Nothing burns like the cold. George R.R. Martin
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 Corner: Deuteronomy 32:28-52 Luke 12:35-59 Psalm 78:56-64 Proverbs 12:24
Holy moly!
I am bringing a comment I made on another thread over here because it so fits as how Piper and CJ view themselves
OH MY WORD. Just when we thought Piper could not get anymore bizarro world, you have to listen to this:
http://pilgrimagetogeneva.com/2013/02/13/sinners-and-saints-radio-on-john-piper-and-dgm/
Go to 50 min mark and listen.
Go to the 50 min mark and listen to Piper talk about his next phase as some sort of global apostle or passtor to the world as the “world needs to hear an authentic testimony from a living voice and the world needs solid teaching….” or something like that. He really says that about himself!!! He went to Geneva to announce this?
Keep in mind the pastors doing the program are Reformed and early on chide Piper for not being a real Calvinist. But what Piper says about HIMSELF is down right scary. He really sees himself this way?
This is the stuff of fiction, folks. He fits right in with CJ.
Be sure and watch the video at the same link of Piper in Geneva where he is announcing his future plans. Not exactly a cheap way to make an announcement as the 21st Century Calvin!
Dude is weird. I can’t be more precise.
I’d like Piper to clarify. Man is in a wheel chair due to broken leg. Wife is wheeling him into McD’s. What next?
Or what about the man with serious brian injuries who is the head of his household. What if he can’t react fast enough to even try and protect his wife. Should she “submit” and die?
I said this over at SGM Survivors regarding Piper’s Louisville sermon: I listened to the first couple of minutes of the Piper sermon. (That’s about all I can stomach of Piper at one stretch.) He said he loves SGM and he loves what God is doing in SGM. I had to laugh out loud! Is it the exposure of hypocrisy, corruption, and abusive authoritarianism that he loves? The discipline and dismantling of this man made operation? Is he really so clueless, or was he being disingenuous?
“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.”
Why am I picturing the last march of the Ents from LOTR? ; )
Okay, serious now. My problem with the Jason and Sarah example above is that John 15:13 is not gender-specific (obvious from the context despite the fact that the word “his” is used). According to this verse, it would be just as loving of Sarah to lay down her life for Jason than vice versa. And how is Sarah being “loving” by standing around letting incompetent Jason, essentially, needlessly die for her? “Hey, Jason, I love you so much I’m gonna let this mugger knife and probably kill you (even though I have a black belt and could not only take down a criminal – who we could then hand over to the cops and thus get off the streets, keeping even more people safe – but also save both our lives)! Aren’t you glad I love you so much? MY HERO!” Looked at from this perspective, Sarah looks pretty self-absorbed…and not very loving.
John 15:13 is absolute and there’s no warrant from the context to read gender roles into it at all. You would have to bring several layers of presuppositions to the text to get it to apply only to men. Did Piper even mention this verse?
@ Donald Philip Veitch:
DPV –
You must have listened to the sermon and disagreed with the sacredness of the “holy” word.
@ Marge:
Personally, I think he’s clueless. I’ve seen way too many people sucked into negative things who really, sincerely think they are doing good. It’s amazing the kind of mental processes people can construct when they don’t want to believe something. I am distinctly reminded of Morton’s Demon.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
Of course, none of this means that Piper is without excuse…not even close. Esp. since we are now up to at least 8-9 witnesses (and that’s only counting the plaintiffs, not any family members). It’s rapidly approaching (if it hasn’t already) a Biblical obligation to at the VERY least take a long hard look.
@ Hester:
Nope. Piper’s logic is that God made the male “first” and all his logic runs downhill from there.
There are a couple of things that amaze me about the SGM abuse spectacle. One is that the people who say they love CJ Mahaney don’t seem to love him enough to suggest to him that stepping back might be better for both himself and his ministry. The other is that the neo-calvinist divas who preach church discipline as restoration are not preaching it to SGM.
Actually, come to think of it, Morton’s Demon would probably explain most of the reaction to the SGM lawsuit in the Reformed community… The little devil will have to start putting padlocks on the gate before long.
Dee – Don’t stop writing. You’re good. BTW, the Vimeo video is not working – shows a message: Sorry – this video will be available for viewing shortly. Is this a Vimeo issue or someone yanking it down issue, West Coast blogger wants to know.
As for the story about the woman, the assailant, and the husband — If my husband, knowing better, did something that stupid, I’d have to wonder about his intelligence. These uber-complementarians seem bent on infantalizing women.
Hey, we could have some fun with “Piper Talmud” scenerios.
Since Piper probably weights a total of 100 lbs, would a tall strong woman be usurping his biblical manhood to carry him out of a burning building if he lost consciousness?
Would that be taking authority over a man?
I read that discussion over at RHE as well, and some of the comments really stuck out to me (not least the one you highlighted).
There was also some discussion of what Piper means by “hard-wiring.” The God-ordained hard-wiring of our brains is what he appeals to to say that men are good at a certain role, and women are good at another role, etc. But at other times and in other sermons, he seems to admit that men and women can “seem” suited for opposite roles, but that they should nevertheless avoid taking those roles on, because God has ordained it.
So…what’s the real story, then? ARE men and women always hard-wired for certain jobs…or does the hard-wiring sometimes not work right, making women and men “seem” suited for opposite roles? In that case, is it really God’s hard-wiring that we’re following, or God’s arbitrary rules?
In other words, as one comment asked, “What IS our hard-wiring?” If it can’t always be determined by what we seem to be good at and to lean toward naturally, then what the heck IS it???
I would at least have more respect for him if his arguments were consistent. But appealing to some sense of innate competency for a role, and then at other times saying that our seemingly innate competencies may lead us astray, is just silly.
@ Bridget:
Downhill is where Piper is going. He is preaching heresy.
Working for me on the east coast using a way out of date computer.
Should he step back and tell her to do it?
You know what? When I first read this I thought it said “let her do it.” Like a normal person would say. I had to look at it twice to see “tell her.”
And when I thought I saw “let her” I was thinking “let” as in defer to her clearly superior qualifications, not grant her permission as an underling.
“Tell her” just couldn’t even….
Oh my.
Sorry. The video.
Ok, Lynn, I can see it now. You never know these days.
So, according to Piper, a man having a relationship with a muscular woman is verboten, but, apparently, having one with a female black belt is okay. But what if she’s a black belt AND muscular? I guess I’ll have to wait until Piper publishes his Talmud and Mishnah, along with commentary by other rabbis, to find out.
Juniper said:
“One is that the people who say they love CJ Mahaney don’t seem to love him enough to suggest to him that stepping back might be better for both himself and his ministry.”
If C.J. really loved SGM he himself would voluntarily step down to save SGM but obvously his remaining in power is more important than God’s church.
off topic…get to go home tomorrow, 98% blockage one stent, ready to debate some more )
‘He said wanted to go there. He”snatched” at the opportunity’
This opening remark (Piper @ SGM Louisville) was strange. I think he could only have been responding to something said in the introduction. Would love to know what that was. An apology for the size of the *crowd*? A request that he go speak at Al’s church?
This comment is weird to me because Piper makes this into a gender issue when I think of it in an entirely different way.
If a man came at my wife with a knife, even if she had a blackbelt, I would do everything in my power to make sure she is not harmed—-Not because I am a “manly man” or I have to follow some “gender code”….but because I love her–plain and simple..If my wife had a blackbelt, or proper training as a police officer or military, and I did not, then logically she would be the better fit to handle the situation, but I would think logic leaves in a situation like that.
In that moment my instinct to keep the one I love from harm would probablly take over and I would not “step aside” and tell my wife to “Get Him”….I seriously doubt I could even think of that in a situation like that…I would instinctively do everything in my power to protect her because of my love for her.
But if my wife, having a blackbelt, managed to wipe this guy to the floor before I could get my hand on him, then I would not find this “offensive” to my manhood…Honestly, I would probablly find it attractive.. 🙂
This would not be offensive to me, because I would see a wife who loved me enough to risk her life for me, as I would her.
Another example:
When my wife and I are in bed at night, and we hear a disturbing noise, she asks me to check it out, I do so…because I love her. If she manages to get her hand on a gun and use it on an intruder who wishes to harm us before I could..I would not consider that a “blow” to my manhood because I didn’t have the gun, I would consider that a blessing we survived.
Just my thoughts…
“He said wanted to go there. He”snatched” at the opportunity’
I think there is more to it. Some of them are hearing the rumblings about CJ even from their own movement. Especially in the SBC/Louisville. I think the statement was in your face. I think his going there was mainly to show support for Mahaney as if nothing is going on. They, the Reformed big dogs, are publicly supporting Mahaney without saying a word about the lawsuit. This could as much for Mohler’s sake as anything. Piper is practically worshipped by the YRR at SBTS.
@ Anon 1:
The rising heavenly choir as Piper announces his future plans is a nice touch.
DaveAA
Any idea of how may showed up at CJ’s church?
Fendrel
I am so glad you are well.
Comp=Church of the Fragile Male Ego, Piper is one of the deacons.
A complete lack of empathy is a hallmark of the neo-Cals. And I was silly enough to believe it
Relax 🙂 Now please join me in listening to this background music while reading my comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9PeqDSYcqw and then continue listening while you read. I’m sure you will end up feeling enraptured and left with the impression that everything I am typing right now, in this moment, was sent to me by special delivery with God’s stamp of approval in the same way John Piper’s comments in the video Anon 1 posted in her comment above at 06:56 PM were accompanied by angelic music. Thank you for sharing this amazing moment with me la lallala la. The end.
Arrrgh!
And I was silly enough to believe empathy was a fundamental characteristic of a Christian un the neo-Cals set me straight
@ dee: Here's a photo from SGC Louisville's Instagram of this past Sunday. http://instagram.com/p/V18nIGp9OW/
Lots of visitors, apparently. And a much larger room than usual. Others had noted that it had been a long time since they posted any pics of their Sunday gatherings. Usually it's just a picture of the order of worship/bulletin thing.
@ dee:
You can hear some chuckling over his opening statement and a few yea and amen’s at the very end–didn’t listen to the whole sermon but from those sounds there seem to have been only a couple dozen. Seriously, CJ must have said something in the intro about “dragging” him there.
@ Anon 1:
Definitely supporting CJ as he faces the *nothing* which is going on, as well. Meanwhile, I understand the Pope is stepping down to spend more time with his family (like increasing numbers of SGM leaders) and would like to plant a new church in Rome. 🙂
@ dee:
Thanks!
Hi all,
This sounds like a good place to ask the question, thought off topic a little, regarding women serving in combat. I don’t mean at McDonalds, but in full-on military combat. I’ve tried to wrap my brain around that for a while and come up inconclusive. From the sounds of things, here, I guess I would call myself a lite-complimentarian (LC). I can immediately think Piper would say, “no.”
LC is to say, I agree that the woman should have intervened, even though the man (if married), is the head of the home. That a woman with a disabled husband should take the roles necessary to promote a healthy marriage. That a woman can run the checkbook if the husband doesn’t have the brains to do it [some just don’t], but her still leads. Seems we call things (like checkbooks) leadership and then rule out women from those rolls. Don’t read too much into this, please don’t paint me as Piper in this context, I see that there are many gifts in the body of Christ, so my LC is not legalistic (the spirit of the law brings life).
So in full combat, what do you folks think? 5 daughters and 4 sons. The sons have to sign up for the draft. What of my daughters? I would think you folks would agree with letting women into full combat operations. But if not, why not. If so, why? Please leave Deborah out of the examples, spearing a man’s head with a stake after serving him milk is not full on combat, but a great example of a lady in McDonalds. 🙂
I look forward to your responses.
@ Marge Sweigart:
Well, I stand corrected– a few dozen, at least! They were very quiet! Seminary students, do you think?
Lynn
If someone broke into our house, husband would get up to investigate but I am on his tail, always. He always tells me to stay put but I don’t. I fully intend to cause mayhem if there is an intruder, along with my husband. I will be screaming, throwing things, pointing my pistol and firing as effectively as my husband. The dogs would be barking. After we basically fully abuse our intruder, my husband woudl say “I thought I told you to stay behind but that was a great shot.”
I can’t even imagine myself not doing anything. It is not in my nature. I was not “hardwired” appropriately.
Juniper wrote:
You just gave me a good laugh. Ahhh, sweet brevity.
I listened to Piper’s 2/17 sermon at sgclouisville this morning. I thought about going in person to listen, but I was loathe to miss my own church service. As I listened, I thought it was very odd. The way that he went on and on, as if he wanted there to be no doubt in their minds that he was completely, 100% on team C.J.
He literally said said it several times, “I CHOSE to be here, nobody FORCED me….I REALLY, REALLY WANTED to be here.” My question: WHO was he TALKING to???? Why all the disclaimers? Did the people attending really imagine that he HESITATED to come and speak to them? I immediately thought of the posts here this past week, where everyone said that they were hoping that Piper was coming here to put the “smackdown” on CJ. He seemed to be responding SPECIFICALLY to this site, by saying that he was here on his own, without force, because he loves CJ and he is his friend. He continued by saying, “…it is real easy for me to stand here and be with you, it’s what I WANT to do!!!
My question is…who do you think this message was aimed at?
I have no doubt, he was letting everyone here know that he was dying on the hill for SGM.
itsme
If a woman wishes to serve in this capacity and is capable of passing the physical required that is not dumbed down to allow her to pass, then I have no problem with it. Then again, I have a daughter who was a firefighter for a few years and she had to pass the minimum standard that a male would have to meet.
Question: why would it be OK for a woman to do the checkbook only if a man could not? Why couldn’t she do it even if he can do it?
Sad Observer stated more clearly and eloquently my thoughts on the confusing nature of our supposed hard wired nature.
Thing is, if men and women have these specific and unbendable roles, I guess single people are just out of luck. Good thing God never calls anyone to celibacy! Hey, that aspect does fit within the Piper/Mohler/etc. worldview.
As for those LGBT people, either God had had a bit too much before he picked up the soldering iron, or this “hard wiring” stuff isn’t quite the infallible guide it’s been made out to be. Or something else. I’m not entirely sure. But regardless, the Calvinista approach seems entirely disconnected from the Law of Love in all of these areas.
