merely a non-functioning body on the scene. The man is now in charge. He must lay down his life for her even if she may have a way to intervene so he doesn't die!  Sarah is forgotten in the incident. She may as well be a valuable statue to protect. Should she run, holler, take out her concealed weapon and take him out, apply a roundhouse kick to his face while Jason is being beat up, etc.? Nothing. In fact, Piper says something bizarre. Jason is told to not "tell her" to intervene. In other words, Sarah has no say in this situation. She must wait for directions before doing anything.

Here is an excellent comment from Rachel Held Evans' blog on this Piperism.

"If men are hardwired to protect women, then why was the MALE assailant in Piper's hypothetical attacking a woman? What do women need protection from in complementarian imaginings? Well, from men. The argument is therefore self-defeating.

If I was walking down the street with John Piper and a man jumped out with a knife, and John stepped between me and the man, after the man had attacked John, I'd be next. John's heroism may have given me an extra five seconds. Big deal. But if we both jumped the man with the knife together, we might actually stand a chance. (Assuming that running away wasn't an option.)

I'm a big believer in men and women leading in the home, the church and society together, without an ineffective, stifling gender hierarchy.

My husband is chronically ill and often can't do the things men are "supposed to do" in a relationship. This legalism would destroy our relationship if we tried to live by it. Instead, we embrace egalitarianism not just because it seems to us like the best approach to building a healthy relationship, but because otherwise we'd never be happy with each other or our condition. He shouldn't feel guilty that his health prevents him from doing the things John Piper thinks he should do, and I shouldn't feel disappointed that my relationship looks different from what the church always told me it should look like."

In the end, I do believe this is linked to a rigid form of theology on gender that invades everything Piper does. Last year we posted a blog about Ian and Larissa here. It is my opinion that Piper used this young couple to promote his unyielding agenda. Join me in praying that God might melt John Piper's heart which appears to be frozen solid.

Lydia's CornerDeuteronomy 32:28-52   Luke 12:35-59   Psalm 78:56-64   Proverbs 12:24

Comments

John Piper, SGM and Gender: The Frozen Chosen — 732 Comments

  1. Dave AA

     I think this is a worthy conversation and hope to get some people who are distancing themselves from the Calvinistas to explain their theology. So many of them have told me they think differently and I am hoping to find out what that means. For example, I do know their are Reformed folks who allow woman as pastors.

    Until the day I die i believe that I will have trouble with the God ordained for hell stuff but I am willing to give it a go in order to open dialogue. I will never forget one man who came on this blog and disagreed that the mentally disabled will be in heaven. He said he has adopted several who are profoundly diables and he has no assurances that they will be in heaven and he was fine with that. My head began banging on my desk. I really, really want to understand thsi line of thinking.

  2. JeffS 

    It is obvious to me that you are a Calvinist, not a Calvinista and that is why I am interested in the potential for this discussion. To me, the Imago Dei is important to the debate from the side of those who are Arminian. If there is any remnant of that image, there is the possibility of responding to that image. I believe that we are hopeless in our sins and that we need Jesus to forgive us but I am unconvinced that our sinful state totally prevents us from responding.It is not the response that saves the individual. Salvation rests in the hands of the Savior.

    What I mean is this. A starving dog is dying. He happens upon a piece of meet which he eats, thus saving his life. We do not say “What a smart and good dog. He ate a piece of meat. He shows an element of goodness in him.” People would laugh at such a statement. The dog did not put the meat there. If the meat was not there he would die.The meat saved his life. All he had to do was devour it which was programmed into him by his Creator who gave Him hunger from the beginning. 

    Just in case I have not said this enough, I believe that people will abuse any system of belief in order to benefit themselves. However,I  find it difficult that a Calvinist should do such a thing because they know they are regenerated and so should know better unlike the rest of the unregenerate world.

    Also, oen other thing that needs to be addressed. Is it true that a Calvinist has no assurance of election until the the day of judgement?

     

  3. Dave A A wrote:

    And: ‘It is hard for us to realize that many of those right around us (in some cases our close friends and relatives) are probably foreordained to eternal punishment; and so far as we do realize it we are inclined to have a certain sympathy for them. Yet when seen in the light of eternity our sympathy for the lost will be found to have been an undeserved and a misplaced sympathy.”

    Hi Dave, I’ll start the ball rolling. This is sick and inhumane. How’s that?

  4. @ Rafiki:
    Good description. Now if we just find an infallible way to know which ones of our loved ones are *God’s Enemies* (from before the foundations of the world) we can make sure to waste no more sympathy on them. To be safe, we’ll just have to have no sympathy toward anyone at all. :/

  5. @ Dave A A:

    Goodness, Dave AA, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry but … we are most decidedly on the same page.

    In addition to cultivating my ladylike quiet and gentle spirit*, I will now contemplate the careful shepherding of my sympathies so as to not waste them on the non-elect.

    I think in order to settle down a bit I’ll read the Gospels and after that review some of Spurgeon’s sermons on – paraphrasing here, of course – how we are going to be BLOWN AWAY by the sheer number of the multitudes in heaven.

    IIRC Spurgeon refers to the numbers as being “like grains of sand on a beach.” That’s A LOT of the beloved who are going to be rejoicing and worshipping our Saviour, no?

    * I gotta do better at my quietness and gentleness, as it seems I fail miserably on an hourly basis. Exhibit A was my screaming like a banshee at the TV last night when that awful, dare I say EVIL, #18 Kyle Busch ruined my #14 Tony Stewart’s shot at the Daytona 500 in that chain reaction crash on lap 33.

    The neighbors tapped gently on the door to make sure I was OK. 🙂

  6. “…The God Ordained For Hell Stuff?” 

    HowDee,

    ” ..stir the waters of Bethesda, Oh Lord, so that I might enter therein.”

    “…place thy spittle upon my eyes, that I may see.”

    …the God ordained for hell stuff? @ dee:

    What?

    ——>Surely they don’t know Him!

    When in disobedience to His word to fill the earth and multiply, Man stayed as one to build a tower to heaven, the Lord confounded their language, necessitating a change in behavior. Why did He bother?

    Because He had promised.

    The Lord, he remembered how, in a desperate attempt (because of the thought of evil continually) to save the continuance of Man, saved eight persons on a raft the size of three football fields. Why did He bother?

    Because He had promised.

    For four hundred He drew silent, while His chosen people forgot Him. Why did He bother?

    Because He had promised.

    When He ordering the world to receive His son, saying:

    “This is my beloved Son, (in whom I am well pleased) surely they shall receive Him… Only to see Him marred in the most grotesque manner, and destroyed out side the city He came to save. Why did he bother?

     Because He had promised.

    *

     All who call upon the Name of the Lord, shall be saved…

    God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that who so ever that believes in Him shall not parish, but have life everlasting.

    Why does He bother?

    Because He promised.

    perventure, Lord, should there be ten righteous men in the city, will you not spare it for their sake?

    I will for ten…(said the Lord)

    Why bother?

    Because He promised.

    Come unto me all ye who are heavy laden, and I (Jesus) shall give you rest.

    Why bother?

    hmmm…

    Sopy

  7. “God ordained for hell stuff”
    I take issues with this too. “Pastors” tweak scripture all the time to fit their agenda and of course we better believe them because they are God’s right hand man.

    “I will never forget one man came on this blog and disagreed that the mentally disabled will be in heaven.”

    And how would he know this to be true(shaking my head).

  8. stormy

    He said we could not be sure that they were in heaven in disagreement with my belief that there is no question they will be there.I think some of these folks like feeling that they are special and chosen. They won the God lotto.

  9. Perhaps this thread is too old, but I just ran across some interesting info on gender as it applies translations of the Bible. The ‘Christian’ War on Women has also spilled over into Bible translation. In particular, the use of gender-neutral language, where the goal is to use general-neutral language whenever the intent of the original Hebrew or Greek text use of “man”, “men”, “brothers”, etc. was to include both males and females. For some in the conservative camp, the words “gender-neutral” are fightin’ words and they oppose almost all attempts to address gender neutrality in translations of the Bible.

    When Zondervan Publishing House came out with the 2011 New International Version, there was a segment of conservative Christians that became apoplectic over its use of gender-neutral language. Thus began a movement of this segment to trash the 2011 NIV on this ground. It’s important to note that many in this segment favor the English Standard Version (ESV) published by Crossway Bibles, particularly those of a Reformed bent.

    At their 2011 convention, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing the 2011 NIV because it “incorporates gender neutral methods of translation”. What’s interesting is that this resolution was not brought to the convention by the resolution committee. Instead, it was the work of one delegate, and only one other person spoke on its behalf, with no one speaking against it. This was apparently all it took to start the knees jerking in the sheeple in the SBC for it apparently passed by a very wide margin. On such careful, considered, lengthy discussions are Bible translations accepted.

    Here’s an article in Christianity Today on the issue:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/september/bible-translation-battles.html

    Now comes the interesting part – a major participant in the trashing of the 2011 NIV is our friendly neighborhood Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, apparently to further it ‘complementarian’ agenda and, perhaps, for selfish reasons as well. Here are some comments by Rod Decker is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Baptist Bible Seminary:

    “The charge has been led by the CBMW. The potential issues in this regard have already been mentioned at several points in the paper. CBMW is essentially a very vocal single-issue group that has determined that one of the primary ways to champion their position is to advocate a single approach to translation: formal equivalence with explicit objection to “gender-neutral” translation. There is also potential for conflict of interest at this point since some of the key players in CBMW are also responsible for a competing translation, the ESV. The tone of their official review of the NIV11 is unhelpful, and the methodology employed is designed more for rhetorical effect than it is for a substantive engagement in the issues.”