[warning: my sense of humor is running a bit low on humidity tonight]
itsme wrote:
sad observer wrote:
Yeah…it is so inconsistent. I’m probably not what Piper would consider a “Bible Believing Christian” since I don’t subscribe to his take on gender roles. I basically said screw it all in a post a few weeks ago called, “I’ll Wear Your Pants” wp.me/p348ZO-35
Lauren
Welcome to TWW. Could you please show me any comment here that Piper was going to give CJ a smackdown? I certainly know that most of us did not believe that was going to happen. John Piper is a bit of a wimp and I could never see him speaking out like that. Now, if Carolyn were to approach the pulpit, I would imagine he could get qute testy.
Perhaps you have us confused with the SGM survivor site. I do remember reading over there that some thought he would give CJ a piece of his mind. Deb and I had a good laugh about that because of Piper’s history.
Piper definitely made it clear that he cares far more about CJ than a bunch of abused kids. I am not impressed.
DaveAA
Are you telling me the Piper fanboys at SBTS weren’t pushing old ladies out of the way to get in?
Marge
I am shocked that there were empty seats in that room. Piper has fanboys all over the place. This is definitely a comedown for Piper even if it is a step up for CJ. I think it is back to the Motel 6 next week.
Anon1
Why do you think that there wasn’t standing room only in that modest size room?
Natalie
Great comment from your blog.
“There is no headship. There isn’t a distinction of equal value, yet different required roles . The burden of the state of our family isn’t placed on any one person’s shoulders.”
Dee,
Yep, we knew what was going to happen. John Piper was there to affirm C.J. I believe God is sovereign and that one day he will regret his introductory remarks at SGC Louisville.
@ itsme:
Of course Piper would say, “No.” Men fight, women nurture. That’s the world as Piper sees it, IMO. I think that, had he his druthers, he’d remove women from military service altogether.
What do I think? If a woman wants a front lines posting, she should have it. It’s hard to see women as warriors, I know, but many of them are very good at it. As for the draft, that seems to be a conversation for another day. My oldest son signed up for the draft as per law, but he’s no fighter. He’ll make a great husband some day because he loves to cook and bake and knows how to do his own laundry. (Not to mention he’s a great one for experimenting with new foods; he brought home some chard from the farm where he works to cook for Sunday dinner.)
BTW, Deborah led the army because her general, Barak, wouldn’t go to war without her. Jael was the woman who put a tent spike through Sisera’s head.
Tikatu
Great pickup here.
Deborah led the army because her general, Barak, wouldn’t go to war without her. Jael was the woman who put a tent spike through Sisera’s head.
@ dee:
My notice in the picture went immediately to 4 young men sitting in one row… same row as CJ and Mrs CJ, it looks like. No authentic little old ladies visible at all!
@Dee
Hi Dee, thanks for the welcome.
My comment about the “smackdown” was my interpretation of your comment below regarding Piper reading Mahaney “the riot” in reference to the post titled, “New Radio Series, SGM Detox, Dedicated to Those Impacted by SGM;”
dee on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM said:
“Anon1…Unless Piper reads Mahaney the riot on Sunday, he will lose all semblance of spiritual authority. Question-Is he one of the elect? That will get the juices flowing…”
No disrespect intended, that was just my take on your comment. If not in response to your comment regarding his relationship with CJ. why else would he go overboard in justifying his resolute stand with Sovereign Grace Ministries?
Piper gives an extreme scenario that is absurd. In a situation like that, you don't know how either of you will react. In this situation, The guy isn't going to take time to define the two gender roles. The two are just going to react. This is such a stupid example.
I went and re-read my post. I should not have put “everyone” thought C.J. would put the smack down on Piper. Wishful thinking on my part. And also maybe, two glasses of wine. 🙂
I’m a former longtime SGM member who has since returned to the Presbyterian church, and I don’t usually consider myself a Frozen Chosen — except for yesterday when it was uncharacteristically cold here in Orlando! Anyway, I did blog about yesterday’s mellow church service for the first Sunday of Lent and I thought you might like to see my photo of two warm and glowing crosses… http://virginiaknowles.blogspot.com/2013/02/weekend-gratitude-little-lenten-liturgy.html
Deb/Lauren
I was about to fall asleep and ran down to write this. If John Piper was addressing this to those who thought he might say something to Mahaney and If those people were at the SGM Surivivor’s site, then John Piper is guilty of saying “Screw you.” That would be dircted towards the people who suffered pain and sotrow in SGM. This man has an iceberg for a heart.
Lauren
That was meant to be an obvious scenario that would not happen. And he has lost all spritual authority in my book with this move. From this point on, he is just another ho-hum ideologue who defends those in charge and couldn’t care less about the victims.
The question about the elect is a tongue in cheek pushback on something the Calvinistas pull all the time. I recall Andy Davis’ calling my friends wicked and unregenrate for believing that women could be deacons and not backing down in this area. If they can do it, so can we. Then we can all have a nice Kumbaya around a campfire after we pronounce each other unregerate. My guess is the little girl who was forced to fogive her abuser will have a crown in heaven while men like Mahaney and Piper will be required to assist her.
Take a look at SGM Survivors who were specualting that Piper would do such a thing. Do people not see Piper as a wimp like we do?
Lauren
PS Be careful about interpreting my words in a wooden literal sense. You can run into the same problem with me that you can when you treat the Bible in the same way. Many times it is tongue in cheek humor.
Virginia
Can we use that photo on our blog one time? It is beautiful. I hope you know it was a joke about the Frozen Chosen. It worked really, really, well with my new friend in Antarctica.
dee wrote:
That is a good way to look at it. I imagine with the negative press that SGM Louisville has received just in their local paper, a lot of Piper fans were reluctant to show up.
Maybe the lack of a packed room got Piper’s attention but I doubt it.
“Take a look at SGM Survivors who were specualting that Piper would do such a thing. Do people not see Piper as a wimp like we do?”
Many of them (not all) think very highly of him. I think some are changing their minds 🙂
Hmmm….just thinking. Maybe Piper can’t hear the victims because they’re mostly women and in his world, women’s testimony has no value….
It seems I am misunderstood. My apologies for not being clear. I think Piper is heinous for thumbing his nose at the victims as he did, and I just wondered why he seemed to be falling all over himself explaining to an audience that was clearly made up of fanboys, why he was in Louisville telling Mahaney's church that he was so freaking glad to be there with them, affirming there existence, mission, his friendship with C.J., blah, blah blah.
It just seemed odd to me. So long, and thanks for letting me comment.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen DPV at such a loss for words before.
Yuck. Just yuck. I was hoping Piper would step up to the plate and tell forth. Yuck.
@ dee:
dee wrote:
Yes! And if a man wishes to serve in this capacity he needs to be capable of passing the same test! Just being a male is not enough to qualify him for service, just as being a female does not automatically disqualify a woman.
This scenario just stinks of the good ole boys network in these patriarchal evangelical circles. I think good leaders that will buy into this belief system must be hard to come by and that is why Piper defends Mahaney. The well is dry in their farm system and they have to get more out of Mahaney before they put him out to pasture. It is hard to fund good help in the business world so it must be really tough to get young leaders to buy into a heretical version of Christianity.
@ Eagle: It takes time to walk away from one abusive system, let alone to see that you’ve been surrounded by other abusive systems and/or people who’ve been promoting (even enforcing) the same kinds of abuses.
Piper has had a lot of input with SGM – at high levels – over the years. I also can’t help wondering if some people are looking to Piper and hoping that eh will somehow “save” SGM, in much the same way that many seem to believe that Josh Harris will do the same…
“Thank you CJ.”
Just noticed this quote on the SG Looeyville website:
“The preaching event, being addressed by God through the reading and proclamation of His Word, is the most important event in the life of this church every week. – C.J. Mahaney”
They used to make loud proclamations that the Sunday meeTing was NOT the most important event; that the LIFE of the church happened in home groups, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and they aren’t calling it a meeTing in Looeyville. It’s a gathering.
@ Nickname:
Piper believes the same thing as we can see from his Vimeo in Geneva. It’s not about the gathering of the saints to worship, pray, and learn from Scripture, it’s about the preaching of the Word.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
I think Piper left him speechless 🙂 . . . for all the wrong reasons.
I don’t have any insights to add to the Piper conversation. I just want to say how cool it is (pun intended) that someone from Antarctica reads this blog. 🙂 What a fun community this is!
@ dee:
They will only be assisting her if they get there. I am not so sure they will after preaching heresy for so long.
@ Eagle: I agree with you, Eagle. It can be exasperating. I don't express my thoughts often over at Survivors about things like Reformed doctrine, Piper, complementarianism, and authority because I know I'll probably be shot down. When I saw the hypocrisy and corruption in SGM, that led me to begin examining everything I was taught and what I believe, and I see things very differently now. Many of the folks at Survivors haven't gotten to that place yet, so it's hard to have a discussion with them. I think that for a lot it's because of fear. They're afraid to even consider that what they've believed all their lives might be wrong. I pray that they'll know God is not offended by doubts and questions and that they'll be set free.
I think Piper should lay off the theology and work on his math skills because, seriously, the man cannot put 2 & 2 together.
Years ago Piper made a few derogatory comments about SGM from the stage at a SGM Celebration conference which offended CJ who told members afterwards that Piper should have said those things to him privately rather than from the stage. As we know CJ is a sensitive, new age, touchy-feely kinda guy. He wants people to be extra careful and follow his rules, especially when offering criticism. Remember, he can share his observations but if you approach him with a criticism, your life had better be perfect with nary a hint of pride. I'm not sure why Piper didn't say something beyond how he had wanted to be there. Do we know of any instances where CJ, prior to being embattled, went and offered his support to someone in the midst of a scandal? We know he offered his mentoring services to Mark Driscoll when CJ observed he had issues. I wonder how many people have offered their services to CJ? Has John Piper been the only guy he's chosen to receive outside of SGM? Have others been asked to speak and turned CJ down? I'm betting that has happened.
SeanR Yup I agree! And it definitely seems to be drying up in Sov-rain Grace. More like Sov-drought Grace!
Nickname wrote:
lol @ a Gathering. Surprised its not called a Huddle. The Pastors have become “Elders.” Next they’ll be Coaches! I just wish we could all call them the Unemployed.
piping in late,
What Piper does not know is that my daughter, Joanna, was a Marine and a third degree blackbelt in Shotokan karate and she protected his ass serving this country and while a new Marine just out of Paris Island, dropped two male Marine instructors when they went up against her in a training sesson and it wasn’t the first time.
If he’s reading this post, I’m sure that caused some shrinkage.
Robin wrote:
And that’s what it’s like to live in Piperland. If a lost man asks you for directions, you don’t simply react with promptness and courtesy. Well, you can if you’re a man. But if you’re a woman, you have to mentally go through the gymnastics of asking yourself, “How can I respond to him without making it look like I’m taking authority over him and without compromising his essential manhood?” In Piperland, you can’t just BE. Everything, absolutely everything, must be done through pink or blue lenses.
The thing with Piper and all the gender is king types is they just don’t see people as people. Instead, they see everyone as either a penis or a vagina with a body attached to it. Everything about a person and how they are to act and how they will be judged comes down to the bits between their legs. It is, quite literally, dehumanising. Humans have personalities, they have uniqueness, they have individual quirks. Genitals just are, they have no identity. So when everything about every person is to be defined by their genitals, then you’re effectively defining away their very humanity.
Eagle wrote:
As someone who has started going back to church after 20 years away, I have been thinking a lot about this lack of discernment in Christians. I believe there are two different things going on. With someone like Piper, there is no understanding of the true nature of evil, and the root seems to be 100% arrogance and egotism. Instead of dealing with the real enemy, he deals with the enemy he’s made up in his own head; the enemy is anyone who disagrees with his chosen doctrines of complementarianism and Reformed theology, and anyone who personally insults his own personal friends he has deemed OK (e.g., CJ Mahaney, Mark Driscoll [!?], Doug Wilson [!?!?!?!?!]).
With most other Christians, something different seems to be going on. I believe many have been taught not to question anything for so long that they don’t really know how to think through difficult issues. They seem to think that faith means refusing to deal with the brutal facts of reality. This leads to a very weak faith in God and a clinging to tradition, authority, and man-made doctrine. I wish more in the church would start teaching the words of Jesus so that all would be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Loyalty is a Christian quality, but discernment is key lest we be loyal to false teachers or our own pet ideas.
Well said, ilyrosemary!
It’s funny to me how the pastors I saw in my SGM church and men like Piper, talk like they are so strong,yet they really appear like very weak men. I mean men with very feminine qualities. I really am not being mean or making a joke. I’m very serious. Anyone have any thoughts on why that is or you have maybe notice the same thing? It seemed like a trend at the church my family and I use to attend. I just couldn’t imagine them protected anything really.
You sure can use the photo, Dee! And I’m quite chill about the Frozen Chosen joke! 🙂
Years ago, while we were still in SGM, I was visiting a Presbyterian church with my sister in Maryland. They started singing a beautiful song by Vikki Cook and I raised my hands in worship. My sister nudged me and snickered, “This is a Presbyterian church!” And I retorted, “Yes, but it’s a Sovereign Grace song!”
Honestly, though, my PCA peeps have been so warm and protective of me. We’ve got some Calvary Chapel refugees too. 🙂
Per the Deborah thing…do we actually know that she was on the front lines w/Barak? I’ve never been able to tell for certain from the passage. We know she at least went with him to the site of the battle. And I do agree that Jael killing Sisera with a tent spike, awesome as it may be, doesn’t really speak to front lines combat.
I’ve always been able to see both sides of the women in combat issue. I don’t know. Clearly Debra’s daughter above is more than qualified – : ) – but most women I know wouldn’t be and, for that matter, probably wouldn’t even want to (myself included). But then women would have to pass the physical test which would eliminate the ones who weren’t qualified anyway so…shrug.
Also, a question: in a draft scenario, do the same physical tests apply or is this a special situation? (This is just for information – I think it’s pretty unlikely that the draft will actually be used anytime in the near future.) Because given the fact that most women couldn’t pass the physical test, if it does NOT apply in this situation, it would probably not be a good idea to draft women. But then it wouldn’t be a good idea to draft unqualified men either so…shrug again.
Funny story about the draft: my grandmother’s real first name is Eddice (she doesn’t go by it – big surprise) and her father’s name was Edward. The draft office was confused by her name and assumed she was Edward Jr., so when she didn’t register for the draft she started getting terse letters telling her she had to register. My great-grandfather tried to explain that she was a girl, but they didn’t believe him until he appeared at the draft office with “Edward Jr.”