    You can read his entire article here:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/an_evaluation_of_the_2011_edition_of_the_new_international_version

  10. “I have a problem with Calvin being proclaimed a godly person.”

    My opinion is that a lot of these so-called heros of the faith were not Christian at all. There are those who can somewhat “look the part” or put on a good act(actors) like they are Christians. And because they are dead and we haven’t personaly known them, I don’t think that anybody can claim them being a Christian. We have just assumed they are because of their writings. I personaly believe that Calvin was power hungry and for what he did to people leads me to believe that he wasn’t a Christian.

  11. Dave A A wrote:

    Very good points– I would differ with: ‘I have no trouble with “your daddy’s” Calvinism’. Loraine Boettner came to mind as “your Daddy’s Calvinist”.

    Wait a minute — LORAINE BOETTNER? I remember that name in connection with anti-Catholic hate literature. Something about most anti-Catholic hate literature today — from Raul Rees to Jack Chick — is directly plagarized from two anti-Catholic classics: Two Babylons by Hislop and Roman Catholicism by a Loraine Boettner.

  12. Dave A A wrote:

    These quotes of note:
    ‘Mild Calvinism” is synonymous with sickly Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end.’ (I think he’d have included most of today’s Calvinistas as Mild Calvinists)

    Perfect Purity of Ideology, just like Comrade Pol Pot. Ask a survivor of Cambodia’s Killing Fields how far Purity of Perfect Ideology can go.

  13. Bridget wrote:

    One thing about His power is that sometimes He seems to restrain it and sometimes He unleashes it — as in miracles. If He had no control over his power it seems He wouldn’t be able to restrain or send forth His power — He would be reduced to an automated being.

    In his run-ins with Young Restless and Truly Reformed, my writing partner refers to this “God reduced to an automated being” as “Socratic Atheism.” Because if God can only Will what He has been Predestined to Will, God is not God, but only another puppet of the REAL god — Utter Predestination.

  14. One of the other things I liked about Schaeffer’s take on this(& other discussions) was saying that sometimes, in the Bible, truth is not like a tiny little point, which we either hit or miss. It is more like an area, that if we are within we are in the historical flow of orthodox Christian faith. I can live with this width of thinking.

  15. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    HUG,

    Yeah, I came to this conclusion as well. If determinism is true the even God Himself must then be determined. And whatever determines Him is determined; and whatever determines the determinism is also determined. And on and on… It obliterates any purpose of God. Really determinism is merely nihilism.

  16. @ JeffT:

    I looked into that a couple of years ago when I was searching for the best gender accurate translation. I simply could not believe a better one was not out there when it is SO easy to see in our lexicons and condordances what the original words for specific genders are.
    I was shocked to read about the boycott threatened against Zondervan. They went back to the drawing board. Now no one likes the translation.
    Gordon Fee, an egalitarian, was on the translation committee I believe. He was pretty upset about the boycott.
    One thing I find very ironic is that SGM refers to Gordon Fee as expert on the Holy Spirit, yet finds him completely wrong on gender doctrine.

  17. @ Patti:

    Your absolutely right. The CBMW crowd managed to trash the TNIV so badly that it was a sales flop, and they aren’t satisfied with the 2011 NIV either and their trying to sink that one too. I’ve ended up using the Revised English Bible a lot (I used to primarily use the NRSV), the REB is in British English but it is in a more literary style, though not quite as gender-inclusive as the NRSV.

  18. @ Patti:

    SGM has a cut and paste approach to doctrine. This allows them to get the end result their flesh desires – IMO.

  19. dee wrote:

    If there is any remnant of that image, there is the possibility of responding to that image. I believe that we are hopeless in our sins and that we need Jesus to forgive us but I am unconvinced that our sinful state totally prevents us from responding.It is not the response that saves the individual. Salvation rests in the hands of the Savior.

    The idea behind Total Depravity is that we are corrupted, but not utterly- the image of God is not destroyed in us. But we are corrupted to a point that we would not choose Christ without God moving in us and drawing us.

    What I mean is this. A starving dog is dying. He happens upon a piece of meet which he eats, thus saving his life. We do not say “What a smart and good dog. He ate a piece of meat. He shows an element of goodness in him.” People would laugh at such a statement. The dog did not put the meat there. If the meat was not there he would die.The meat saved his life. All he had to do was devour it which was programmed into him by his Creator who gave Him hunger from the beginning.

    Yes, this is the notion of a Calvinist saying that having faith (choosing to eat the meat) is a work. From a logical standpoint, I would agree with you that it is reasonable to consider acceptance of a gift not a work. However, (and really, I’m not into proof texting- In general I try not to quote scripture in isolation when discussing topics on the internet- but this one is a foundational scripture to me on the topic we are discussing) the scripture does indicate (as I read it) that our faith comes from God:

    “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God”
    (Ephesians 2:8 ESV)

    To me, this clearly indicates that the very faith that saves us comes from God and is explicitly NOT from us. So while I can buy the argument that the dog eating the meat is not necessarily a “good work” logically- it seems (to me) the scripture says it still comes from God.

    To be honest, this idea of “Total Depravity”- well, maybe we have the details wrong. I don’t know- it’s just a doctrine trying to get our heads around what the scripture says. But it seems to me that whatever I believe about the state of unregenerate man and what prevents him from faith, at the end of the day the real key is when I read scripture it talks about the father “drawing” us and that faith comes from him.

    Just in case I have not said this enough, I believe that people will abuse any system of belief in order to benefit themselves. However, I find it difficult that a Calvinist should do such a thing because they know they are regenerated and so should know better unlike the rest of the unregenerate world.

    Yes, I agree completely- actually, to my mind a Calvinist should be the least abusive person on the planet. Reading that verse in Ephesians I just quoted- I mean, shouldn’t that make us very, very humble?

    Also, oen other thing that needs to be addressed. Is it true that a Calvinist has no assurance of election until the the day of judgement?

    No, this is not true. From the Westminster Confession Of Faith:

    CHAPTER XVIII.
    Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

    I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

    Neo-cals probably abuse the first part of that statement to the point that people constantly question themselves, but that is not the intent of the statement. That first part is not a function of Calvinism, though- it’s the reality that there are always going to be people who have deluded themselves and believe they are doing God’s work as they molest children and other godless acts.

  20. “Also, one other thing that needs to be addressed. Is it true that a Calvinist has no assurance of election until the the day of judgement?” – dee

    When I was in reformed circles I came across men who not only said they were the worst of sinners but would doubt their salvation. At the same time though, they had NO doubt that they were fit to lead and teach others!

    Haha…I never bought these displays of “humility”, so I questioned them. That’s how I know they had NO doubt about their fitness for leadership/teaching.

  21. @ Jeff S:
    In the Ephesians passage, the referent for the gift of grace from God is salvation, not faith.

    Any act of giving is incomplete unless the recipient of the gift accepts it. No one can force you to accept a gift, because you would become a victim of whoever decided to give you what you do not wish to have, and make you responsible for it.

    Salvation is a gift, but we must accept the gift or we will not be saved. And that requires that we have faith in the goodness of the gift and the giver.

  22. @ An Attorney:
    It seemse to me that the gift either refers to “grace” or “faith”, and it is ambiguous as to which it refers in the greek using grammar rules. However, saying “grace” (unmerited favor) seems a redundant and unnecessary statement (whe souldn’t need to clarify that the gift of grace is a gift).

    I realize there is disagreement on this point, but to me (and this is a conclusion I came to coming at this passage with the very question we are discussing here, pre-disposed at that point to agree that “acceptance” is not a work) intepreting this verse as saying faith is the free gift is the most natural understanding for me.

  23. MM wrote:

    When I was in reformed circles I came across men who not only said they were the worst of sinners but would doubt their salvation.

    Again, this doubting of salvation is counter to the Westminster Confession. I’m not saying that believers don’t doubt or question their salvation, but we should be encouraged that we don’t HAVE to. We have assurance from the Holy Spirit.

  24. Here is the problem with the Westminster article JeffS cited:

    Election must be arbitrary because according to Calvin’s own doctrine there can be NOTHING within a man that would cause God to single him/her out over another. AND regardless of how the Calvinists equivocate, the idea of irresistible grace means that it is impossible for man to NOT choose Christ if he/she is elected. They have no will in the matter.

    What this means is that all the love, charity blah blah that Westminster cites is utterly irrelevant to the salvation equation and, because of total depravity, completely unnecessary and ineffectual for “winning” people to Christ. So how is it rational that there be a certain demeanor to elect Christians as “proof” or “evidence” of their salvation when that “proof” is ultimately irrelevant? It’s not like acting loving can actually draw people to Christ.

    The fact is that according to Calvin’s theology a Christian cannot know if they are saved until the day of judgment because there is nothing a person can ever think or do that has any bearing whatsoever on their eternal state. Being wicked is as much proof of salvation as being good because, in the scheme of man and Christ and salvation, there is functionally no difference between them. There can be no evidence of salvation because any such “evidence” is, according to Calvin, irrelevant to salvation.

  25. “I was shocked to read about the boycott threatened against Zondervan. They went back to the drawing board. Now no one likes the translation.
    Gordon Fee, an egalitarian, was on the translation committee I believe. He was pretty upset about the boycott.
    One thing I find very ironic is that SGM refers to Gordon Fee as expert on the Holy Spirit, yet finds him completely wrong on gender doctrine.”

    Patti, That boycott was very effective. I wanted a TNIV for my daughter’s kindle. Not available. In fact, it is hard to buy a TNIV.

    But in the meantime, the Reformed world was heavily promoting the ESV as the most literal translation which is a joke. If you go to Crossway Pub you will see why. Take a look at the authors they promote. CJ is one of them. What makes this even more interesting is that the SBC has their own translation, the Holman. This was because the NIV was becoming ridiculous about royalties. The Holman is not bad at all comparitively speaking but guess what? Al Mohler at SBC promote the Holman? No way. He promotes the ESV.

    Bible translations have become big business. People look to their favorite guru to tell them which one to read. (There are tons of problems with the ESV…I call it the Reformed translation. Mark Strauss did a very good paper on it….in fact some of the translation that is “literal” is quite funny and makes no sense)

    The TNIV folks did not fight back. I wish they had but then we are talking guys like Gordon Fee who are gentlemen not oligarchs like the ESV folks.

  26. @ Jeff S:
    Again, it makes no sense to say that the gift of God is faith. The gift is salvation, the provision of a means by which we are redeemed through the act of Christ on the cross and his resurrection. We place accept the grace gift of salvation by placing faith that it has been given by God and will preserve our soul for eternity. If we do not believe that the gift is real, then we will reject it.

    Every gift must be accepted or rejected, and faith in the giver that the gift is real is a necessary condition to accepting the gift. Providing the means of salvation is the gift God gave us, our acceptance of it by faith completes the gift.

  27. “Wait a minute — LORAINE BOETTNER? I remember that name in connection with anti-Catholic hate literature. Something about most anti-Catholic hate literature today — from Raul Rees to Jack Chick — is directly plagarized from two anti-Catholic classics: Two Babylons by Hislop and Roman Catholicism by a Loraine Boettner.”

    HUG, I was shocked when I started researching Calvinism and the Reformed movement to find a lot of hatred toward Catholics. You find this in older writings and with some Reformed apologists like James White.

    I find all this ironic since the Reformed movement is a “protest” against Catholic church and kept many of the same methods/beliefs except for the overcorrection on works which they simply reengineered since it was against the law not to attend church with them, too!

  28. “Again, it makes no sense to say that the gift of God is faith”

    This is a big one. What the Reformed teach basically ends up being the idea that God must give you the ability to have faith. And since it is limited atonement God must force you to have it. It is not something man is capable of.They think that it devalues God that we can can actually have faith ourselves. Man has no volition at all.

  29. The fact is that according to Calvin’s theology a Christian cannot know if they are saved until the day of judgment because there is nothing a person can ever think or do that has any bearing whatsoever on their eternal state. Being wicked is as much proof of salvation as being good because, in the scheme of man and Christ and salvation, there is functionally no difference between them. There can be no evidence of salvation because any such “evidence” is, according to Calvin, irrelevant to salvation.”

    This is true. It is ALL God’s doing to make you one of the “elect” (using that word how theyd define it)…..so how could the person who does not have the capacity to respond or understand ever really know? The premise is that man can do nothing, not even respond. That man is too depraved to understand or even care. God does the choosing, the implanting of faith, etc. I think it is logical to think at that point that man can never really know while on this earth becauswe he really has nothing to do with any of it. He is incapable.

    Islam has the same dilemma. Allah does the choosing. Man never chooses.

  30. @ Anon 1:
    With regard to assurance of salvation- the Westminster Confession clearly states that Christians CAN have assurance of salvation.

    You guys are arguing that logically it doesn’t make sense with other doctrines found in the WCF. Fine, that’s fair- what you are arguing is that the WCF doesn’t contain internal consistency- that it is not logical. You are welcome to claim that all day long (and I will listen and try to see your points); however, it is not fair to say that Calvinists do not believe in assurance of salvation when the WCF clearly states they do.

  31. Jeff S

    A couple of things:

    1.I have written about Andy Davis who is one of TGCs buddies. He is well known around here. I have some friends who love and serve the Lord in so many ways that it would put many to shame: prison, crisis pregnancy, and other ministries. They disagreed with him when he changed the bylaws to not allow women as deacons. When they opposed the change they were called, in writing, by Davis “wicked and unregenerate.” (Someone recently tried to challenge me on this point and I have the self serving post he wrote that was published at TGC). So, whats up with that? Do pastors get to make these statements on salvation now? Bag the Holy Spirit?

    2. On my previous example, the meat was a gift from God. I think it is carrying it to an extreme to say that a simple response removes any glory from the Father in terms of the salvation of the inidividual. It would be like a man who sees a treasure chest filled with jewels lying on the street. He picks it up and becomes wealthy. I doubt anyone would say that he was an author in is wealth. Most people would say something to the effect that he was lucky. I can reach out all I want, but  there is not one thing I can do to effect my own salvation. At this point, some would fall on the ground, screaming that I am a SemiPelagian heretic but I would disagree and plan to write about the difference one of these day.

    3. Argo makes a good point. Were one to believe that God does the choosing and that said choosing is not done due to any merit on the part of the individual, then there is a problem. When God picks one to save and not the man next to the saved man, God is choosing , by default, the other man’s damnation.I have yet to be convinced otherwise. If the choosing is not based on some sort of merit, then it must be based on some other standard or it is arbitrary. God is not arbitray so I am left with a problem.

    4. I do not like, in fact reject, any man who, like Sproul Sr, says that unles we choose to follow strict Calvinist teachings, we are “barely saved.” That is hubris beyond belief. Once again, I believe that God has the capability to have us all understand the Scriptures if it is essential to our salvation and welfare. When we, including smart theologians, come out, all over the spectrum, on issues like Calvinism, baptism, charismatic gifts,etc. I believe God did not make it clear for a purpose and I do not feel it is within my purview to make it specific except to say “I think this is what he meant.” Talk about playing God…

    I would really like to get a series of questions together and get them answered from smart people on both sides of the fence. I am not one of thsoe smart people. I would like a Calvinist, a neo-Calvinist and an Arminian to answer the same questions and have the questions submitted by the readers. After it is done, I want them to address “How then should we live?” Now, I need to find these people. Thoughts anyone?

  32. @ Jeff S:
    JeffS,
    On a technical level I see your point. That makes my “problem” easier to identify, and that is helpful. It is not for me to state what people do or do not believe, but to focus on what I consider to be the inconsistencies in those beliefs.

  33. Jeff, These Confessions came out of political dilemmas. They are written by mere men. It is the last place I go to understand the things of Christ. Scripture and more importantly the Holy Spirit. It is another reason I do not put a lot of stock in ST. I don’t do a syllabus Jesus.

    Calvinists can say they believe in assurance and bring out all the confessions but it does not really make sense in the big picture because YOU have nothing to do with your “faith”. You had nothing at all to do with responding to the Holy Spirit. God has to do it all because you have no volition in that tradition. You are depraved which in Calvin speak means unable. The question hangs in the air if all those things are true, how can you really know? How can you have the ability to know?You can claim God forced you to know.

    This is the circle of Augustinian/Calvin filter. It has never gotten a proper airing in the public square. Now, because of social media it is getting one. We keep being told we do not understand it and if we did, we would get it. But some of us see the problems with it and it starts with man’s volition. I have researched and studied for the last 8 years. I was very attracted to it because I thought the focus on sin and God’s Sovereignty was an anecdote to the shallow seeker santa claus Jesus. What I found in my research was scarier, to me. It is a perfect belief system for despots!

    If God created the world and humans designed to fall so that HE could glorify Himself through all the sin that commenced giving man NO volition except to live out his depravity what does that make God?

    If God created the world and both angels and humans with volition and gave humans dominion over the earth and they screwed it up big time….that is a totally different story.

  34. @ dee:
    Dee,
    The problem is not yours. It is the doctrines. People can believe in election as the Calvinists teach it, but they cannot make it logically consistent. This is why I suspect Luther despised reason; because if you make reason the plumb line for his beliefs, it quickly unravels.

  35. dee wrote:

    So, whats up with that? Do pastors get to make these statements on salvation now? Bag the Holy Spirit?

    Personally, I am uncomfortable with ever saying anything about another’s salvation; however, I think sometimes my reluctance to do so could be abused by easy-beleivism- that is, someone beats his wife and then comes and says his sin must be overlooked because he is a Christian. I think there are times we are called to separate from people and treat them as unbelievers. The big problem in the evangelical church of today is that we get this concept exactly backwards- we treat people as unbelievers over beliefs (like in your example) but we allow them to act as if nothing has happened over behavior. We should be treating people like unbelievers for behavior rather than doctrine.

    2. On my previous example, the meat was a gift from God. I think it is carrying it to an extreme to say that a simple response removes any glory from the Father in terms of the salvation of the inidividual. It would be like a man who sees a treasure chest filled with jewels lying on the street. He picks it up and becomes wealthy. I doubt anyone would say that he was an author in is wealth. Most people would say something to the effect that he was lucky. I can reach out all I want, but there is not one thing I can do to effect my own salvation. At this point, some would fall on the ground, screaming that I am a SemiPelagian heretic but I would disagree and plan to write about the difference one of these day.

    I understand what you are saying- I just see scripture saying something different. I’m NOT saying you don’t read the same Bible or that my view is superior- it’s just what I see.