Addendum:
All my reservations about women in combat stem from pragmatic concerns, not the Bible. I can’t really see a clear case either way Biblically – it doesn’t really seem to speak to it directly much at all. Clearly falls in the debatable issue category for me.
And for the record, Doug Wilson’s theory that all the cases where women fight in the Old Testament are typological of Jesus’ victory over Satan is a big stretch IMO.
2nd addendum:
My mother just informed me that the same physical tests apply even to the draft.
Bridget
Some of them believe that he is different. But he is of the same minset of Mahaney. That is why I dreamed up the category of “Calvinista.” They are cut from the same cloth. So far, my definition holds firm.
Jeannette
I am going to agree with you. I bet this will not go over well. But, i have to come up with some idea as to why these men will ignore the victims. Is it because it is women and children?
Eagle
The time is coming that this will be out in the press. That is why you can be sure that SGM attorneys will pull out all stops to prevent this from going to trial. There will be a public outcry about these accusations and the ministry of SGM will be deeply wounded.
Dee said, ‘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…”
I love that you checked your mail during church!
Heather
Thank you for bringing up this point.
“And if a man wishes to serve in this capacity he needs to be capable of passing the same test! Just being a male is not enough to qualify him for service, just as being a female does not automatically disqualify a woman.”
Been There
Thank you for laughing. It’s little things like this that make the occasional baloney worthwhile.
lilyrosemary
This is an insightful comment.
“Instead of dealing with the real enemy, he deals with the enemy he’s made up in his own head; the enemy is anyone who disagrees with his chosen doctrines of complementarianism and Reformed theology, and anyone who personally insults his own personal friends he has deemed OK”
seeking truth
You have put into words some thing that I have thought about. These men proclaim their manliness and support for the troops but few have ever served. Mark Driscoll is such a wimp that he threatens to punch people in the nose and then hides behind bodyguards. He talks about a man rushing the stage with a machete but there is no readily avaialbe evidence that such an event happened.I know. I have searched it out and have called newspapers to find evidence of a machete attack while Driscoll was talking. Surely that would be covered in the media. I think this man stuff is all smoke and mirrors.
As for Piper, I can assure that if I was walking with him and we got mugged, I would take the bull by the horns to protect myself.. He appears to me to be a total wimp and his speech at Louisville proves it. Build up the strong and kick the weak in the teeth. A real manly man, that!
Virgina
Now that would be an interesting gathering. I would love to go to lunch with a bunch of SGM and Calvary Chapel refugees. Good night! The stories…
Hester
I do not feel women, in general, should be drafted to the front lines. But, I really thinkg it is a moot point. We have an all volunteer armed services now. So, I have no problem with women volunteering if they meet the standards for combat.
If a draft ever occurs, I believe it will be for the worst case scenario, an all out world holocaust of unimaginable proportions. In such an event, I do not think that traditional battle will occur. We will be using drones, bombs, etc. The troops will be called in to maintain the peace as oppose to fighting a front line battle.
Also, women have always been on the front lines as nurses. Have you ever seen the medical tents right near the action?
Hester
Doug Wilson is a bombastic irritant and his current success with members of The Gospel Coalition speaks volumes to their spiritual discernment. Hate emails to commence in 5,4,3, 2,1…..we have lift off!
Stunned
I read it before church. However, before I sound all spiritual and all, I was thinking about it during the sermon which speaks to my focus!
John Piper has serious issues with women. He appears incapable of processing a scenario where a female is stronger or more physically capable than he is. This is indicative not of anything to do with theology (his theology is irrational, thus, in the end nothing he declares from his bully pulpit is truly theological, it is merely psychotic…stemming from a reality disconnect), but has to do with serious and pathological esteem issues. He is perhaps not a clinical narcissist, but his statements on women, like this one and the weird attraction/revulsion dichotomy statement on female bodybuilders, is indicative, I think, of a troubling personality disorder.
Assessment of the photo of the room where Piper spoke. http://instagram.com/p/V18nIGp9OW/
Look closely at the picture.This is not a big room and the room is not full. You can see lots of empty seats. Some rows have 4-5 in a row. In other rows, the people are sitting in every other seat. My guess is the room has a 40% vacancy. That is astonishing, considering Piper’s draw. Why didn’t Mohler send more people over? Also, did they expect more and it did not materialize? This looks very, very bad for SGML when even Piper, the new “global apostle” cannot rope em in.
Does anyone else feel a little…hmm, freaked/creeped out when reading or listening to Piper’s gentle talk? It’s like the wooing tones of a seductor or seductress.
Argo
Just as I believe that something is “off” about Driscoll, I feel the same way about Piper.
There have been some interesting studies of WWII and Korean conflict veterans, and I suspect the same is true of veterans of other conflicts as well. Those who were on the front lines, actually doing the shooting and being targeted, are not those who talk a great deal about those experiences. Those who join the organizations and spend a lot of time talking about their military experience tend to be those who were in support roles rather than front line combat, or were remote from the actual battlefield. And many stories of the latter being in harms way really do not check out against the facts.
I think the same is true of the “manly men” Calvinista complementarians. They have never really dealt directly with these issues, just from distant observation or only in their imaginations. e.g., Driscoll hiding behind his bodyguards, no less.
Im pretty convinced that in all this, Mahaney & Piper et al are focused on how they believe their doctrine is the source of all this conflict SGM is facing. They see themselves as servants of God, stalwarts of complementarianism, defenders of the realm of their particular theology. The trouble Mahaney is embroiled in is pure persecution, stemming from the forces of evil inherent in women!
That pic is fascinating. And the stragglers there seem very young (impressionable; easily led away from critical thought). You are right…you’d think Piper, the Pope of American Calvinism, would fetch a larger hoard.
56 Years,
Awesome comment. I totally agree.
Dee,
I’m jealous. I have only one follower on my blog. They are in Mubai though. And that is pretty cool. LOL
“The chocolate ration of twenty grams has been INCREASED to ten grams! Long! Live! Big! Brother!”
Sorry, Mumbai I meant. And I do seriously think that’s cool.
Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
Purity of Ideology.
Argo —
Did you see Piper’s Geneva Vimeo?
Juniper wrote:
All that is necessary to Outbreed the Heathen (with or without her Handmaid on her lap) is a fertile Womb. Nothing more.
Today on the Vince Coakley Radio Program, we talk with Susan Burke. She is representing alleged victims and families who claim leaders in Sovereign Grace Ministries covered up sexual abuse of children. You can listen live at 3PM Eastern Time http://WWW.BLOGTALKRADIO.COM/VINCECOAKLEY
“I do not feel women, in general, should be drafted to the front lines. But, I really thinkg it is a moot point. We have an all volunteer armed services now. So, I have no problem with women volunteering if they meet the standards for combat. ”
I agree it is a moot point, also. For one, how we implement war has changed drastically. The “front line” can be anywhere and can change daily. and a woman can surely navigate a drone from a tent 1000 miles away. WW2 pushed the envelope open on many fronts. Surely a woman cannot fly a large plane….but necessity changes things, doesn’t it and we ended up with woman not only making planes but flying huge transport planes.
The bottom line for me as a believer is our identity in Christ is not gender related at all but spiritual. Otherwise, the fact that Jesus came as a man is significant and women are out of luck when it comes to being Christlike. We do not look at Christlikeness in the warrior sense, either. I suppose that is what they are really trying to tell women? We have to be your “Christ” for you?
Argo asked if anyone else felt a little creeped out when reading or listening to Piper. Watching his sermon, he struck me as being a little…unhinged. Which immediately reminded me of someone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQWoRmqOlzQ
@ dee:
Dee, Exactly! ………….Mark Driscoll is probably trying to camouflage his weakness by “acting” extra macho, but we all can see right through that can’t we. Especially when he wears that Mickey Mouse t-shirt! ha. Well I guess at least it isn’t Minnie or tinker bell or something like that……. pathetic!
“Does anyone else feel a little…hmm, freaked/creeped out when reading or listening to Piper’s gentle talk? It’s like the wooing tones of a seductor or seductress.”
Yep. The Geneva video was triple creepy.
I expect this from Piper and think he will get worse. However, what SCARES ME TO DEATH are the tens of thousands who believe him and are enraptured by Piper. Who make all kinds of excuses for him because he preaches the Reformed Gospel and overlook everything else. The money will pour in to Desiring God so that Piper can be an uber Global Apostle.
The fact he thought he had to take a filming crew to Geneva to make this self serving video with this big announcement placing himself as the 21st Century Calvin ought to wake more folks up. But I doubt it will.
Calvin does NOT equal Jesus.
BTW: Piper rewrites history. Here is how Calvin really viewed himself:
In 1543, after the plague struck Geneva, Sebastian Castellio was the only divine in Geneva to visit the sick and console the dying; the Geneva Consistory and Calvin himself refused to visit the sick, Calvin directing his servants to declare him “indispensable” and later writing in his own defense that “it would not do to weaken the whole Church in order to help a part of it.”[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Castellio
56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC wrote:
My former boss died 2 months ago. He was a veteran of both WWII (where he navigated a U-boat for Der Fuehrer) and Korea, for the US, where he was one of the “Frozen Chosin” (see blog title). He never spoke of either conflict at all in the workplace.
Here is a link to the Piper in Geneva video in case folks are wondering….
http://vimeo.com/50415486
HUG
i am appointing you the official TWW comedian. Thank you for making me laugh
“The chocolate ration of twenty grams has been INCREASED to ten grams! Long! Live! Big! Brother!”
Robin wrote:
Thanks for saying what we were all thinking! 😀
“That pic is fascinating. And the stragglers there seem very young (impressionable; easily led away from critical thought). You are right…you’d think Piper, the Pope of American Calvinism, would fetch a larger hoard.”
He spoke at SBTS, too. I think the point was to make an appearance…… The GREAT Piper likes Mahaney and does not see anything wrong….so you shouldn’t either. Oh, and this is a REAL church, see? Or I would not be here preaching. (hee hee)
Piper has a lot of influence with the YRR and many others. Sadly.
I am sure CJ did his typical gushing court jester act around the “great” Piper like he does in T4G promo vids.
“…many people over at SGM Survivors still have cognitive dissonance”
Eagle, I know. And this is why I think the whole shepherding movement is so dangerous/…there are many of them still not seeing the ROOT problem. They are STILL looking for “godly leaders” or think they can pray the wolves into being godly leaders. That last one just freaks me out. And I have even seen some comments on how “God is disciplinging CJ or SGM”. Uh no. FINALLY people started speaking out, questioning and would NOT SHUT UP. It took years to get to this point. A doc dump and a lawsuit. All things done by peeople who had had enough. God did not make them. The Holy Spirit might have led them though to USE what God gave us: Thinking, reason, warn others, lvoe Justice, seek it for others and ourselves, etc.
It really is sad. It is a very socialistic mindset…always look to a leader for your needs. They are not independent thinkers. They do not know how yet. They are very much immersed in the “we have to have a godly leader” mindset to be real followers of Christ. It does not occur to them they have the same holy spirit who can teach them truth.
I watched the Geneva video and among other things a line jumped out at me. At the 3:05 mark Piper said, “Imagine getting a letter from a family whose son had died because he was burned alive for something you taught him.” Guess it depends on who is doing the burning! Piper certainly didn’t mention Calvin’s part in the burning of Servetus did he?
@ Debra Baker:
Any chance you could arrange a dinner date at McDonald’s for Piper and your daughter? Let me know when and where it happens and I’ll hire a high definition video camera and a big muscly guy to play the attacker 🙂
Eagle, PDI5years is one reason I quit reading over there a while back. The typical Calvinista arrogance as she has found the “true” Reformed church. I would not bother defending TWW to her.
“Guess it depends on who is doing the burning! Piper certainly didn’t mention Calvin’s part in the burning of Servetus did he?”
There is a reason. Reformed history has been rewritten to try and convince folks Calvin has NO power at the time with the Petit council and was not involved which is a total lie. He was directing his right hand man the whole time for the trial because he could see this was not going over well. There are archival docs on this! In fact, we have Calvin premeditating this burning in writing years before it happened. It is amazing the lies that still exist about calvin in order to prop him up as some glorified saint.
But it was not just burnings. It was bannishements, tortures, imprisonments and drowings for disagreeing about God in Calvin’s Geneva.
Oh dear….don’t get me started on the rehab of Calvin.
So i haven't got to read through all the comments yet, but I followed the link to Piper talking about calvin and the title is called "Darkness to Light" . When I did a google search of "darkness to light" the first website to choose is a child sexual abuse prevention. Just thought it was ironic. http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6035035/k.8258/Prevent_Child_Sexual_Abuse.htm
Anon 1 wrote:
Can you say “Messiah in his own mind”?
Yeah, I’m gonna say that Piper is taken the “innocent until proven guilty” route with CJ. Fine. But why on earth must we be “silent until proven guilty?” Can you at least address the situation without throwing your buddy under the bus? No, because he is assuming that the victims are guilty of making it up and lying until the court proves them innocent.
Eagle wrote:
I feel sorry for this person. They, like the cult they left, simply want to quiet anyone who disagrees with their pet doctrines. THEIRS is the same spirit they saw in SGM. It hasn’t left them, yet. My personal experience is that the cognitive dissonance is very difficult to overcome. But, after being thought-reformed for over two decades, I figure it’s going to take me some time to work through it all. But, that’s also why I enjoy reading all of your comments, and allowing your thoughts to challenge my thoughts. Then I HAVE to confront my beliefs and why I believe them. Most often it was not my critical thinking that got me here, but my follow-the-leader immaturity. I hope the above poster will eventually make room for this kind of growth in their thinking.
Eagle
I am so excited. I have always wanted to be a cult leader.
“They put down and mock young creationists,complementarians,Calvinists and all manner of brethren who don’t fit their agenda.”
I’m just curious to know what agenda she thinks TWW has.
@ Eagle LOL, LOL
Just a couple of thoughts from someone in a Wesleyan Arminian church.
As our pastor says, all protestants are in a sense “reformed” in theology.
And while we are not Calvinists, not all Calvinists are evil, are complementarian, or are cruel. Indeed, there is much truth in their theology.