    3. Argo makes a good point. Were one to believe that God does the choosing and that said choosing is not done due to any merit on the part of the individual, then there is a problem. When God picks one to save and not the man next to the saved man, God is choosing , by default, the other man’s damnation.I have yet to be convinced otherwise. If the choosing is not based on some sort of merit, then it must be based on some other standard or it is arbitrary. God is not arbitray so I am left with a problem.

    Yes, this is the hard pill to swallow for Calvinism. I don’t have an answer, other than it seems to ME to be what the scripture teaches:

    And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
    What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
    You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

    (Romans 9:10-24 ESV)

    In fact, it seems to me that Paul is acknowledging here that it’s a hard pill to swallow.

    4. I do not like, in fact reject, any man who, like Sproul Sr, says that unles we choose to follow strict Calvinist teachings, we are “barely saved.” That is hubris beyond belief. Once again, I believe that God has the capability to have us all understand the Scriptures if it is essential to our salvation and welfare. When we, including smart theologians, come out, all over the spectrum, on issues like Calvinism, baptism, charismatic gifts,etc. I believe God did not make it clear for a purpose and I do not feel it is within my purview to make it specific except to say “I think this is what he meant.” Talk about playing God…

    No, I don’t like this either. I have a few issues with Sproul, and this is one of them. I haven’t found my consience plucked to the point that I “reject” all of his teaching, but this is mainly because every teacher I’ve encountered in some way ends up saying something I really disagree with.

    I would really like to get a series of questions together and get them answered from smart people on both sides of the fence. I am not one of thsoe smart people. I would like a Calvinist, a neo-Calvinist and an Arminian to answer the same questions and have the questions submitted by the readers. After it is done, I want them to address “How then should we live?” Now, I need to find these people. Thoughts anyone?

    Good luck finding a neo-Calvinist willing to participate 🙂

    I would be willing to do my best to answer from a Calvinist standpoint, though I’m probably not the ideal candidate. I’d be more comfortable with a Q&A format than writing a post as you’d earlier suggested.

  36. BTW, I know ESV isn’t popular, per some above comments. I must admit it scores a lot of points with me for not containing the “God hates divorce” mistranslation that so many others do. Besides, it is the “Elect Standard Version” :p

  37. “”I think there are times we are called to separate from people and treat them as unbelievers. The big problem in the evangelical church of today is that we get this concept exactly backwards- we treat people as unbelievers over beliefs (like in your example) but we allow them to act as if nothing has happened over behavior. We should be treating people like unbelievers for behavior rather than doctrine.”””

    BRAVO!!! well said. I totally agree. “Doctrine over People” is exactly the cult tactic that excuses horrible behavior and even crimes against others! Whatever side it comes from!

  38. Romans 9 cannot be pulled from the entire book. It is about corporate “election” as in Jews and then all who put faith in Christ. If you read Romans with the Jew/Gentile historical dichotomy it helps.

    The “elect” now are those who believe in Christ. The Jews were “elect” as his people but not all were saved. Only those who put faith in God.

    This is a big problem with Reformed thinking. It leaves out so much of the history and makes Jesus into a blonde euro and real Christianity started with their system. The REformers hated the Jews and disciminated against them so any understanding of the Jew/Gentile dichotomy is lost. They did not understand the historical JEWISH Jesus at all.

  39. Also, the historical backdrop of Romans is very interesting. The Jews had been expelled from Rome. Even the Christian Jews. As they came back, there were huge problems especially with Christian Jews and the church. Reading it with that in mind helps a lot.

  40. “I know ESV isn’t popular, per some above comments. I must admit it scores a lot of points with me for not containing the “God hates divorce” mistranslation that so many others do”

    I did not know that. I have an ESV so am going to check that out. Interesting.

  41. “If God created the world and humans designed to fall so that HE could glorify Himself through all the sin that commenced giving man NO volition except to live out his depravity what does that make God?”

    This is what many in the Piper camp believe. Piper has often stated that God’s glory is the ultimate purpose of all that God does. This thinking leaves man as a pawn in a game. How the scriptures concerning love (which Jesus proclaimed the greatest) come into play with this thinking I am at a loss to understand. As I think about Piper, has he often preached on love? Haven’t heard any teachings from CJ on love either. The way I see it, as we love God and one another, God is glorified. As we live life (doing) what God calls good and pleasing, we bring glory to God, just as Jesus’ life did.

  42. @ Anon 1:
    ““I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and I hate it when people clothe themselves with injustice,” says the Lord Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.” (Malachi 2:16 TNIV)

    “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:16 ESV)

    (Not singling out TNIV- that’s a pretty standard translation, as I’m sure you are familiar)

    If you’ve read Instone-Brewer I think he explains why Malachi should be translated this way; the grammar does not support God being the one “hating” in the passage (it is the “man” who “hates” or “does not love”).

  43. JeffS

    I have an ESV on my phone but I do have to admit that I got it because it was free. I have no problem, per se, with the ESV so long as people understand that it was written to reflect a Reformed theology bent. It is interesting to me how Bibles can be translated with a bias intrinsic to the translation. That is why I always smile when people say the Scriptures are “inerrant.” I guess that depends to which theology one subscribes.I prefer the word “infallible.”

    Just so you know, Dan Wallace, who you will see as one of the translators, is an old friend. He actually likes me so I am not an anathema to all Calvinists.

  44. Bridget

    The new twist on the word comes out of the neoCalvinists. Love means to discipline someone. Love is the new despised word of the Neo Cals.

  45. @ dee:
    I like you too Dee 🙂

    I actually use the youversion of the Bible on my iPad, so I don’t own any particular translation (other than the NIV I grew up with). My current church uses ESV and it’s the default translation Jeff and Barbara use on ACFJ, so that’s natural for me these days. But I tend to use a variety of translations in my personal study.

    I’ve considered buying a physical ESV for bedtime reading (better on the eyes), but haven’t pulled the trigger yet.

  46. @ Jeff S:

    Believe it or not we have 4 or 5 ESVs in our house (the one on my phone is enough for me). I could mail you one if you want to email me your address. Or is there an address for your other blog? I could mail one there.

  47. @ Bridget:
    Bridget, I appreciate the offer- I still haven’t decided if I’m going to get a study Bible or something without notes just for reading. Like you, for the most part I’m happy to use the electronic version.

  48. @ Anon 1:

    Anon 1, I didn’t notice that the Holman was SBC. My daughter has that translation and we were using it the other day just because it was convenient and I can’t remember what verse exactly I read but I exclaimed what a horrible translation that verse was and I showed her the blueletterbible.org meaning to that verse.

  49. “Anon 1, I didn’t notice that the Holman was SBC. My daughter has that translation and we were using it the other day just because it was convenient and I can’t remember what verse exactly I read but I exclaimed what a horrible translation that verse was and I showed her the blueletterbible.org meaning to that verse.”

    As translations go. All of them have some major glaring problem. NIV has some, too. I don’t use the Holman and it is not popular at all. even in the SBC! Like you, I usually stick with an interlinear for study. I mentioned the Holman because it was a response to the royalty problem with the NIV at Lifeway. Funny how the whole translation business works really when you look into it.

    We simply must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us in all things…even scripture reading!

  50. “If you’ve read Instone-Brewer I think he explains why Malachi should be translated this way; the grammar does not support God being the one “hating” in the passage (it is the “man” who “hates” or “does not love”).”

    Interesting about the TNIV. But then can God hate something He declares Himself as in divorcing Judah? And I do remember reading Instone on that passage. Thanks for pointing that out. I now have a passage to like in the ESV!

  51. “This is what many in the Piper camp believe. Piper has often stated that God’s glory is the ultimate purpose of all that God does. This thinking leaves man as a pawn in a game. How the scriptures concerning love (which Jesus proclaimed the greatest) come into play with this thinking I am at a loss to understand. As I think about Piper, has he often preached on love? Haven’t heard any teachings from CJ on love either. The way I see it, as we love God and one another, God is glorified. As we live life (doing) what God calls good and pleasing, we bring glory to God, just as Jesus’ life did.”

    Bridget, this is almost impossible to get their followers to see. Piper is all about passion and flowery verbosity and that sounds like “love” to people. CJ is all about self deprecating humility and that looks like love to people.

    I sent the Piper Geneva vid to a young YRR guy I know at SBTS and asked his thoughts. He said it was so awesome. God would be so glorified by Piper.

    See how that works? It never dawned on him to question the premise, the format or the words of Piper.

    I agree with Dee about the definition of Love in those circles. It almost means hate in a way. As in “I get to discipline you because I “love” you”.

    This movement has a lot in common with the advent of reeducation camps in old communist countries like China. It is all about redefining concepts.

  52. @ dee:
    Did you know you can get a recording of the KJV New Testament read by Johnny Cash? It was a recent birthday present to my BFF who is his greatest fan.

  53. Anon 1 wrote:

    “Wait a minute — LORAINE BOETTNER? I remember that name in connection with anti-Catholic hate literature. Something about most anti-Catholic hate literature today — from Raul Rees to Jack Chick — is directly plagarized from two anti-Catholic classics: Two Babylons by Hislop and Roman Catholicism by a Loraine Boettner.”
    HUG, I was shocked when I started researching Calvinism and the Reformed movement to find a lot of hatred toward Catholics. You find this in older writings and with some Reformed apologists like James White.
    I find all this ironic since the Reformed movement is a “protest” against Catholic church and kept many of the same methods/beliefs except for the overcorrection on works which they simply reengineered since it was against the law not to attend church with them, too!

    You remind me one of my favorite quotes, which I know I’ve quoted before, but… Says it so well!
    ”Hence it is, that papists and Protestants are hating, fighting, and killing one another for the sake of their different excellent opinions, and yet, as to the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, they are in the highest union and communion with one another….
    And all men or churches, not placing all in the life, light, and guidance of the Holy Spirit of Christ, but pretending to act in the name, and for the glory of God, from opinions which their logic and learning have collected from scripture words, or from what a Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, or some smaller name, has told them to be right or wrong, all such, are but where the apostles were, when “by the way there was a strife among them who should be the greatest.”
    Wm Law

  54. @ dee:
    Please add an open theist. Or ask Roger Olson to represent Open Theism, which he may or may not be, but surely understands as well as anyone.

  55. dee wrote:

    Just so you know, Dan Wallace, who you will see as one of the translators, is an old friend. He actually likes me so I am not an anathema to all Calvinists.

    Cool! I really like Dan Wallace – his NET Bible project that he headed up resulted in one of the best study bibles I’ve found when used on a PC, iPad, Kindle, Phone, and other electronic devices. While Wallace is on the more conservative end of the spectrum than I am and I disagree with some of his theology, his scholarship is first-rate. The NET Bible is chock full of valuable notes and in controversial passages, good discussions of why they chose the reading they did.

  56. @ Jeff S:
    I believe that God has mercy on (perhaps almost) everyone. Just some accept the gift and some do not. I believe that election is God saying I elect to be merciful on humankind and I make a way for people to be saved, faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that gift of mercy is available to those who by faith believe and accept the gift of mercy, which is salvation.

  57. JeffT

    He is considered the Indiana Jones of the Bible manuscript world. Even our local newspaper did a story on him. He travels all over the world to inspect and translate ancient manuscripts.He even came and did a presentation for my Sunday school class when I lived in Dallas (yep-I led it as a woman) on the NET Bible.

  58. dee wrote:

    He is considered the Indiana Jones of the Bible manuscript world. school class when I lived in Dallas (yep-I led it as a woman) on the NET Bible.

    That’s a great description of him. His lecture series on English translations of the Bible is excellent, as is his 2008 debate with Bart Ehrman and the following Q&A session. Too bad Wallace’s school (DTS) won’t allow you to enroll in their seminary programs – boy’s club only for those degrees.

  59. dee wrote:

    JeffT

    I think they do allow women to get an MDiv and a DMin. I know a woman who got one there. I jeu went over to their website and it seems to indicate that they can. Pete Briscoe at Bent Tree Bible has a female pastor-Joann Hummel who got her degree there. I attended church there when I lived in Dallas and respect Joann greatly!

    http://bible.org/article/your-churches’-policy-regarding-women-ministry-risks-and-rewards-written-position-statement-

    Sounds like DTS has something of a ‘tweener’ position on the issue. I just checked to see if it had changed, but it’s the same as I remember the last time I checked. Here’s what’s in their catalog –

    “While all programs at DTS are coeducational, the Seminary holds the position that
    Scripture limits to men the roles of elder and senior pastor in the local church. Therefore the Seminary programs of study are not designed to prepare women for these roles.”

    http://www.dts.edu/download/admissions/DTS-Catalog-2012-2013.pdf

    I also found this, but it’s dated 2008 “All of Dallas Seminary’s academic programs are open to women students, except for those programs specifically designed to prepare students for the role of the senior pastor.”

  60. JeffT

    Since there are no Senior Pastor masters degrees , they scoot around the issue. It is kind of funny.

  61. dee wrote:

    JeffT

    Since there are no Senior Pastor masters degrees , they scoot around the issue. It is kind of funny.

    Thanks Dee! Now it makes sense. I had them on my seminary ‘naughty’ list based on what I had found before.

  62. Dee – what about asking Wade Bursledon to do a post as a non-Calvinista Calvinist? Just a thought!

  63. @ Jeff S

    I thought you might like to know that the translation of Malachi 2:16 in the Biblica 2011 update of the NIV is much improved 🙂

    “‘The man who hates and divorces his wife,’ says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘does violence to the one he should protect.’ says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.'” Malachi 2:16 (NIV)

  64. Bruiser’s Delight: “God Wants Ta Share His Popcorn?”

    HowDee,

    God gives an individual an opportunity, who hears the gospel message , whom, of their own free will, choose to believe the gospel message and put their faith in Christ, and His finished work.  

    God provides grace to the listener, and grace to those who believe the gospel message of Christ’s finished work, and calls upon the name of the Lord, as to be saved. 

    (sure da Lord draws kind folk unto Himself…He’s God rememba?)

    The Lord then births a new life within the believer, and pours out to that individual, His Holy Spirit. 

    (this help, the believer really needs…)

    The war of the two natures begins, yet to the believer who continues by God’s grace faith in Christ’s finished work, victory over sin, the internal working of redemption, salvation, and restoration to God Himself will be successfully brought to a good conclusion.

    However, this is a lifetimes work, with many pitfalls, and trials. Yet God is forever faithful to keep His promises! 

    Yahooooo!

    This is a relationship with the living God, by the power of The Holy Ghost. 

    hmmm…

    (As with any relationship, this is a two way street. To have a relationship both must do their part if the relationship is to be faithfully  and healthily maintained. )

    And so it is with the Lord.  

    Note: The Lord may pursue an individual all their natural born life; Yet the individual may resist that grace to eternal damnation should they choose.  (don’t doooo dat!)

    Remember, dar is a Plaze call’d “Hell” fixed up wit pretty curtains and every comfort ( -snicker- ) fer da devil and his cohorts. Believe U me, ya don’t want ta b there.

    Ouch!

    God loves Man and desires to birth many sons and daughters. He has even prepared a plaze (in His House) for all da kind folk dat call upon His name!

    Have you done so?

    He can do so ‘now’ that Christ redeeming work is completed and has provide an entrance and an opportunity for redeeming faith in the individual, and the offer of grace by God Himself.

    In the O.T. (da Bible Old Testament)  , God offered the Israelite a choice at Sinai, “Choose this day whom you will serve”; furthermore, when receiving the Law (da ten commandments) from God’s own finger, the Israelite was given a choice to follow or not.  They said that they would, and God blessed that choice with a covenant of blessings and  warning of a possible cursing. The blessings were given as the guarantee of God’s faithfulness, the cursing would be a result of the Israelite’s own unfaithfulness to his own promise. His actions toward this covenant would determine the course of action God would take himself.

    (dat Man headed fer da divorce court in short order, is another story…)

    Fast forward…

    Let the reader remember that God was fulfilling the “Bruise ” promise He made to Man, and his Helpmate, in the Garden. 

    God would bring restoration to His relationship with Man. 

    He raised up Israel for that very purpose. 

    God long desires a relationship with His creation, Man, and He has worked tirelessly for thousands of years of recorded history to do so. 

    In choosing a Man (Abram), and out of that one man, a people for Himself, God brought the lineage of His Son. And through His precious Son the Garden “Bruise” promise fulfillment.

    The restoration of Man would fully be accomplished, His enemy’s vanquishes, His Son triumphing as King of all Mankind, the quick, and the dead.

    A happy ending indeed!

    Whew!

    This will be so accomplished as the Lord’s Word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes that which it was intended.

    (forever faithful He is!)

    Christ being successful, will one day return at the Father’s command, and take His rightful place among the nations of the earth.

    Until then God has asked his saints to go out to the highways and byways and bid kind folk ta come!

    “All those who call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” So He has spoken , so He will fulfill. 

    Blessed be the Lord!

    Call upon Him today!

    (datz right…You! there)

    -snicker-

    His watchful eye is ever upon the sparrow! His heart is tender, and full of compassion!

    Again, call upon Him today!

    Cheeeeeese!

    He is listening for your call!

    (…don’t wait too long, He might eat all da buddered popcorn!

    (grin)

    hahahahaha

    Sopy

    P.S. [Disclaimer] In the last days, God has spoken to us through His Son! (da Bible sayz dis)  Why, Oh! Why, would you want ta listen ta any one else? (hint!, hint! read your Bible!)

    P.P.S. Sticks and stones may break ma bones, but Calvinesta words will never hurt me! (grin)

    P.P.P.S  New & Old Testament Bible translator Wm. Tyndale spoke these following words prior to his strangulation and eventful burning at the pyre his limp, and lifeless body, ” Lord!,  Open the king of England’s eyes!” (God did!) Even so Lord!, Open da people’s eyes! Amen! 

    *
    stay away from dem matches , I’m filled with Polyester hollo-fill… (dat is what da tag sayz… 🙂

  65. Just reading the whole context regarding divorce in Malachi along with other scriptures, I believe the premise is that God hates what leads to divorce. He uses it Himself when his people cheat on him., and Jesus said it was allowed by Moses because of the hardening of people’s hearts. It’s a necessity sometimes. Malachi says God intended the marriage union to keep the offspring(also metaphor for for any fruit or outcome) pure. If God’s people or a spouse are uniting themselves to a foreign god or a foreign partner, their is cruelty and wickedness mixed in with what should be holy and good, this is what brings destruction, not the divorce itself. It would be a double curse IMO from God if He were saying that the priests in Malachi who were bringing foreign wives into their marriages and not repenting were not allowed to give their wives a legal certificate so thereby forcing their wives to be a participant in their evil by being trapped in tainted union. Sure, the divorce is painful, but being forced into staying in an unholy union would be worse. And certainly God is against us mixing with evil.
    Even if the translation that God hates the ‘sending away’ is correct it, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t agree that it is the natural outcome of the sins that lead up to it.