We know where we differ, and why, but they are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let’s be very clear that it is not reformed theology in general or even calvinism with which we disagree vehemently, but a bastardized version that is sick.
Eagle,
It is the “cult of glam”.
“But, after being thought-reformed for over two decades,…”
What a clever way to put it!
Piper lives in the Calvinista version of an ivory tower, whatever that might be called. I’m sure all his theology makes sense in his own mind and he genuinely thinks his theology is God’s gift to the church. But he is so far removed from the reality of the rest of the world. Instead of doing these little tours he should try rolling up his sleeves for a few months and serve in an inner city church with no white people and no one with a college degree. These people are believers too and believe me they are doing just fine without all his intellectual exercises in theology.
@ linda:
Linda, I think it would be best if you didn’t use the editorial “we” in making statements like that. My view of Calvinism or reformed theology is apparently very different from yours, and I don’t wish to be lumped in with others with whom I disagree. I don’t think there’s a group consensus here on doctrinal issues.
@ Marge Sweigart:
I think Linda was writing ‘we’ as in her and her congregation at her Wesleyan Arminian Church.
@ Sophie:
Okay, maybe you’re right. I may have read it wrong. At any rate, I disagree! 🙂
@ Eagle:
Eagle, Reformed Theology has been around longer than SGM; it would be wrong to allow them to define what it is just because they’ve made a big splash recently.
And, I think that infant baptism is certainly a part of Reformed Theology (though this is a point in which I am undecided) so any “Reformed” folks not baptizing infants (like Piper) are indeed some form of modified Reformed at least in that sense. Of course, I would put myself in that camp too (since I’m undecided), but my point is no one likes it when someone comes along and abuses their beliefs and then every assumes Johny Come Lately holds the keys to that idea. Reformed Theology will certainly outlast SGM and this awful mess.
“Linda, I think it would be best if you didn’t use the editorial “we” in making statements like that. My view of Calvinism or reformed theology is apparently very different from yours, and I don’t wish to be lumped in with others with whom I disagree. I don’t think there’s a group consensus here on doctrinal issues.”
I agree with this. I have quite a few friends who are in Reformed/Arminian camps who are wonderful people even though we totally disagree non doctrine.
However, I am definitely not in agreement with the determinist god paradigm of the Reformation.
We spent five years at a family intregrated church which also has all this gender role nonsense. It has a way of making women paranoid about their actions, lest they be percieved as being a domineering woman.
One of the chuch elders took Mr. Hoppy aside one day while at work. He wanted to know about that status of our marriage because I seemed too interested in discussing theology on our church email loop. Women were completely forbidden from speaking in the (very participatory) service, including the one day that all the men except one were at a retreat. (We couldn’t even make announcements about the church garage sale.)
While women were allowed to discuss theology elsewhere, I guess I must’ve broken some unspoken rules. I would often be the only women in a group of men standing around discussing theology. Occasionally joining a discussion on the church email loop somehow led this elder into assuming Mr. Hoppy must be very displeased to have such a “domineering wife.” He defended me as best he could. By the time we baled out of that church, yes, the elders were sitting around at lunch with their wives discussing what a “domineering” wife I am.
“Why no “snatching” to reach out to the victims.”
AMEN!
Eagle wrote:
That sure does mess with your head, doesn’t it?
Eagle,
I had not seen that comment over at SGM Survivors. Thanks for letting us know. Were there any responses to that accusation of cultish behavior here at TWW/?
@ lilyrosemary:
Very keen observation, lilyrosemary. I think you are absolutely right.
Attention “Lydia” and other readers
Lydia is called the “antichrist” and TWW is getting excoriated over at SGM Survivors by someone called 5 years in PDI. We are now a cult.Here is what (s)hehad to say
“By the way, as long as we are going to discuss our views of righteous and unrighteous behavior here, I have seldom seen a match for mean spirited contempt than over at Wartburg Watch. They put down and mock young earth creationists, complementarians, Calvinists, and all manner of brethren who don’t fit their agenda. They lump together genuine wickedness and perfectly decent Christian brethren, in one target. I am certainly not against any blog wanting to help victims of abuse or cults. But the spirit at WW often moves from legitimate purposes to the SAME SPIRIT I SAW IN SGM. The same contempt, the same superiority. Different reasons, same spirit. You are back in another cult like group, IMO.
And Lydia….I tried to press her here a few times and she took off. Jesus is the God-man forever, the incarnate word forever, God in the flesh for all eternity. The WW ladies are so POed about Grudem’s terminology of the eternal subordination of the son that Lydia actually denied Jesus in the flesh (glorified) right now in heaven! That is antichrist, to deny God in the flesh. Maybe Lydia was embarassed and no longer would say that, but I’d like to hear her say it here. Please do not sing the praises of WW to me or send me there.”
Wowza! This SGM thing is causing people to go over the edge!
HoppyTheToad wrote:
We went to a church just like this! Once my husband became a member, I was forbidden from talking to men about theology. And I was always viewed as the rebel. So what, I should like my job. God gave me brains for a reason. Ah, wisdom is vindicated by her actions.
Deb, I made this suggestion:
“Have you taken up your concerns about the women at TWW with the women at TWW? They speak publicly and take criticism publicly. I think you have misrepresented several people in your comment.” (typos fixed)
Marge
We have no problem with Reformed or Aminian theology. It is the abuse in theology on which we focus. Some poor dear just had a meltdown over at SGM about us saying that we are against Calvinism, complementarianism and young earth creationism. Those are probaby held near and dear in her heart and disagreement with those points is threatening. I am not a Calvinist but one of my good friends (with whom I attend church) is a 5 pointer. I have a number of comp friends although I do not subscribe to comp or egal-I have a different way-radical servanthood and playing to one’s gifts. I have no trouble with YEC from a theological perspective but stand firm that there is no scientifc proof whatsoever.
@ dee:
Well, Driscoll has said on many occasions that Piper and Mahaney are his “mentors.”
Tim Challies even wrote,
I thank God for Piper and Mahaney and their ministry to Mark Driscoll and, through him, to the church at large.
http://www.challies.com/articles/driscoll-piper-amp-mahaney
linda
Good comment at 12:37. I believe that to be true because I have good friends who are Reformed.
Bridget
On the other hand, if Lydia is the antichrist, I am going to start taking out ads. I will make bank as people flock here to see the “antichrist.” This has to be one of the funniest comments I have read in a long time. The poor dear needs to take a deep breath and calm down.
Thank you for your kindness.
@ Eagle: I’m not sure that this comment is representative of most who hang out at Survivors. (Though some of the regulars tend to go on … hmm… tangents, I guess. Some of the tangents get weird, as here.)
Pingback: Concerns About John Piper « a profound mystery
Anon 1 wrote:
And it is for this reason that I am 100% supportive of women serving in combat roles.
There is no more “front line” in a counterinsurgency. There is no more “front line” in the current war on terror.
If a woman can meet the physical requirements of a given position, then it’s no problem. Just ask the Israelis.
Being effective under fire is a test of one’s mental acuity, anyway.
In Jake Tapper’s excellent book “The Outpost” I so loved how the soldiers knew that one of the Apache pilots who supported them was a woman, and even though none of them ever saw her, they all talked about her as if she was a total supermodel. 🙂
So take that, John Piper. What a small man he is, with his small doctrine of a small angry god. 🙁
@ Rafiki: The flip side of this is the recent Oscar-nominated documentary on sexual assault in the military, Invisible War. (To be fair, this docu focuses on women who have endured sexual assault, and has little to say about men who’ve gone through the same – which I’m guessing is *much* more prevalent than anyone is willing to admit.)
I think women have been front-line combatants for so long now that legitimizing it is an after-the-fact acknowledgement of reality. What’s shameful is the way in which the military keeps trying to avoid doing something about the prevalence of rape and other forms of sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc.
I vividly remember the coverage of the Tailhook incidents; has anything really changed since then?
FWIW, I don’t think they were labeling her THE Antichrist.
I remember conversations with Lydia and 5yearsinPDI a while back on survivors. I believed the 5yrs misrepresented what Lydia was saying. I stopped arguing with 5yrs when she said I was reinventing the wheel when I was helping people find scripture4all.org and blueletterbible.org so that they could better determine their own theology by checking original meanings with their own scripture studies and also to decide if they believed certain things taught by our theologians of today and yesterday. When it comes to attacking beliefs I believe 5yrs is the pot calling the kettle black. She vehemently defends the theologians who spent their lives defending reformed theology rather than studying for herself or reading the the theologians who counter her favorites. She has a huge heart in other areas though, she could get quite argumentative but why is she being so beligerent against TWW?
And BTW, I thought Lydia’s comments were spot on, not sure if she ever said ANYTHING that I did not agree with. Lydia did her own homework. And if 5yrs could ever have told me that she looked something up for herself rather than quote theologians for her defense of her theology then I would respect that. But when she could not respect my study, then what is there left to discuss, of course Lydia left. She was very disrespected over there.
@ Rafiki: http://youtu.be/1zpj9XoVFoI
@ Rafiki: Note: Susan Burke, who is representing the sexual abuse victims who have brought charges against SGM, also works on behalf of military women who have been raped – she is interviewed in The Invisible War.
@ Jeff S:
I don’t either. Just antichrist (as against Christ). I also don’t remember Lydia denying God in the flesh.
@ Bridget: I wonder if it’s a good idea to get into this? 5Years has made some… hmm… unusual comments in the past.
Sigh. PDI5years sounds like so many of the YRR around here from SBTS and have come into churches to teach the “true Gospel” because none of us really know it.
So, I have seen folks called heretics as either a Pelagian, semi Pelalgian or anti Christ (if you don’t agree with ESS then they claim you are denying the Son for eternity or something like that so that makes you an anti Christ. Not sure if that is what PDI might have been talking about or not. Who knows?)
What I find terribly depressing is that few even say a word about it over at survivors on that thread.In fact, PDI got more affirmations. Perhaps people are afraid of her/him or they agree? Strange that folks on a survivors blog would let that stand without saying anything.
Marge–fighting a chest infection and too lazy to use the quotes I guess.
The “we” is the “we of this particular church”, where I attend, as our pastor was teaching.
“We” are Wesleyan-Arminian, but that doesn’t make the Calvinists, the classic Arminians, the Lutherans, the Catholics, or the Dispensationalists our enemies.
But all who trace their roots from the Protestant Reformation are considered “reformed” in some ways as opposed to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
He was teaching that “we” in that particular church DO NOT want to join in with those assuming all “reformed” or “calvinist” churches are sickos. “We” in our little Wesleyan/Arminian church would not want the world to think ALL in our camp are sickos just because we have a few also.
@ Jeff S:
No, just that it is the antichrist spirit that will not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. But that wasn’t what Lydia was saying at all. But because she decided to bow out of the conversation and in turn the blog itself because she was getting railroaded into saying that Jesus did not come in the flesh, the claim was that she was in that sense teaching with the antichrist spirit. I think that to 5yrs, believing in zero hierarchy in the Trinity is to believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh. If I’m wrong maybe she will read this and correct me?
SGMsurvivors helped me and my daughter tremendously, including 5yrs. I do not take pleasure in speaking negatively about them or her, but her remarks about TWW are simply awful and IMO slanderous toward Lydia. They also have commenters over there that make me bristle just as we have over here. Most are respectful at survivors of other secondary issues as most are respectful over here. I do not consider discussions, even heated ones over secondary issues necesaarily disrespectful. Kris gets just as snarky over there as Dee and Deb get snarky over things here. The snark on both sides is usually warranted, though in my opinion.
This Piper Talmud is worthless without being in the form of a yearly calendar? (insert smugness and eagle-eye).
Piper and Mahaney remind me of Pinky and The Brain… What are we gonna do today, Brain? We’re gonna try and TAKE OVER THE WORRRRLD!! And then… epic FAIL. John Piper needs to have a stadium of seats and SADDOWN! No Country for Old Derranged Men. iCan’t with him or any of these forgettable laughable imps.
Yes, this has all become comedy to me because I find these “men” laughable. Who can take them seriously? Let the guy who can’t really defend himself die? No, SIR! Sit DOWN! You fail.
@ numo:
I’m not getting into it. I’ve had discussions with 5Years myself. We disagree on some things and that is fine. See my comment at 2:18 pm.
@ stormy:
I think I’ll start a vlog called the “TWW Agenda” since these folk seem to think that there is some “agenda” going on here, kinda like their fight against the “gay” agenda, and the “liberal” agenda. All these “agenda” out here that Christians wanna fight. Seems like their own “agenda” would be full if they fought the crises that exists in their midst… right there in their own churches… in their own pulpits. Good grief! (I sound like Dee. Dee, you’re rubbing off on me, gal). (I’m gonna add a Good Night! in here, too, just for good measure). Good night!
@ Bridget: I hear you, but I wasn’t referring to you personally. (Gads, saying that is probably going to make some folks upset with me, but so be it!)
@ Trina: What about your “urban translation” vlog? I think both are great ideas!
Trina
I give you persmission to start the blog The TWW Agenda. Then you can start a twitter account-Fake TWW. It could be fun.
@ Bridget: Apologies for the “@ [name]” thing – I was just trying to pick up on the subject, not to accuse you of anything!
[need break from internet now]
dee wrote:
Well lets see, at this church you have the 6 (??) pastoral “students” and their families plus those who moved from Maryland to work for SGM at their new location and their families.
My guess is that after you take the above out, there aren’t a whole lot more in the congregation. Again shocking that Piper didn’t draw more of a crowd as well as he is known. Apparently SGM’s falling reputation and bad publicity kept the crowd down.
BTW I post on Survivors a lot and am NOT a Piper fan. I also don’t believe in Calvinism.
Re: The infamous comment
A dear reader just called me and informed me that 5 year in PDI often says things in an over the top manner. After hearing some of her examples, I have come to the conclusion that is would probably be better to ignore PDI and ,instead, pray for unity in the fight against the possibility of child sexual abuse coverup in the churches. Sometimes, it is difficult when one gets criticized in what I might perceive to be an unfair manner.
Between Juan accusing me of having an agenda (If he knows what it is, I would be most grateful if he would let me know since I am in the dark) and this comment over at SGM Survivors by a regular, it has been a difficult day.
However, old Dee has recovered her wits, and has decided to keep the main thing, the main thing. Let’s fight church abuse!
@ dee: Can we fight terrible decor (like what we can see in that Instagram shot of Piper in Louisville) too?
That would make me *very* happy – those light fixtures alone are absolutely cringe-worthy! (Not j/k.)
To all
Just so you don’t think I am in the dumps, I am not. Imagine. The police chief in Visalia asked Bob Grenier to take an LOA. That is the first bit of good news in this situation in awhile. Also, there were not crowds for Piper’s CJ Is Awesome Tour which gives me hope that there is a rising bit of skepticism.
Steve240
I feel really, really bad for those who think that Piper wants to help the victims. He does not and they will continue to be disappointed just like their hopes were dashed time and time again with reform within SGM.
The Calvinism thing is not a issue for me. That is why I invented the word Calvinista to differentiate from decent Reformed individuals. Heck, i got a call the other day from a theologian in a major reformed seminary who assured me that they were not thrilled by how things are being handled and that this is a groundswell behind the scenes.
Well, let’s respond then, shall we? Let’s put this blog up to the cult test and see where we get with that. What’s the rule, any three right, then that means one should be concerned.
1. The group is led by a one or a few individuals, charismatic, determined, domineering: No. Many contributors lead and contributions are open. All comments stand, unless they abusive towards others.
2. The leader(s) are self-appointed and claim to have a special mission in life. Frequently, that mission is messianic or apocalyptic. Leaders answer to no higher authority, such as an oversight board. They are sole interpreters of doctrine and policy — which may change frequently and whimsically: What leaders? This is a blog. There are no leaders. There is no higher authority. They allow open interpretation of events, scripture, all things pertaining to this blog. They allow dissenting comments. There is no doctrine. Ooops! Wait. The only doctrine is that when it comes to abusive victims, the prime directive is to show love and compassion to victims first.
3. The group centers its veneration on the leader(s) directly, rather than on God, a higher political power, science, or whatever: The group is centered on injustices in the realm of the Christian evangelical church and uncovering them. Others are encouraged to bring forth their own storeis, and have often been featured on this blog. The stories taht are presented, and hardly ever the personal stories of the “leader’s” life experiences. There is hardly ever any focus on the “leaders”.
4. The group structure is hierarchical and authoritarian. Rarely will you find an open election in a cult: There is no structure, although, at some point last year I was appointed Deaconness, but that is besides the point. The group structure is participatory, open, pliable, and informal.
5. The group tends to be totalitarian, with elaborate rules and rituals that occupy large parts of every day. To break a rule or ignore a ritual carries the danger of expulsion from the group: Hmmm… Yep, no. We haven’t any list of rituals, other than joyfully pointing out bastards who exist in the name of Christ.
6. The group usually has two or more sets of ethics: one for the leadership, another for the membership; one for outsiders, another for insiders; a relaxed set for recruiting purposes, a much more demanding set for the committed member: NOPE and NOPE.
7. The group usually presents itself as innovative and exclusive, even elitist: The purpose of the group makes it quite exclusive in the evangelical world where people are hiding gross abuses and grievances towards others. But the group, and it’s “leaders” encourage ALL to do the same. IN fact, many blogs and other such types of groups have begun with a similar focus and effort. So exclusivity doesn’t belong to this group, neither any elite. Nope, they all belong to the SBC. The elite, that is.
8. The group has two main purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. It’s unlikely to support or even encourage legitimate charity work, except as a front for recruitment: No money here. No recruiting. IN fact, most people find this blog on accident.
So that’s my response. I couldn’t find at least three. Oh and FTR, I have often said things that the blog owners have disagreed with, and they have not erased my comments. If I have said something offensive or made personal attacks at others, I have been asked to rethink my response to deal with the issues, and not make personal attacks on a person.
Just recently, one owner of the blog apologized to me for something that I was not offended by, but she was willing to make it right. Cult leaders dont do this. They dont make themselves humble and don’t risk their public persona over friendship and love. Although I may frequently disagree, if I wanted to, I know that my place here is at my own will and volition, and that dissenting comments are allowed.
@ numo:
No offense taken at all 🙂 I’m peachy!
@ Bridget: Gee… I’m hungry, so when I read “peachy,” I immediately flashed on fresh peaches with vanilla ice cream. (Talk about free-associating! ;))
@ numo:
I noticed those too! My head went, “what is that?”
Dee, I need a good graphic artist, or comic artist because I need somebody right now to draw J. Pip’s (yes, that’s his new name, hahaha) brain cells all walking with canes, walkers and crutches aimlessly and getting nowhere. He has about five good thoughts wandering around, lost in the crowd.
Seems like this thought of his above fell down and broke its hip and needs a new replacement. Bahahhaahaha
@ Bridget: The stuff on the left wall (back) is pretty strange, too.
Those light fixtures: I think they’re meant to be an imitation of the famous (or infamous, depending on how you look at it) of the crystal “upside-down rocks glasses chandeliers in the rear lobby of the Kennedy Center, also inside the Opera House itself (as at link). Those do look *very* ’60s – especially with the bright red – but not in a bad way, imo. (You can get a really good view of the chandeliers if you go up into the Opera House’s “obstructed view” balcony seating area…)
Eagle
Good night! You are right!
Dee,
I can attest to 5yrsPDI’s over-the-top tendencies. She seems to be a bit tone-deaf to how her comments are going to come across and unable to back down or apologize. All that said, how VERY unfortunate that she didn’t call you and Deb Amalekites:) It reminds me somehow of the 20 insults to a nose speech in Steve Martin’s retelling of the Cyrano de Bergerac story:
All right, all right, twenty something betters. Here it goes. Let’s start with, uh,
Obvious: Excuse me, is that your nose, or did a bus park on your face;
Meteorological: Everybody take cover, she’s going to blow!;
Fashionable: You know, you could de-emphasize your nose if you wore something larger, like Wyoming;
Personal: Well, here we are, just the three of us;
Punctual: All right, Dellman, your nose was on time, but you were fifteen minutes late;
Envious: Ooh, I wish I were you. Gosh, to be able to smell your own ear;
Naughty: Pardon me sir, some of the ladies have asked if you wouldn’t mind putting that thing away;
Philosophical: You know, it’s not the size of a nose that’s important, it’s what’s in it that matters;
Humorous: Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Sneeze and it’s goodbye Seattle;
Commercial: Hi, I’m Earl Scheib, and I can paint that nose for $39.95!
Polite: Uh, would you mind not bobbing your head? The, uh, orchestra keeps changing tempo.
Melodic: Everybody. ‘He’s got the whole world, in his nose’;
Sympathetic: Ooh, what happened? Did your parents lose a bet with God?;
Complimentary: You must love the little birdies to give them this to perch on;
Scientific: Say, does that thing there influence the tides?;
Obscure: Whoa, I’d hate to see the grindstone! Well, think about it.
Inquiring: When you stop and smell the flowers, are they afraid?
French: Sir, ze pigs have refused to find any more truffles until you leave!
Pornographic: Finally, a man who can satisfy two women at once! How many is that?…
Religious: The Lord giveth – and He just kept on giving, didn’t He?
Disgusting: Say, who mows your nose hair?
Paranoid: Keep that guy away from my cocaine!
Aromatic: It must be wonderful to wake up in the morning and smell the coffee – in Brazil.
Appreciative: Oooh, how original! Most people just have their teeth capped…All right,
Dirty: Your name wouldn’t be Dick, would it? You smart-assed son-of-a-bitch! Flat-faced, flat-nosed, flat-head.
I think this 5yearPDI person is trying some trickery like reverse racism. Except, this is reverse cultism. It’s really the stupidest way to try and win an argument and really doesn’t address the issues. Saying that a person helping survivors and the abused is a cult in it’s own way is just stupid as all hayell.
Sir, you fail. Please consult with some professional sources on the markings and characteristics of a cult, then please make some identifiable and qualitative comparisons and actually SHOW us this. Your argument falls flat because you have failed to justify your charge. Just because people are well-liked, and are amongst like-minded individuals, a cult does not make. Please sit down.
Phoenix
i needed a laugh. Lots going on. All is well. I wish I could claim the antichrist label. It would look really good on my resume.
@ Bridget: A better shot of the “rocks glasses” crystal chandelier fixtures at the kennedy Center.
@ dee:
Thataway Mrs. Dee!!! Go hunt some Orc!
Let met just say that I honestly don’t feel like this blog is “cultic” or “mean-spirited.” Opinionated, perhaps – snarky, definitely. (Though I learned a long time ago that there are many people who think that having and expressing a strong opinion is “mean” in and of itself…what’s funny is that according to most conservative Christians, all those people are liberal Democrats. Bullcrap.)
I can see why someone who was VERY into YEC, comp or Calvinism could feel threatened if they stumbled into the comments, but most of the times there was a “spat” that I’ve seen, it was able to be calmed down again and/or at least pulled back to a dull roar. There are resident Calvinists here who seem to do just fine; not sure about comps or YECs. Frankly it would probably be good for someone who is big into these things to spend some time here…not so Dee & Deb can “convert” them (they don’t need to) but so they can learn to defend their opinion against people who completely disagree with it.
I don’t feel like I’m “not allowed” to express disagreement here. I wouldn’t do it if I wasn’t willing to stick to and defend my opinion, but those are my rules for saying anything publicly (even FB). And I definitely do disagree with some commenters on a variety of issues.
Also – is the Lydia being referred to above the same one who used to comment here a few years ago? I’m wondering because I’d read some of her comments in the archives.
@ Trina:
Yes, people often waste the word “cultic” on things that obviously are not…and then fail to spot the real deal when it’s right in front of their face.
TWW matches exactly zero of the characteristics of a cult.
Hester–
In addition, a cult would not allow differing views of belief or faith. There are non-Christians here, too. There are all types of Christians in this blog. I know that for me, personally, my theological beliefs are no longer what they once were when I began commenting on this blog and I haven’t received any “discipline” for it. I tell you, they keep running this cult like this and it’s going to quickly turn into a democracy. Wait… oh, that’s right.
numo wrote:
For me it was pie. 🙂
@ anonymous:
For me, it was a spinach and kale green smoothie with peaches and coconut milk. Yes, MA’AM!
Trina wrote:
“NARF!!!!!!”
Anybody out there want to take a stab at filking “Pinky and the Brain” starring those two?
HUG–
I see an episode with them getting beat up by some FEMMEBOTS they created who were supposed to be Stepford wives, except the ACME I.T. company they bought the microchips from is owned by an ex-pastor’s wife (who looks like Grace Driscoll, BTW) that sabbotaged them and programmed them to destroy neo-Cals. And they ditched the jean jumpers for all leather-clad bustier bodysuits like Beyonce at the Superbowl.
Now your show girl some love? That’s hot right?
..music and graphic style to simulate something Quentin Tarantino… Kill Bill maybe.
@ numo:
Well those are two different shots. The red one looks like a nice snowflake to me. In any case, the decor in the hotel room was completely discombobulated. Between the lights, decor on the left wall (not sure what that is) and the prints on the front wall, nothing melds well at all.
@ Hester:
I’m relatively new, tho I lurked for a loooong while. I’m Young Earth. It was actually interesting to read those who are Christian and non young earth.
I’m also probably a little comp., tho probably most people would say our marriage looked a lot more egal.
I found this blog when I was looking for info on the detrimental effects of Patriarchy. I knew that every marriage I had seen in which the woman practiced ultra submission was having increasingly alarming problems. I was just trying to find out if this was a trend or just something I had noticed.
And even after my confession of being young earth and leaning more comp, I don’t feel like I’ll be shunned or disrespected.
Welcome, Kindakrunchy!
In defense of my own harsh view expressed here on Calvinism, let me say that there is a difference between “putting down” and unashamedly pointing out the logical and ONBSERVABLE consequences of an untenable theology. Unfortunately, some equate the two, and I have ideas about why that is, the primary one being that many SGM members and former members, if they concede that doctrine is the problem, must admit that they were complicit in the destruction.
I will rigorously argue that Calvinism and the neo-reformed theology are the core of the problem, not a bastardization of the doctrine, but the very doctrines as they know it. The only difference between a bastardized version of Calvinism and a “good” version is how far one will take the doctrine towards its logical conclusions. CJ is the most consistent Calvinist in America right now. People don’t want to acknowledge that because it is too painful. For many, as for me, looking at CJ is like looking in a mirror. This is a painful realization, and they demonize me for pointing it out. That is good old SGM operating procedure. Wartburgwatch watch does not do this. SGM Calvinists do this.
OK I have two questions.
Can I now designate myself as a cult leader? Next time I am at the doctor’s I would love to write cult leader under occupation and see what she says but Iwant to be honest.
How many times a week do I need to vaccuum my kitchen floor in order to qualify for the “cleanliness is next to godliness but it is not in the bible so it is not gospel” award?
@ dee:
Lydia = anti-Calvin.
Lydia thought to be = anti-Chrst.
therefore Calvin thought to be = ??
@ Kindakrunchy:
I’ve been commenting for a little under a year. I also found TWW looking for (yet more) stuff on patriarchy, my pet peeve. I was homeschooled so I grew up around The Crazy (though my parents weren’t) and this year, prompted partly by my interactions here, I decided to just stop pulling punches on this crap.
I’m no longer young earth but I grew up going to lots of teen tracks, etc. about it. As for comp – when I came to TWW I was on the fence, but I would now describe more as “half-egalitarian.” I think of marriage as egalitarian but I’m undecided on women pastors. (If you look through the archives for my comments from about April/May of 2012, you should be able to watch my transition on this point.) Denominationally I’m moderately conservative Lutheran, which doesn’t go over well with many here – but even so I do not feel suppressed, shouted down, etc. Also Jeff S. and Sallie (who doesn’t comment as often nowadays) are Calvinist/Reformed.
Dee, maybe you should put up mug shots of us poor blacklisted Rogue Wartburgians who disagree with your mean-spirited agenda!
@ Dee:
“How many times a week do I need to vaccuum my kitchen floor in order to qualify for the ‘cleanliness is next to godliness but it is not in the bible so it is not gospel’ award?”
At least twelve. It should be clear from Titus 2:3-5, since you are supposed to be “busy at home.” You’re clearly not busy enough if you don’t vacuum your kitchen floor at least twelve times a day, once for each Apostle. And that’s only the kitchen. Follow my instructions to the (scarlet?) letter or else the Word of God will be blasphemed and it will be all your fault.