  66. @ MM:
    Thanks for sharing that- I had not seen it and I find it greatly encouraging. I do believe we are going to see this rendering more with new tranlsations. It seems to me that scholars are almost all in agreement that the one hating is the man, not God.

    I also should mention that Barbara Roberts deals with this translation issue in her book “Not Under Bondage”, which is an excellent resource for anyone who has questions about scripture and domestice abuse. (She’s a friend, so I will shameless plug away!)

  67. 1. I’d never heard that there were translation issues with that Malachi divorce passage. Any internet resources I can use to acquaint myself with the problem? If true that could really upset Piper’s applecart.

    2. I don’t know about anti-Catholic hate stuff (though that wouldn’t surprise me at all) but just for everyone’s information, Monergism.com, a huge neo-Calvinist and traditional Calvinist theology site, has lots of Lorraine Boettner, though not, it appears, the book HUG listed above. They also have lots of James White, including TONS of him on the Roman Catholicism page(s) (I just checked). If Boettner helped father any kind of anti-Catholic hate, they don’t seem to be aware of it. And for the record, that Boettner quote about the lost is pretty jerk-y.

    3. Dee, I think this might qualify as the longest thread in TWW history. It was posted 10 days ago and it’s still going. And no one’s flown off the handle or ripped each other to pieces! : )

  68. Hester wrote:

    1. I’d never heard that there were translation issues with that Malachi divorce passage. Any internet resources I can use to acquaint myself with the problem? If true that could really upset Piper’s applecart.

    http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/malachi.2.16.collins.pdf

    But I do encourage peopel to check out Barbara Robert’s book (she is a friend and co-blogger 🙂 )

    Sadly, Piper does not appeal to this verse at all in his views on Divorce and Remarriage. I’m sure he is aware of the ESV translation (it is, after all, the Elect Standard Version).

  69. Hester wrote:

    I don’t know about anti-Catholic hate stuff (though that wouldn’t surprise me at all) but just for everyone’s information, Monergism.com, a huge neo-Calvinist and traditional Calvinist theology site, has lots of Lorraine Boettner, though not, it appears, the book HUG listed above. They also have lots of James White, including TONS of him on the Roman Catholicism page(s) (I just checked). If Boettner helped father any kind of anti-Catholic hate, they don’t seem to be aware of it. And for the record, that Boettner quote about the lost is pretty jerk-y.

    OK. I remember reading about that anti-Catholic hate literature years ago, and associating the name with it, but I might have gotten similar names confused. My memory tends to be very hit-or-miss, but when it hits it hits solid.

  70. Argo wrote:

    Yeah, I came to this conclusion as well. If determinism is true the even God Himself must then be determined. And whatever determines Him is determined; and whatever determines the determinism is also determined. And on and on… It obliterates any purpose of God. Really determinism is merely nihilism.

    “But murder is of the will, which God has made free.”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Doom of the Darnaways” (Father Brown Mystery where determinism is a major plot point)

  71. Anon 1 wrote:

    If God created the world and humans designed to fall so that HE could glorify Himself through all the sin that commenced giving man NO volition except to live out his depravity what does that make God?

    In the words of JMJ/Christian Monist, “Omnipotent but not Benevolent.”

    The Paradox of Evil:
    1) God is All-Powerful.
    2) God is All-Good.
    3) Evil Exists.
    Any two of these, no problem. All three, you have a paradox.

    Both Calvin & Mohammed, resolved this paradox by redefining (2) to put God beyond Good and Evil (i.e. God can Will Evil and who are we mortals to say otherwise), and their followers pushed the envelope even farther until you get what you see today.

  72. Well, Dee, what are you up to this lovely Friday evening? We are enjoying some very warm weather (70 degrees at 8pm). Had a lovely dinner with hubby and our son who came home from college for the weekend unexpectedly 🙂

  73. @ Dave A A

    ”Hence it is, that papists and Protestants are hating, fighting, and killing one another for the sake of their different excellent opinions, and yet, as to the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, they are in the highest union and communion with one another….
    And all men or churches, not placing all in the life, light, and guidance of the Holy Spirit of Christ, but pretending to act in the name, and for the glory of God, form opinions which their logic and learning have collected from scripture words, or from what a Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, or some smaller name, has told them to be right or wrong, all such, are but where the apostles were, when “by the way there was a strife among them who should be the greatest.”
    Wm Law

    Thanks for this great quote 🙂

  74. “And all men or churches, not placing all in the life, light, and guidance of the Holy Spirit of Christ, but pretending to act in the name, and for the glory of God, form opinions which their logic and learning have collected from scripture words, or from what a Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, or some smaller name, has told them to be right or wrong,…”

    In my earlier days in reformed circles I came across some reformed young men who would not only “form opinions which their logic and learning had collected” but also adopted personae that reflected the personalities of the writers of the diaries/memoirs they had been reading – especially those of the Puritans. They seemed to prefer the dour, melancholic, grim types!

  75. A good “frozen chosen” joke from comedian Emo Philips:

    “Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

    He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

    He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

    Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.”

  76. “Hmmmm can anyone oblige Dee and Deb and take this post over 700?” – Dee

    I am trying…. 🙂

  77. @ HUG:

    “I remember reading about that anti-Catholic hate literature years ago, and associating the name with it, but I might have gotten similar names confused.”

    It doesn’t mean you’re wrong because Monergism didn’t carry any Boettner on Catholicism…it could mean he was so hateful that they knew better. They definitely have no qualms about picking on Catholics. I will have to look Boettner up – I never knew who he was and never read any of his stuff anyway.

  78. Bridget

    How terribly kind of you. I am so glad you dinner was good, your son is home and the post is over 700! Having a good laugh this AM.

  79. Hester

    Send my your address and your favorite type of Holy Chocolate. This cult rewards obedience!

  80. @ Eagle:

    I definitely believe in reformed theology (The Five Solas and Tulip) and am also an egalitarian. The two are not intrinsically contradictory. Many Arminians are also patriarchists and liberals have their own set of issues. C.J. and Piper deserve criticism, not because of their reformed theology, but because they have not been more faithful to that theology. William Wilberforce was also a Calvinist and his faith spurred on his lifelong struggle to stop slavery. When we mix human traditions with truth we get an evil result. This is what has happened in this situation – human pride over truth that humbles us all.

  81. @ HUG:

    Here’s the Wikipedia info on Loraine Boettner. I told you you were right!

    “Loraine Boettner (March 7, 1901 – January 3, 1990) was an American theologian and author. He is the author of an influential anti-Catholic book, which has been criticized for its anti-Catholic bias and ‘lack of scholarly rigor.’

    Boettner was born in Linden, MO. He received a Th.B. (1928) and Th.M. (1929) from Princeton Theological Seminary, and he received the honorary degrees of Doctor of Divinity (1933) and Doctor of Letters (1957). He was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. For eight years he taught Bible at Pikeville College in Kentucky, and in 1937 he began working at the Library of Congress and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

    While his daily vocation was not theology or Biblical studies, he continued to write and publish books until near his death, the most successful of which were The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination and Roman Catholicism, Boettner’s critical commentary on the Roman Catholic faith. This book has been called by its critics ‘The Anti-Catholic Bible’ because of the author’s aim to antagonize the Catholic Church, which, according to them, ‘has gravely compromised his intellectual objectivity.’ A recent doctoral study claims that the research done by Boettner in Roman Catholicism ‘is simply flimsy’ and ‘makes use of old and refuted anti-Catholic cliches.'”

  82. This is only my first or second time to this site, and I must say I am quite taken aback by the snark. Whatever one may think about Piper’s views, we do not know what is in his heart, or why he has chosen not to speak out about the SGM issue. It couldn’t be because he doesn’t want to speak about a case with serious accusations that haven’t yet been proven in court or otherwise substantiated, could it?! This whole situation with SGM must grieve the heart of God; surely we would all do better to grieve rather than gloat, or cast stones, or engage in character assassination. I felt as if I had been slimed after reading the original blog post, which drips with contempt and scorn. They will know we are Christians by our what? Oh, yeah–our love for one another. But it is the antithesis of love to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ, which has surely been done here. Constructive criticism is one thing; pot shots are another thing altogether. If this is the state of affairs in the Christian church today, we’re doomed.

  83. Kathy
    Welcome to TWW.

    I am so excited. You are the second person to accuse us of character assassination. However, you are not as well known as the first guy who was a famous mega church pastor who declined our invitation to speak to CJ Mahaney about the despicable reports coming out of SGM. It might have saved some folks a lawsuit but name-calling is always more fun.

    You have no idea what is going on this blog or with the people who visit here. You misuse tedious, ho-hum words like “slander.” Do you know the definition of slander? “The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” What you really mean is libel which is written. Please research your word usage first. Also, note that both libel and slander involve knowingly reporting something which is false.

    Now that you have the correct definitions (I bet you heard these words misused from a church pulpit-pastors loooove the slander word) would you please now define what we have said that is false and that we knew was false when we said it? You do have an obligation to do that since you have accused us of a crime and you said that such a crimes was “surely done here.” Please elaborate on this in more detail. There are some lawyers who read this blog who might find your analysis intriguing.

    It is also the antithesis of love to accuse your sisters in Christ of a crime when you have no knowledge or proof thereof. Oh yeah, talk about character assassination…

  84. Umm…Aren’t You Guilty of Character Assassination, Kathy?
    @ Kathy:

    Hello Kathy. Ironically, it seems you prefer to assassinate the character of the folks here rather than do any research into the well substantiated allegations of covering up sexual abuse that SGM claims should be thrown out because pastors don’t have to follow laws regular folks are subject to.

    If you change your mind about that approach check out this article, from the secular media, in which former SGM pastors freely admit that they endangered kids in their congregations by not following mandatory reporting requirements.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/former-christian-school-teacher-accused-of-molesting-boys/article/2520547

    As for Piper, I’m not worried about what’s in his heart because I don’t see any evidence that he has either a heart or a backbone. Do you?

  85. @ Dee

    Ha ha…. I think you missed MY valiant attempt to get you over 700? I’ll have to contact John Piper to ask if sulking is a waste of my life – or CJ to teach me about humility 🙂

  86. Snark? gloat? cast stones? character assassination? lack of love? slander? pot shots?

    Wow Kathy, can’t you see that this is what you have done here?

  87. Wow, over 700 comments. Let me add another

    Kathy,
    I must openly admit that I have no clue what is going on in Piper’s heart.
    All I see is his reptilian or Vulcan (as in Star Trek) version of the gospel which is cold blooded and aloof.

    Whatever is in Piper’s heart, only God knows. But I know that we shall know them by their fruit, and Piper’s fruit, in the theological arena, well… It’s rotten.

    Here is what I put in another comment here. You must have missed it. So here it goes again.

    How many strikes does Piper get?
    You have heard of “3 strikes, you’re out”?
    I think Piper is working on strike number, wait, I’ve lost count.

    1. He loves Mark Driscoll’s theology. (this is a pretty big strike. in fact, “1 strike your out” kind of applies when it’s this big.

    2. He doesn’t allow women to read scripture out loud in the assembly.
    3. His contributions as editor and writer of that horrible piece of tripe “RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD.”

    4. The stupid things he says concerning God’s sovereignty during times of disaster.

    5. His abuse and over-use of flowery adjectives to make the b!tter pill of his b!tter gospel more swallowable to poor, unsuspecting souls. (hope it’s okay to use the word b!tter here.)

    6. And now, to prove that he isn’t getting soft in his retirement years, he’s going to speak at SGM in support of CJ.

    Gee, how many strikes are the referees gonna let him have before he’s out. He should have been out long ago. How can he even still be relevant in the minds of so many.

    (Note back to Kathy. Yes, I know that we are supposed to forgive our brothers 70 X 7 when they sin against us and come asking for forgiveness. But this doesn’t apply to leaders getting to stay leaders when they unrepentantly push their aberrant view of the gospel and support and uphold abusive, totalitarian systems that misrepresent Christ and whose leaders are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing.)

  88. “Whatever one may think about Piper’s views, we do not know what is in his heart, or why he has chosen not to speak out about the SGM issue.”

    This one gets so tiring. It is like some mantra the guru followers trot out to covr over a lot of evil and false teaching. How come so many do not believe that what is in the heart COMES OUT in teaching and behavior? Why do so many seem to believe that what comes out in teaching and behavior is NOT what is in the heart?

    How do they define fruit? Some secret trait we are never to see? There is good fruit inside a person but it never comes out in behavior or teaching.

    Seems odd to me that people actually believe that Christianity is so secret and hidden and we should ignore the outward actions and teaching from the mouths of these leaders. Somewhere, somehow their hearts must be right we just cannot see it.

    What a strange religion.

  89. I seems many people see a different fruit. Books and speaking engagements are fruit to many people. Well, there are actually people who say that Piper’s writing and sermons have really helped them. I often find these people to be living in a surreal state of being and they always adore his flowery writing.

  90. I stand corrected; the word is libel, since it was written, not spoken.

    I commented on what I perceived to be the tone of this site. Reading the comments after mine, my viewpoint has not changed one iota.

    It may be tiring to some to repeat this, but we simply do not know what is going on in someone’s heart; we don’t even know what is going on in our own hearts, which is why the psalmist asked God to search his heart. To think that we know the reasoning for someone else’s actions (or inaction) is presumptuous in my book.

    I had Piper as a professor many, many years ago and was impressed by his sincere love for God and His Word, and his desire to point people to Christ. As we grieve what has transpired with SGM and all the innocent people affected by it, my hope would be that we will continue to point people to Christ rather than just point fingers at one another. I had no desire or intention to be snarky; I was just struck by the acid tone and the rush to judgment. “He who states his case first” isn’t always the one in the right. And ultimately, only God knows what actually happened, and one day He will make it right.

  91. @ Kathy:
    And Piper will have to stand before God and explain why he advocated a woman submit to a beating by her husband, especially if one who does so ends up dead. I do not know what is in Piper’s heart, but I have seen enough of his writings to know what is not in his mind, and the love of God is clearly not there. If it were, he would at least mention the small children who SGM pastors made to confront and forgive the men who sexually abused them. THERE IS NO EXCUSE for Piper to support CJ and SGM at this time, without also expressing care and concern for the victims. He has not behaved as Jesus taught and has instead given comfort to the abusers.

  92. Oh bother, we don’t know our own hearts and who ever states their case first . . . Two of the most misquoted scriptures of all time and they must mean to “just do nothing and go with the flow.” Don’t have time for much else on this one right now, but . . . I’ll leave it.

  93. @ Kathy:

    I Apologize Kathy/Can You Clarify Your Viewpoint on SGM?
    Hello Kathy:

    Thanks for the reply. I apologize for my tone. As someone who has interacted directly with the family of one victim and listened to the horror stories of others, for more than two years, I reacted unkindly to the idea that the allegations, ranging from letting a known pedophile ring operate in a Church with impunity to making a 3-year-old forgive a perpetrator, against Mahaney and other SGM pastors, are unsubstantiated.

    They’re so substantiated that the defendants don’t even appear to be claiming they didn’t do what they’re accused of doing. They’re just trying to get off on a technicality pertaining to their supposed First Amendment rights to ignore the law and society’s ethical standards about protecting children because they’re religious leaders.

    But you’re right. Even though I believe that John Piper has probably known about SGM’s history of covering up abuse for a long time, given its magnitude and his long association with the pastors in question, he is as worthy of prayers as anyone else and only God can truly judge what’s in his heart.

    However, that doesn’t free him from a moral obligation to explain why he’s praising all things SGM despite the fact that they have clearly failed/are still failing to responsibly protect children in their care. In my opinion, he should also tell the world whether, in general, pastors who let pedophile rings run wild in their churches should be hiding behind the First Amendment as a defense strategy.

    Have You Changed Your Mind About the Allegations?
    I’m also a little confused as your comments seem contradictory:

    First Comment

    Whatever one may think about Piper’s views, we do not know what is in his heart, or why he has chosen not to speak out about the SGM issue. It couldn’t be because he doesn’t want to speak about a case with serious accusations that haven’t yet been proven in court or otherwise substantiated, could it?!

    Second Comment

    “As we grieve what has transpired with SGM and all the innocent people affected by it, my hope would be that we will continue to point people to Christ rather than just point fingers at one another.”

    Initially you seem angry that the posters here are throwing stones at Piper based on allegations that aren’t substantiated.Your second comment seems to be an acknowledgment that they are.

    If so, perhaps you could appeal to John Piper to make his views about SGM’s sex abuse problem clear. Part of the snark factor here is likely due to frustration that he’s not adhering to his principles of Godly masculinity by standing up for his views on SGM, whatever they may be.

  94. “It may be tiring to some to repeat this, but we simply do not know what is going on in someone’s heart; we don’t even know what is going on in our own hearts, which is why the psalmist asked God to search his heart. To think that we know the reasoning for someone else’s actions (or inaction) is presumptuous in my book.”

    Kathy, The Psalms are poetry and MAN talking to God. Are you suggesting that David is making the case that no human can have the indwelling Holy Spirit sent after the resurrection of Messiah to guide their heart? Only God can know our heart? We cannot? I know for a fact in my heart, because I love truth and justice and have a “heart” for those abused that Piper going to SGM knowing they are trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment….was wrong. His actions show he is using his influence to prop up Mahaney. His ACTIONS speak loud. You want us to believe his actions bely what is in his heart. You do realize that is not what scripture teaches? Could I say I do not know what was in Judas’ heart? Does that sound reasonable to you? After all, we should not look at his actions or words?

    “He who states his case first” isn’t always the one in the right. And ultimately, only God knows what actually happened, and one day He will make it right.

    I find it ironic you are quoting one of Mahaney’s favorite passages used on people who came to him concerning situations. It is meant to shut them up. You are also implying we should not seek Justice and truth here and now. That it is a sin and we shoudl let God handle it. That would follow the typical Piper teaching in the REformed tradition that we humans have no volition. Well, except the leaders and they have some special anointing. Perhaps we should wait around for God to deal with murderers? Isn’t that where your thinking leads or is is just when it deals with our favorite celebs?

    I am hoping you will think your positions through to their logical conclusions.

  95. Kathy

    I want to know if, and why, you are accusing the two of us of libel since it is a crime. This means that we knowingly print something which is false in order to defame. I weary of people who make such claims and then continue as if there is no problem. You said we were guilty of this crime and I would like an answer as opposed to sidestepping to the “tone” issue. It is VERY, VERY serious to accuse people of a crime and I want either an answer or a retraction. Before you comment again, please address my question. 