And here on WW all views are debated, tolerated, acknowledged. Dee and Deb may not agree, but they rarely block comments, and I have pushed that envelop. It stretches very far before breaking. Try walking into SGM homegroup and disagreeing with the blatant Calvinist assumptions in the evening’s discussion. Tell them you deny original sin, election, total depravity, and that God owns you. Tell them you belief that what you do is as important to your salvation as your position in Christ. See how far THAT envelop stretches. You won’t get a word in between the condescension and outright dismissal. And you will be a target for “conversion”. Or worse. Then ask them if you can address the church on your views; post a comment opposing the Statement of Faith on the website. Now, pray tell, what do these hypocrites think will happen?
Kindakrunchy wrote:
That’s interesting. My former church was very patriarchal. It began about 40 years ago. After observing the effects of patriarchy on the first generation of wives, and some of the second, most of the women are messed up. Almost all of them are extremely unhappy. And by the time they finally realize what a failed social experiment it really is, they’re nearly too old (or at least they feel too old) to break away and start over again.
DaveAA
🙂 Better watch it. You may become known as the Beast.
So, according to Trina’s list, TWW is not a cult … But Mars Hill most definitely is!
I found this site in doing some information gathering on Mark Driscoll – talk about a breath of fresh air! I’m a “new” Christian in that although I grew up going to church, I lived a completely secular life for many years. And I became a follower of Jesus without knowing very much about the current state of Christendom. I was floored when I came across Driscoll – this chauvinist bully and obvious liar (pornovision?!) who is clearly and shamelessly obsessed with sex and who literally invented a new Savior (Cage Fighting Tattooed Jesus) because the old one wasn’t cool enough for him … he’s a well-known mainstream CONSERVATIVE pastor? This was upsetting enough, but then added to my confusion was not only the perplexing lack of criticism but the absolutely stunning approval and even praise from other mainstream conservative pastors.
I am happy to have found a mix of believers, nonbelievers, and semi-believers who are not all bedazzled by megachurch stardom and religious fads. Christians should be about seeking truth and defending the helpless, not just playing nice. Thanks, Dee and Deb, for providing a non-cult-like place for us to gather.
It baffles me how Calvin ever became a hero of anybody’s faith in the first place. The very phrase “Institutes of the Christian Religion” seems to me to fly right in the face of God made man, and – here’s the thing – still with us, always. If you have properly-constituted religious institutes, though, then the last thing you want is some God-with-us type using the poor and foolish things of the world to shame you, the powerful and educated. No wonder he approved of the murder of a man for “heresy”. The “reformation” by this point was already mainly about power.
Or, put it this way. A revolution is sweeping much of ecclesiastical life in north-west Europe: justification is not through works, but by grace through faith. Then along comes a man who sets about creating a 600,000-word tome specifying, to the last nail, exactly what that means, in a manner that is to be binding on everybody else. IMHO, said man seems to be struggling with the parts about “grace” and “faith”.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You’d have to read said man’s tome and the chapters on grace and faith to “really” understand what you believe — apparently 🙁
lilyrosemary wrote:
Yes, that would seem a little weird. I think the reason is historical. To summarise briefly…
Back in the sixties or so, a fairly strong movement swept through a lot of western theological scholarship that, to varying degrees, challenged and sometimes rejected historical beliefs of the christian faith but still called itself christian. (It’s often referred to as “liberal theology” or some variation.) It kind of happened along with flower power, rock ‘n roll and all that stuff; it was inevitable, really, that traditional religion would get the same treatment as traditional politics, social roles, etc.
Anyway, the practical upshot is that it has left conservative western christianity more or less clinically traumatised. Anyone who questions anything must be one of those terrible “liberals” who reject every aspect of the gospel. So, anyone like Park Fiscal [rhymes with…] who bangs on about a handful of traditional Christian doctrines gets a free pass. It doesn’t matter that he’s an infantile, self-serving, bullying, unregenerate yob, or that he and his ilk don’t even slightly resemble the Jesus of the gospels, nor do they demonstrate the fruit of the spirit. At least they’re not liberals, which makes them defenders of the truth.
As far as I can tell, that’s what’s going on in the heads of people who fawn over these businessmen, consultants and professional motivational speakers.
Kindakrunchy,
Considering your self identification as a young earther, how are my little Biology lessons?
This isn’t a trap, I really want to know.
@ Eagle:
Skimmed the article. Evidently, the real gospel was not shared with her. As in this whole conversation about Piper and SG, idealogy is more important than Jesus. Anytime you add anything to the simple gospel (Jesus + ____), you are making Paul’s dander rise. I think Galatians must not be in a lot of Bibles these days.
@ Debra Baker
I clicked on your name and found your blog. I saw the one on DNA replication and skimmed it. I’m just going to assume there are more. It has been quite a few years since biology 208 (I think that was the #). Let me read it tomorrow morning when my mind is a little more awake.
I would venture to say that most of us that went to a PDI church before 1996 were not Calvinist & had no idea what it was. A lot of us felt like our churches were changed into something that we had never signed up for. Our friends & family were there so after a while we just “flew under the radar” until it wasn’t possible to do so anymore.
I NEVER wanted anything to do with Calvinism. I didn’t want it forced down my throat then & I don’t want it now. And I am sure that there are significant numbers of other SGM/PDI “survivors” that feel the same way. We don’t make a big deal about it because what good would it do anyway & we don’t want to fight with the “Survivors” who are Calvinists.
Oh, it was supposed to be Biologyese translated into plain English so a normally intelligent person who isn’t a Bio-geek like me can get a basic understanding of relatively complex processes. I love life science and I really like helping other people understand the stuff but the last thing I want to do is offend sincere people.
Kindakrunchy wrote:
Kindakrunchy wrote:
So what would you have said to Nikki if you hat met her near the end of her year in the US? If she said she could be a Christian but only if she could keep her beliefs in Evolution? Or at least most of them.
@ Lynn:
I’d have told her of course you can believe in evolution and be a Christian.
Josh wrote:
I agree completely.
Ellie
Welcome to TWW. Thank you for your perspective.It is helpful to understand the historyof SGM. I, too, do not want to fight with Calvinists, particualrly cause I eat lunch every Sunday with one who is a dear friend! I am sorry for any conflict over at SGM Survivors.
@ Debra Baker:
Not offended. Just sleepy, and even if you’re explaining DNA to dummies, you’re still talking about DNA replication and how it proves a common ancestor. I want to be able to reply somewhat intelligently.
Debra
I love your stuff and I want you to keep posting. You are so clear in your presentation. Thank you so much.
@ Bridget: Yep, it’s a total wreck!
I guess you have to go to the KC in order to get a clear(er) view of those light fixtures. The 2nd shot is – I think – of some of the lights in the lobby.
At any rate, the chandeliers in the Concert Hall (in the back of the building, next to the Opera House space) are what I was thinking of earlier when I mentioned seeing them clearly from the highest balcony levels. Sigh. It’s been over 9 years since I was last there, and things are beginning to run together in my brain.
@ Bridget: The photographer got directly under it so that the snowflake pattern would show.
Trust me, the crystal fittings in that chandelier are not small!
@ Trina: Ooh… Greek-style spinach pie – yum!!!
@ Kindakrunchy:
Hardly. 😉 I think a lot of us have come here feeling like we belonged – at best – on the Island of Misfit Toys.
And then we found out that we actually *are* the church. (Those of us who i.d. as Christians, anyway.) Pretty nice! 🙂
Piper has gotten really….creepy. Although since I’ve been Catholic I have gotten ‘unused’ to the style of preaching where the Bible is flailed around and the H.S. is called down and instructed what to do…….and each word is pulled apart grammatically and looked at from every angle under a magnifying glass and then promptly put into service to back up whatever the preacher wants to say. Gah. He definitely is flirting with cultic type behaviours in his insinutations that only his church or doctrine has the truth while anyone who visits around a bit is looking to have their ears ‘itched’.
“Paul laid claim to authority equal to that of Scripture, along with the other apostles.” Um…yeah…that’s what Catholics have trying to say all this time! Lol.
Thanks for those affirming comments. I had a great big laugh at our blog being described as a cult.
That definitely needs to go on the list of what people are saying about The Wartburg Watch. LOL!!!
EAB
Welcome to TWW.
@ numo:
“Island of Misfit Toys”…
Yeah. Where else can I be young earth, comp leaning, NON Reformed yet not Armenian, homeschooling mom of a bunch of kids yet non patriarchal and non quiverfull, not like Ken Ham or Piper, and still fit in?
I don’t think they make boxes that size.
Honestly, I like it here. I like it when people make me think (just not after a night when I’ve been up a lot with the baby and I’m sleepy).
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I was able to piece a lot of this together but I love your summary; it clarifies things even more. After so many years “in the world” I see all too well the problems with decadence, relativism, and cultural breakdown. But it still amazes that more don’t see that Driscoll-style conservatism is by no means the cure for those ills. Conservatism can be good when one aims to conserve good things. Driscoll seeks to conserve only his own ego.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ah yes. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Nick B.
Really appreciating your comments. WW has probably the most astute posters of all the blogs I have seen.
Argo wrote:
Not that I want to re-open this can of worms, but the answer to your quandary is that calling someone’s belief a “cult of death” is absolutely going to be taken as a “put down” by most people. There are nicer words to use in a disagreement.
And everyone who as ever held a strong belief in anything views opposing views as ultimately leading to horrible consences that are untenable. If we didn’t, we would really care that much. But I don’t think you see me labeling opposing views as anything like a “cult of death”.
I know we’ve talked about this before and I know you don’t see “cult of death” as being offensive, but I wish you could at least acknowledge that some people DO find it so and therefore you should not be surprised when they feel your words are a “put down” and not mere disagreement.
Regarding CJ being the best Calvinist you know- well maybe he is- if so then the rest of us must be poor Calvinist. But why does he and you get to define what a Calvinist is?
I believe in the five points of Calvinism. I believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith that is not alone. I believe that the chief end of many is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. I agree with the majority of the Westminster Confession, as far as I am familiar with it (though I have not studied it in depth). I don’t believe that ANY of these things logically lead to an environment that enables and protects child molestation.
This is why I get frustrated- CJ does not speak for me, he does not speak for my church, and he does not speak for my systematic theology. I have no doubt you think Calvin, Luther, Agustine and all the rest have given us some dangerous views on faith and that all of us are misinterpreting Paul. And I’m willing to hear that out and listen to what you have to say. I am, after all, interested in the truth, not the teaching of any man. But as near as I can tell, all those things I cited above (not the individuals, but the beliefs) are beliefs that come from the scripture.
But when you tell me that CJ is the natural end of my beliefs, that feels like a straw man argument to me. You can find people doing evil things in the name of any belief, but it doesn’t make that belief wrong. And if there is something in Calvinism that DOES lead to child molestation, then that is a point to reevaluate. No ST is inerrant- every Presbyterian pastor takes some exceptions to the WCF. I do not blindly follow any man, but I can tell you what I’ve experienced around non-Reformed churches and it was a heck of a lot more painful out there than in here.
Anyway, that’s just me. I can let all of this go, but all I’m asking is for you to hear me when I say that the words you choose and the arguments you make DO sound like “put downs” to me, however you intend them (and I’m used to being disagreed with- I rarely feel “put down”).
JeffS,
That was a kind and gracious post.
For my part, I fully acknowledge that “cult of death” may be offensive, but the truth often is. Was it not offensive to the Pharisee heretics to be called sons of hell; brood of vipers? But we cannot disregard the truth by whose delicate sensibilities we might offend. Every point in TULIP has only one ultimate purpose: to remove man from himself, to destroy the person by declaring him irrelevant to the cosmic equation. To say that man’s greatest sin is that he exists at all. That he cannot control his own self, let alone apprehend God.
Where do people expect this thinking to lead? Exactly where Calvinism takes it: human beings are secondary to their roles according to the subjective traditions of Calvinism; human lives are disposable if they get in the way of the message.
And what is their role? To SUBMIT in spite of ANYTHING according to themselves because they are pervasively depraved. They can never be in a position to judge the morality of their spiritual superiors by definition. That’s why John Calvin himself burned people at the stake or banished them. Likewise the Puritans. They are never accused of practicing a distorted version of Calvinism. On the contrary, they are lauded for their doctrinal virtue!
This is what CJ believes and he is acting accordingly. He is the consummate Calvinist.
Offense is quite acceptable to me if it effectively subverts abuse of innocent humans. What you call offense I call love.
Argo, thank you for acknowledging the potential offensiveness of your words. And there's no doubt that my own views and word choice are offensive to people – that is part of holding to strong beliefs.
A counter: you cannot say that it is Calvinism which led to burning people at the stake. Whatever Calvin was guilty of, remember that there were plenty of people at that time just as guilty (or more so) who did not hold to his views. In fact, people suffered for going against authority before Calvin was on the scene. This does not excuse anything he did, but it does show that people can behave badly with or without Calvinism.
The point of TULIP was quite clearly to counter the points of Arminianism. It does not deny that humans act as free agents or make them irrelevant to the cosmic equation. It is not determinism. As for what the role of humanity is, it is quite clearly to glorify God and enjoy him forever. I'm not sure how this morphs into a role of submitting to others.
I have experienced authoritarian structures in and out of Calvinism, just like was true in Calvin's time. He may have promoted an authoritarian structure, but again Rome was already in full swing in that regard without the benefit of Calvinism to blame.
I do believe Luther and Calvin brought back into faith the idea that the content of our beliefs is important – that doctrine matters. In many ways this has led to a tradition of elevating doctrine to a place it ought not to be- I can see that. This doesn't mean doctrine is of no value, nor does it mean doctrine is the panacea. Over-correcting is what gets us into trouble every time.
Argo wrote:
I will also point out that labeling things which feel unloving as love is something that authoritarian structures do (and what opponents accuse Calvinists of doing). For my own part, I will never again accept that something which feels unloving is loving on the strength of someone else's words. That is a major trigger for me.
I’m with Ellie. Most PDI/SGMers would not have even been able to define Calvinism ten years ago, it was so far off their radars even after CJ became its butt buddy- aka joined at the hip. (But boy, they could sure tell you whether that shirt you were wearing was “worldly” or not.)