    Now, onto real crimes. You said

    As we grieve what has transpired with SGM and all the innocent people affected by it, my hope would be that we will continue to point people to Christ rather than just point fingers at one another

    Why don’t you tell me how we are to report alleged crimes? You seem to equate pointing to Jesus as be exclusive of supporting justice for victims. Do we wait for God’s judgment and ignore the fact that it is He who created our governement and judicial system? 

    Why don’t you tell me exactly who you are thinking of when you say this.

    He who states his case first” isn’t always the one in the right.

    There have been allegation after allegation spanning many years and involving various churches within SGM. So, who is the singular “he” to whom you refer? The first kid who reported being molested? Do you not understand that there are many, many allegations? Where is ground zero for stating one’s case first? I assume that you understand this situation since you have made this claim.

    Suppose you had a young child who was forced to forgive her pedophile. Would you wait until eternity for God to judge or would you do something about it in the here and now?

    Piper has, by his actions, taken up the cause of SGM and, in so doing, has ignored the years of pain and sorrows as reported on SGM Survivors, SGM Refuge and this blog. It would seeem to me that Piper should do a whole heckuva lot more grieving for victims since he has not even acknowleged those whose pedophile were convicted.

    Be very careful when you use the word “tone.” You do not see the people who write the comments. You do not know their pain. Perhaps you might consider setting. aside your biases and look a little deeper.

    I will wait for you retraction or your proof of libel on this blog since you claim it surely has happened.

     

     

  96. @ Kathy:

    The Only One Saying Untruthful Things is You, Kathy

    Kathy, I don’t know if your comments rise to the level of slander/libel but you’ve said several things that are untrue –

    1) “I commented on what I perceived to be the tone of this site”

    No you didn’t. You immediately accused everyone here of libel and character assassination.

    2) “It couldn’t be because he doesn’t want to speak about a case with serious accusations that haven’t yet been proven in court or otherwise substantiated, could it?!”

    No, it couldn’t because there’s lots of evidence that the accusations are true. A Google search would have shown you that. You’re also implying that the victims should be treated as liars unless proven otherwise. That doesn’t seem aligned with the Godly character you’re promoting.

    3) “To think that we know the reasoning for someone else’s actions (or inaction) is presumptuous in my book.”

    Clearly you don’t think it’s presumptuous to judge the motives of others because that’s all you’ve done since you got here.

    4) “Reading the comments after mine, my viewpoint has not changed one iota.”

    If your viewpoint didn’t change, why did you contradict yourself? Why did you go from saying the accusations in question were unsubstantiated to implying that they were truthful after I posted an article link in which SGM pastors confessed as much.

  97. No one here has committed slander or libel. Dee is right, those are crimes with very specific legal definitions. Central to which is prior knowledge of the speaker that they statement they made is false, but they made it anyway. I’m sure An Attorney can provide more detail on this point.

  98. Also, since the plaintiffs have tried for many years to be heard and been ignored, personally I think it is SGM who “stated their case first.”

  99. Marshall

    Kathy has accused us of slander but she now knows she needs to use the word libel. This is a legal term which means I knowingly presented a falsehood in order to defame. I take such charges very seriously.She must show me such activity or she is flinging around words that are dangerous and I am not amused.

  100. Hester

    Before I started this blog, I asked Jeff Anderson who is a world class attorney who has successfully sued on behalf of the victims of the RCC. Look him up on Wkikpedia. I specifically asked him this question. He said that I am allowed to say what I believe to be true. But I cannot say something that I know is not true. So, I can say that I think CJ Mahaney poorly managed his SGM orgnization and I think he has no business being the pastor of any church. However, I cannot call CJ Mahaney a transvestite because I know that is not true.

  101. @ dee:

    I agree with your position 100%, Dee. Sorry if I gave the impression that I did not. I just wanted to point out that Kathy’s accusing people of libel while being less than truthful herself.

    That’s kind of a double whammy regarding her integrity.

  102. Dee, So it is NOT libel to write that I think John Piper’s actions in going to SGM to speak was to help Mahaney. I don’t have to know his heart to interpret his public actions and words? :o)

    BTW: What Kathy is really doing is using the God defense. I always find it despicable to use God that way but it is very typical in many evangelical circles. The defense is brought out to what they think are dumb sheep that only God can know a person’s heart so that means you are in sin for speaking about a PUBLIC persons PUBLIC actions and words.

    Amazing how many people will fall for that defense and think it makes Christian sense. The closing of the evangelical mind?

    I have family who studied with Piper and worked for him. And trust me, they came back different people. Not thinking people, either. Indoctrinated people who confused passion for truth.

  103. Wow, I have waded into tall weeds! But I have only myself to blame. I should have just read the initial blog post, realized that this was not a site whose tone or viewpoint I agreed with, and backed out again quietly. When I offered my candid reaction to what I read, I was put under a microscope; but again, that is my own fault. I take responsibility and will think carefully in the future before I try to express my response to or views on a blog post, especially on a site that appears to take a different stance from mine. I wasn’t (consciously, at least) judging the motives of the writers(s) of the initial post; I was just reacting to the words and tone, which seemed unnecessarily harsh to me. (“In the end, I do believe this is linked to a rigid form of theology on gender that invades everything Piper does. Last year we posted a blog about Ian and Larissa here. It is my opinion that Piper used this young couple to promote his unyielding agenda. Join me in praying that God might melt John Piper’s heart which appears to be frozen solid.”) Nor was I “accusing” anyone of a “crime.” My intent was to convey that I was troubled by what seemed to be an attack on a brother in Christ. I did not communicate that clearly or well, and I adopted a somewhat sarcastic tone that wasn’t helpful. So now that I have been duly put in my place by many of you, I will leave you to your discussion without further comment from me. Thank you very much for the feedback. One learns a great deal more from critics than from fans. This has been a learning experience.

  104. @ Kathy:Kathy,
    I think you were defending someone whom you knew years ago and who probably at the time was a good teacher. But there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, and Piper has moved to an extreme form of theology and extreme positions on its application, and neither of those can be justified by educated exegesis of the scripture. He has advocated an extreme form of patriarchialism, to the point of women submitting to physical beatings by their spouse and a totally disabled man, without ability to communicate, is to be considered the head of household and his wife is to submit to him. Those positions are beyond a reasonable understanding and application of the Bible.

    Then, in the middle of a long-running controversy about SGM, with many documented cases of abuse, including sexual abuse of children and then spiritual abuse of those children and their parents, as well as a lawsuit, Piper chose to go preach at C J Mahaney’s church and praise him in the process, without making any effort to address the controversy or the suit, except to praise Mahaney. Not one word of condolence or sorrow about the abuse of teh children. It bespeaks a cold heart that is not attuned to the “least of these” Jesus taught us to care for in Matthew 25 and elsewhere.

  105. I have heard it said from a man in my former church that given the same scenario as the John/Sarah thing, he would not do anything to protect himself or his lady. That’s God’s job. I thought THAT faulty logic at the time as well.

    Also, my husband is disabled and in a wheelchair. He used to feel guilty that he didn’t have the strength or ability to protect me should I ever come under attack. I have spent nearly 13 years telling him that his strength isn’t in his muscles or abilities but in his heart and character and that’s what is important to me. I don’t need a guilt-ridden husband. I need a loving, caring husband that feels good about what he CAN do, not ashamed at what he can’t.

  106. Amy, God Bless you.

    Yes, faulty logic. In fact, no logic at all. This is pervading Christianity. God controls everything. We are not to reason, think, or even act in some cases. I bet that same man took his kids to the doctor when they were sick? If not the state would have to intervene.

    What is it making Christianity so anti thinking AND acting?

  107. Anon 1 wrote:

    What is it making Christianity so anti thinking AND acting?

    . . . worship of “pure” doctrine instead of living the two greatest commandments.

    Thanks, Amy, for living the latter!

  108. Ryan wrote:

    @ Jeff S:
    “However, from the pattern of arrogant attitudes I’ve encountered, these young New Calvinists have really rubbed me the wrong way. An example include James R. White, who continuously maligns and mocks (in a juvenile manner) other apologists such as Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and others. White doesn’t even talk to his own sister, who converted to Catholicism. I ask: What use is it to be an apologist when you cannot even show some love within your own family? And to add insult, young Calvinists make continual excuses for White’s unloving and un-Christlike behaviour.”

    Either you don’t understand the situations that James White is responding to or you are deliberately misrepresenting his position. I don’t know, but I do know that James White is no more “arrogant” or “mocking” than many of those here who are responding to the obvious hypocrisy of SGM and Piper in this blog.

    One example: Norman Geisler has chosen to coverup the public lies that Ergun Caner repeatedly spoke distorting the facts of his own background as a former Muslim. Because James White debates Muslims, he is aware of how Caner’s lies are being used by real Muslims to illustrate the lack of integrity among Christians. White asked the leaders surrounding Caner to deal with his public lying, to help him confess,repent and hopefully be restored. Instead, those at Liberty University and others like Norman Geisler are doing the same kind of things that Piper and SGM are being accused of, coverup and circling the wagons around Caner – while demonizing his critics like James White. Because James White spoke up, he is now excluded from participating in conferences and other opportunities that were open to him before. Sounds familiar?! He still is asking those involved to “come clean” but they won’t. Geisler still won’t respond after years of asking. Caner resigned from Liberty and now is at a smaller school somewhere in the South. Just as you all have sounded cynical about the behavior of Piper and C.J., can you now blame White for his moments in doing the same? He too cares about the state of the Church.