In fact, I hate all discussions “theology”. I know some people like it, but I figure it’s not going to help me to love another because I have been able to determine whether Calvinism/Armenianism is correct. Whether young earth or old earth of the big bang is correct. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or anything else. If it doesn’t help us to practically LOVE the person beside us, it’s kind of a waste to me.
Btw, I missed the part over at survivors where someone declared TWW to be a cult. Can someone find it for me? In spite of the fact that I don’t agree with 5years on theology stuff (shoot me the first time you see me jump into a theological discussion), I’d still be surprised that she actually said that.
Dee, as far as not checking your email in church, you’re a much better woman than I!
Dee, you said, “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.”
Dee, to think of that level of evilness (calling good evil and calling evil good), gives me the chills. I hadn’t even thought of it before, but I fear you are right.
Once again, I fear the church is behind the world and the victims will be left swinging in the breeze.
But we are collectively like Cassandra of mythology, we can see but are ignored.
Millstones around the neck, folks.
Also, I am also triggered by people telling me how to feel and telling me to ignore my instincts.
I am also really triggered and peeved at passive-aggressive people that say something like, “Oh, I’m so sorry I hurt your little feelings by saying something meanhearted (then go on to say something mean hearted or repeat what she had previously said.) and then go on to support their superior spiritual state and have a witless amen chorus or groupies that follow legitimizing their sham.
Such passive-aggressives usually can’t help using the word, bitter in their postings.
I just read the insane scenario Piper paints about the mugging. (Clearly, I read in parts then post. Why I read blog posts like it is an ongoing discussion, I have no idea.)
Back to his insane scenario about the mugging. Your observation that Piper paints “Sarah” as an inert object without the ability to have action apart from the man’s commands is right on. My heavens, as strong or weak as any man is, what woman with a blackbelt would just stand idly by as the friend she is walking with is being attacked. My boo (I can’t believe I just called him my boo) is 6’4″ and very skilled at self defense. But there is no way in the freaking world I’d stand idly by while someone was attacking them. I’m not the strongest or biggest and I have never punched someone, but you can be sure I’d be finding the nearest rock and apply it to the attacker’s head or whatever it is I thought to do at the moment. (Is there anything worse than a movie where the damsel in distress just stands there and watches her man get beaten?)
Would it emasculate my tall, capable man if I did so? No. You see, he’s not a little 14 year old boy with huge insecurity issues. He’s a man. A real man. He is not threatened when I actually DO something without his express permission. His man parts are not so small that this kind of thing would emasculate him.
Jeff S
Excellent. “For my own part, I will never again accept that something which feels unloving is loving on the strength of someone else’s words. That is a major trigger for me.”
Stunned
That is quite easy. Comment 235. However, unlike you, it does not surprise me.
But the spirit at WW often moves from legitimate purposes to the SAME SPIRIT I SAW IN SGM. The same contempt, the same superiority. Different reasons, same spirit. You are back in another cult like group, IMO.
itsme, I like your handle.
You said, “Please leave Deborah out of the examples, spearing a man’s head with a stake after serving him milk is not full on combat, but a great example of a lady in McDonalds.”
Just as a correction, this was not Deborah who pounded that tent spike through a man’s brain. That was another woman. Deborah led the forces into battle.
Yikes, Dee, I missed that. Thanks for helping me with it.
JeffS,
I find the logic dubious at best, to equate what is truly offensive not on the basis of what it means but on the choice of words and/or tone. That is a recipe for authoritarianism not love. SGM demands that people not gossip not on the basis of what constitutes real gossip but on their completely subjective ideas of tone, format (blog, email), word choice, whether or not a pastor or other agent of the church is present, etc. etc. Rejecting an idea because it doesn’t fit your subjective ideas of proper presentation is not rational. It is the fallback of people who do not really wish to defend their own perspectives.
Calvinism and Catholicism hold to the exact same metaphysical premises: man is a beast who must be compelled by the divinely select few to force them to right moral action despite their own wills. You can say that Calvinism believes in free will until the sheep come home, but the fact is that there is absolutely nothing about human free will that is relevant or efficacious to any good or evil thing. Every point in TULIP is rooted in the premise that man is constantly under the influence of a force beyond himself. Depravity, sin, the Holy Spirit, election, and on. They claim that man cannot even percieve evil or good of his own will, but only via that which enslaves him. Their idea of free will is the effective will of someone who is buried alive. They may have some sort of free will, but it amounts to zero in practical application.
Hi again, itsme. I didn’t answer your question. (Not that you were asking me specifically.)
As far as front line combat goes, I want the person who is most qualified to be up there. This is not determined by whether or not the person has male parts or female parts. Unless one fights with one’s outer appendage, slapping each other back and forth. To my knowledge, this would not be considered a war, but gay porn.
And Dee,
See the first half of my last post. To equate what we accept as true and love based on how it sounds to our ears is a recipe for disaster. It is exactly what SGM did and does. Why is it so hard to convince people that doctrine has consequences? That theology matters? Why is everything in SPITE of doctrine? How can truth be established on what we decide we “like”, which is precisely what JeffS is saying and you agreed with.
Arminianism, Calvinism, Catholicism…all doctrines abuse. Here is a philosophical truth: Correlation is not causality. Calvinism is abusive because of its own theological assumptions. The fact that some Arminian churches also abuse does not magically change this fact.
If you won’t accept ideas based on the strength of words and the argument, then what can you accept them on? Subjective feeling; doctrines of submission and authority? That IS the premise of every hyper authoritarian group you oppose!
Holy Cow, I’ve missing all the fun. What’s this??? TWW a cult? hahahaha. Yea, because everybody is drinking purple Kool-Aid and is forced to read and forced to comment.
Oh, this sounds more fun than I had in Vegas (well, that kind of fun – I did have fun watching my kid play volleyball). I can’t wait to read this.
Argo wrote:
I find offense in the WAY people talk to me. Saying things is a respectful way is how you show a person that you respect him or her, even if you do not respect his or her ideas. That’s what tolerance is: respecting people even if you do not respect their ideas.
Show me where I have rejected your ideas because of your presentation. I have not. I’m merely uninclined to participate in conversations that are painful. Or said a differently way, I like to talk to people who are nice to me, and I prefer not to talk to people who aren’t. But basically, you haven’t provided one reason to reject Calvinism or Reformed Theology other than some people who believe it have acted badly. You have not at all supported the idea that the logical conclusions of Reformed Theology are responsible for what has happened at SGM (though you have made the assertion multiple times). I’m not rejecting your presentation; you haven’t provided an argument yet.
I’m not sure how you got that out of what I said. I believe doctrine is HUGE and I absolutely believe it has consequences
I didn’t say THAT either. What I DID say is that I don’t trust other people to re-define what I think of as loving. Can I accept that my definition of “loving” is wrong? Certainly, but it’s going to take more than the words of an “authority” or some person on the internet telling me I’m wrong. It’s going to take work of the Holy Spirit in my heart and an appeal to scripture at the least.
From what I can make of the photo from Piper’s recent time at SGM Louisville, they had the same reaction I have always had to his sermons. They are asleep.
http://instagram.com/p/V18nIGp9OW/
😉 Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Mr Tough Man Driscoll has a body guard? Bwhahahaha. Tell me that isn’t true! So he gets protection, but the little kids who were molested in his buddy, CJ’s church are left to fend for themselves? Nice.
Anon said, “In 1543, after the plague struck Geneva, Sebastian Castellio was the only divine in Geneva to visit the sick and console the dying; the Geneva Consistory and Calvin himself refused to visit the sick, Calvin directing his servants to declare him “indispensable” and later writing in his own defense that “it would not do to weaken the whole Church in order to help a part of it.”[5]”
Thank heavens Jesus was willing to leave the 99 behind to rescue the one. May God forgive Calvin’s soul. “Right” theology can still = cold heart.
@ Debra Baker:
“Restraint” was working against my instincts yesterday, especially when three lines questioning someones comment resulted in a do-over of the offensive comment.
Stunned
He has a personal protection team. Lots of them.
JeffS,
I have defended my assertion many times on this blog. I obviously am able to dive deeper into the issue in a different format, hence why I started my own blog. At any rate, I could say the same for your ideas. You defend Calvinism by showing how other groups also abuse. You are making correlation, causation. This is not offering an argument, it is in a sense, subterfuge; or slight of hand. I’m not saying you are doing it on purpose, however. So please don’t take that as a dig.
Here is the summary of my argument: A theology that declares human beings worthless and incompetent to know and do anything that results in functional usefulness of their own volition, evil or (and especially) good, is GOING to necessarily make them disposable, in service to the doctrine of the “authorities”. More simply, abuse of innocent people justifies the ends.
I can appreciate that we should not be heartless in how we communicate. I sincerely apologize if I have been this way. I promise to reasses my approach. That is not an unreasonable point. All I am saying is that you do not get to decide what is true based on whether you think the messenger is nice. You are free to avoid those you subjectively feel are “nice”, but you cannot accuse the “mean” ones of failing to convince you of anything, since you make it clear that approach is a big way you evaluate the message.
Having said that, you do make a good point. If adjusting my approach to make it more friendly or comfortable for you means you (and others who feel like you do) will weigh my ideas more seriously, then I will INDEED take that into consideration.
Stunned
This appears to the the opposite of Spock’s sacrifice of his life in Star trek. “The sacrifice of the one for the benefit of the many.” To bad secular sy fy writer get it more than holy men. Wait- one did! Jesus.
I meant you are free to avoid the mean ones.
@ Stunned:
I agree with you on cold hearts. I would go as far as to say that “no theology automatically equals love.”
Dee, a protection TEAM? I learn so much every time I stop by here. Are the hipsters in Seattle going to drink too much coffee and hacky-sack him to death? (That’s my teasing shout out to my old friend here who I once met in Seattle.)
Meanwhile, in Norway, a TV program on firewood and how to stack it has some people in an uproar. (*Not* a link to The Onion – it’s a real thing.)
Who knew?
Is it publicly known why so many churches are leaving SGM? Like, have they stated their reasons? Maybe I am being overly pessimistic, but a thought came to me as I was reading this post. I absolutely HOPE that these churches are voluntarily leaving out of sheer disgust with SGM. But, on the other hand, I assume they were run in the same authoritarian manner, and were just as susceptible to these problems of abuse as the ones that remain. What if they, too, have had issues, and are trying to dodge out of being discovered and being taken down along SGM? Worse, what if they’ve had issues that the SGM top leadership was aware of, and are being pressured by the higher-ups to unplug from the system. You know, as damage control? Maybe they’re trying to keep the story from growing? Does anyone know the publicly stated reasons for leaving, or has it been very hush-hush? Just wondering…
Argo
First off, I appreciate the spirit of your comment and your willingness to hear me out.
Actually, what I INTENDED to do was to show that YOU were conflating correlation and causation- that just because Calvin or CJ behaved in a way does not require their theology to be bad. I was offering examples of the Catholic church to show that there was not causation, or that if there IS, citing CJ and Calvin and exmples does not prove it.
So this this the point where you actually have to prove that Reformed Theology rests on that premise. I don’t think it does. I think people are capable of both good and evil, both before and after conversion. I DO beleive that pre-conversion we are corrupted so such a degree that we are not inclined to accept the free grace of Jesus without the work of the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that we are not capable of good or that we do not have free will. Every person has the free will to choose Christ, but without regeneration, no person would make such a choice. I think this fully fits within Reformed Theology, what I read in scripture, and does not reduce man to being worthless and incompetent. I owe my salvation entirely to God, but I am certainly involved in good and evil works in this world.
In a sense, the topic of the roles of humanity vs the roles of a soverign God are very difficult to suss out, whatever your philosophical framework. It is difficult for me to concieve of a world where man is any kind of free agent at all, and this is quite apart from my faith in Christ. If there is no God, then we are slaves to genetics. If there is one, it seems that we are slaves to how he created us. Yet I believe that the scripture tells us we are free agents, that we do good and evil, and that we are responsible for making those things happen. This is not something I logically comprehend, but it is something I apprehend in scriptrue so I believe it is a mystery.
“I think a lot of us have come here feeling like we belonged – at best – on the Island of Misfit Toys. And then we found out that we actually *are* the church.”
Numo,
So true! I loved this comment!
From one misfit to all of the rest of you guys
I would rather be a misfit with you guys than pretend I am a doctrinal wonder who knows the mind of God.
Jeff S and Argo,
I very much enjoyed your discourses.
Argo, you do a great work explaining your views.
Jeff S, I understand you also, however, let me share something. My husband never raises his voice to me, which I usually appreciate, but sometimes it’s annoying and I want him to just let out what he is really believing. He may be wanting to spare me the pain but what I need is the argument. During one argument, he raised his voice just enough to sternly tell me to stop yelling at him. Usually I would stop yelling, but this time I yelled even louder telling him, “your FACE is yelling AT ME!
Anyway, that’s how I perceive the doctrines of Calvin’s predestination and complementarianism. It doesn’t matter how ‘nice’ and ‘loving’ the preachers of those doctrines are, the nice ones still ‘yell at me’ with their Piperish creepy smiles and they still spell the opposite of the love of God in my heart. Argo cuts to the chase, and puts all of his Calvin studies into a neat little three word package that tells us exactly what he thinks of his doctrines, and it invites us to debate. If you were to say that egalitarianism is a cult of death, that would draw me into an argument with you but if you merely say that you are complementarian and that you believe that I what the Bible says then I simply feel flustered and no less insulted. I prefer the argument.
JeffS,
And so it goes with your theology. It always boils down to an inexplicable contradiction in terms. You have free will, but it isn’t “inclined”, which really means that it isn’t free at all when the rubber meets the road. Once it is “inclined”, then your “will” has no choice but to accept; according to Calvinism the “elect” are not free to deny Christ. The word inclined is euphemistic. It means either able or unable as the situation calls for. At the end of the day you cannot have a free will that is not free. You cannot have a free will that is utterly at the mercy of that to which it is “inclined”. You cannot have a free will that is at the mercy of science/genetics or cosmic determinism. You have to admit that. If you declare free will you must abandon all forms of determinism, scientific or theological.
If I am being accused of trying to “know the mind of God” in my attempt to show people the contradictions” in the theology I practiced and studied in SGM for 15 years, which lead to abuse, then I must admit that I have misjudged this blog.
Dee, I’m sorry I misjudged you and your blog. You have been fair to me, and I appreciate that. But if that last comment was directed at me then that was possibly the meanest thing any Christian has ever said to me. It would have been kinder to simply block me, really.
If it was directed at me.
@ Patti:
I understand where you’re coming from. I maintain that what Piper teaches under the guise of Calvinism isn’t really representative of all those who believe it. I have a hard time with Piper in general.
I’ll also point out that “Calvin’s complementariansm” would be a misnomer. Calvin wasn’t any more or less “complementarian” than anyone else- and in fact that term is only a few decades old.
And FWIW, I would not classify myself as a “complementarian”- I’m mostly undecided (though I go to a complementarian church). Since I’m not married, nor do I have a say in who is ordained in my church, I figure it largely doesn’t matter what I believe about comp vs egal.
It was interesting that I went out on a first date this past week and she mentioned something about women preachers in what sounded like a negative light. I said that I was undecided on that topic and I didn’t think the scriptures were as clear as some people make out, and there was a shift in her talkng- as if she suddenly felt free to actually express herself. I don’t think she was being shallow or putting anything on- the change was subtle- but it was as if she suddenly let me know the “real” her. I’m not sure what conclusions to draw from that, except that perhaps a lot fewer women in patriarchal churches accept comp deep down than comps probably think.
Argo,
After reading that comment Dee posted, I too bristled, wondering if it was directed at you. All I could think was, Argo don’t leave please, I love this blog because of the sincere arguments that Dee and Deb allow. And I know that you have done your homework!
And Hi Stunned,
I also love that you stick to what you know too, love! You have done your homework, too!
@ Jeff S:
Jeff, your comment denies two of the TULIP: Total depravity and Irrestible grace. If man can choose to follow Jesus or not, the grace is not irrestible. And if man can choose to do good or to follow Jesus, then man is not totally depraved. And then, you have also denied predestination/double election, which is a core concept in almost all Reformed thinking.
56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC wrote:
My view is completely consistent with what RC Sproul writes about Irresistable Grace:
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-irresistible-grace/?aref=CJ
“It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren’t dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts.”
And here about Total Depravity:
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-total-depravity/
“In the Reformed tradition, total depravity does not mean utter depravity. We often use the term total as a synonym for utter or for completely, so the notion of total depravity conjures up the idea that every human being is as bad as that person could possibly be. You might think of an archfiend of history such as Adolf Hitler and say there was absolutely no redeeming virtue in the man, but I suspect that he had some affection for his mother. As wicked as Hitler was, we can still conceive of ways in which he could have been even more wicked than he actually was. So the idea of ‘total’ in total depravity doesn’t mean that all human beings are as wicked as they can possibly be. It means that the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person.”
I believe in total depravity, that because we have been radically corrupted (as RC Sproul prefers to call it) we do not chose Christ- it is not that God is like a puppet master pulling the strings- it is that we do not see the VALUE in Christ until he opens our eyes. And once our eyes are opened we are still free to reject, but no one would once they understand the irresistable value of Christ.
Patti,
Thank you so much.
JeffS,
See my previous comment. The definitions you cite are, again, merely saying that your free will is an illusion. If no one’s will can determine whether they chose or reject Christ in full knowledge if His “value” (which is wholly subjective to begin with; define this irresistible value please), then the will is at the mercy of the power of the value. The value of Christ trumps will. The will is not free. That is called irresistible grace. Your will is nonexistent in the equation. 56 Years is exactly right. The logical inconsistency is not hard to see.
Argo, et al.
I really, really am not interested in theological debates; but I know those things matter to many commenters here. I’m impressed with your scholarship:) Coming from that place I don’t get any sense that Dee’s comment “I would rather be a misfit with you guys than pretend I am a doctrinal wonder who knows the mind of God,” was addressing Argo. For one thing, Dee doesn’t sideswipe. She addresses folks directly. For another, Argo, you weren’t coming across like a “doctrinal wonder” OR like someone who thinks you are one. You don’t, do you?
I think it far more likely that Dee’s reference was to John Piper and his ilk; who certainly DO speak as though they know the mind of God. And maybe to some of her critics. In fact, I think she was embracing all of us here on the Island of Misfit Toys and I hope you think of yourself as one of us. (Personally, I’m pretty sure I’m the locomotive with square wheels.)
@ Patti: I made a comment yesterday that reference the Island of Misfit Toys – if you look upthread, I think you’ll see it.
fwiw, my comment wasn’t about Calvin, Reformed theology, Calvinistas – or Argo. It’s about this place being a refuge for those who have been abused, spiritually and otherwise.
dee wrote:
Dee, as a die-hard Trekker, I have to quibble with your quote. You have the idea, but I think the exact words were, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one …”(said as he is dying a gruesome death and bleeding green Vulcan blood). Nonetheless, you should reward yourself with chocolate (Trader Joe’s Swiss Dark with 30% Hazelnuts is what I would recommend) for pointing out that sci fi gets it more than many Christians
Here’s the comment in question:
numo on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:23 PM said:
“@ Kindakrunchy:
Hardly. 🙂 I think a lot of us have come here feeling like we belonged – at best – on the Island of Misfit Toys.
And then we found out that we actually *are* the church. (Those of us who i.d. as Christians, anyway.) Pretty nice! 🙂
@ Argo:
Terms are tricky to define. Just what we mean by “free will” is in and of itself unclear.
If you offer a man who desires riches but has none a check for a million dollars, are you really offering him a choice? Does he have free will? I think he does, even though he would never resist the offer (as described).
As I’ve already stated, I really have no philosphical idea of how free will is even possible, Calvinism or no Calvinism, God or no God. I do not see how we can possibly be anything other than the product of our created natures coupled with natural reactions to events. As we were created, that is who we are. Except that I believe the Bible tells a different story, and so I believe it even if I cannot understand it. Yes, I cannot explain everything- in my world I do not have to. But when it comes to difficult concepts, free will is much more difficult to comprehend than determinism.
I really don’t want to press this issue because I assume you’ve thought a lot about it and have come to your conclusions with careful thought. I have too. At some point we have to admit that we do not agree on the logical conclusions or the definitions of words we are using. I am OK with that.
What I do believe is that man has choices, is worth being loved, and that God desires good things for us. I also believe that my salvation came through no work of my own, but as a merciful act of God that gives me no reason to bost or be proud, and no cause to look down on others who have not been bless as I have been.
I wonder if it would be helpful for folks to use the “reply” and “reply with quote” options (small text hyperlinks at the bottom right of each post) – because when you do, there’s an automatic – and clickable – link that takes readers back to the comment that’s being replied to. (Bad grammar, but I’m sure you get my drift.)
Makes it SO much easier to follow the convos!
The source of the problem is in the concept of sovereignty. To say that God is Sovereign does not mean that whatever happens he willed and what he wills is what happens. Sovereignty is the right to determine, but any non-tyrannical sovereign (e.g., a good parent) knows that to govern successfully and to be loved, one restrains the use of that authority and power to allow a subject (e.g., child) to make choices and endure/enjoy the result of making those choices, and to be the provider of both the benefits and the forgiveness resulting from those choices. That is free will, in the context of choice, benefit and consequences.
To believe otherwise is to believe in a God who creates and created some persons for their predestined fate in eternal torment, which represents God as a vicious, evil tyrant. If you choose to make that your god, be my guest. But that unlovely god is not one that will convert others who need to believe (of course, if they have no choice, who cares?!?!?!). The God of grace and love, who gives us the choice, and rewards us if we make the choice to accept his love, is a much easier god for most non-Christians to consider and accept, thereby changing their status and eternal outcome.
@ Jeff S:
It can be that terrible urge to fit in to the group. It can even be an unconscious behavior. My guess is that you can relate to that. I can say from experience that it is incredibly difficult to express yourself in an environment where everyone thinks and behaves the same way. It is very difficult for a women in a complementarian environment to be free to be herself. Even if she has no intention of offending, her disagreement on anything is taken as such. Some people believe that I do not know what my church teaches (and could even fault the leaders) because I don’t think about doctrines in the same way they do. People tend to want everyone close to them to think the same way. It must make life so much smoother.
@ Bridget:
Bridget, Excellent comment! And when we are expected to think the same way, we do not grow or mature at all. I got to the point I thought of Evangelicalism as a ghetto of sorts. (Not individuals, please!!) I know that sounds awful and mean but even bringing up that the OT might have been written during or after the Babylonian exile is considered heresy! Or that the word, inerrant, might not apply if we really think about it.
You can be cast as heretic, ignorant, lost, etc. So folks keep their mouths shut. That is why I just cannot identify with any group at this point. I like to tackle issues, one at a time. Does not exactly make for group loyalty.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
Wouldn’t you have to say then (determinist thinking here) that God created Adam and Eve purposefully to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? They had no choice? To me, anyway, it appears that God gave them choice, as well as instructions about what their purpose was.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
If God is all knowing and all powerful, when he creates a person he knows whether that person will accept or reject him. It’s not like God is sitting up in heaven watching our lives like a soap opera desperate to see how it all turns out. So if that is true, he is creating people he knows will spend eternity in hell. Even his act of creating is deterministic. Wouldn’t you argue it would be better for him to only create those who would accept him?
As parents we do not control our children- they make choices apart from us. But we can also not see all of the ends of our interactions with them. We discipline or reward with goals in mind, but there are not perfect correlations. That is NOT God though- he can see the ends. He knows the effects of his interractions with us. If he wants certain behavior, he can give us exactly the right inputs to make us behave (or withhold inputs- not acting and knowing how that will turn out make non-action still control).
If you want to argue philosophically that we have free will, it’s not Calvinism you have to explain away, but how an all powerful God can do anything BUT control his Creation?
Of course, as I’ve said I believe that God is not deterministic with us, but I have no concept of how it works. I just know that Calvinism is not the difficult pill to swallow when it comes to believing in free will and predestination at the same time.
Phoenix wrote:
Phoenix,
LOL No! 🙂
My only claim is that in light if God’s omnipotence we can in fact make certain assumptions about Him; for one, that He cannot act redundantly. That means that if He creates something NOT Him, then that thing must be free to exist and to act of its own ability apart from God. That then precludes any form of determinism; cause and effect must then be derived from free acts of creation upon free acts. If God creates Creation in order to control it/possess it, then He is being redundant. This is metaphysically impossible.
In addition we must not assume that natural law = detetmined reality.
Think about it, if EVERYTHING is determined by either God or natural law, how can you claim to know anything?? Your very thoughts are outside of any self aware consciousness. Consciousness itself is an illusion. A determined product, inevitable; YOU can’t possibly have a genuine thought that proceeds from your self-aware mind.
People argue determinism via the very faculty (the ability to think and draw conclusions) that cannot possibly exist if determinism is true!
I find this to be extremely fascinating.
@ dee:
This was Dee’s comment that I was referring to, I guess IDK for sure if it was the one Argo was referring to. But some of my points were to say that I agree with the statement in general because it applies to both sides. But thought it might be an ‘ouch’ to Argo because he did claim that he was speaking out of love.
JeffS,
If God is omnipresent, a perpetusl IS, then how does “future” apply to God? How does God declare/determine a future if He is already there?
@ Argo:
There is not “future” for God, but there is a future for us. That doesn’t change my point, though. God creates necessarily kowing the result of his creation. That logically makes him responsible for everything he creates. Except that he isn’t, so I believe we are dealing with a mystery greater than what we can logically comprehend.
That is where I fall back to scripture, which I believes teaches both God being in control of everything AND man being in control of him/herself.
“If you want to argue philosophically that we have free will, it’s not Calvinism you have to explain away, but how an all powerful God can do anything BUT control his Creation?”
Jeff, what do we do with this in practical every day application? What would this sort of God sound like to a woman who was repeatedly raped as a child by a family member if God cannot do anything but control His creation?
We are talking about God controlling. Not man’s total depravity since God controls that, too.
Anon 1 wrote:
Right- my point is that I believe god is NOT like that, but that logically I don’t see how he isn’t. I take it on faith.
And let me say I’m not trying to glibly gloss over the questions- this is tough stuff and I admit I’m not smart enough to figure it all out.
The presense of evil in the world AT ALL seemingly denies a loving, all powerfull God, even one who we don’t think is deterministic. I mean, what do we tell that woman who was raped about god knowingly creating her rapist? That is some tough stuff, and I have no real answer, except that I DO know God chose to put on flesh and suffer along side his creation.
JeffS,
Yes, exactly. If we say that God has no future then there are only two ways to look at it. It’s not paradoxical, it can only be one way or another. Either we are merely extensions of God and thus there is no true good or evil and Gods condemnation is arbitrary and unjust (not that it matters anyway because even what we “know” is preordained, so WE don’t know anything). Or the future is dependent on the actions of Creation alone as it is only a function of ITS existence, not God’s. in which case we must redefine the reformed interpretations of “election” or “predestination” so that they logically correspond with man’s existential reality ( free will being implicit).
Was Piper, in the Geneva video, seen looking so intently at statues and fountains in Geneva, in an effort to appear as though his future treks around the globe were purely inspired by something deep and profound and not a passion for travel?
Wife Noel keeps a blog which, I think, displays her passion – travel. She describes herself as a “Wife, mother of 5, grandmother, world Christian, reader, author, speaker, missions traveler.” Wow! A world Christian and a missions traveler! Must be nice!
Here is her TRAVEL blog: http://www.tellmewhentopack.com/
Some shots from their trip to Geneva: (notice the web address ‘nationsbeglad’)
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6441
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6570
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6453
If anything they look more like tourists enjoying the pleasures of travel. Man, I’d love to be eating a scrumptious lunch on Lake Geneva and taking trips into the Swiss countryside! Would my joy impact the nations? I don’t know, but I’m certain it would make be glad!
Looks like Piper’s translator was glad to have gotten a work-out while helping to deliver the Piper’s message at this “Gospel-centered Ministry Conference” in Geneva!
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6396
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6394
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6393
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6392
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6391
http://nationsbeglad.shutterfly.com/6390
Wow! Looks like John (Global Apostle) and Noel (World Traveller & Christian Missionary…or is it World Christian & Missions Traveler?) are really putting their lives on the line in taking the gospel to the world! What a sacrifice? Look how they are risking their lives! Whew! Better him than us, right?
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/how-john-piper-responds-to-death-threats
Donate to John Piper’s travel expenses and request that some of the money be used to hire an armed security guard to travel with him!
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/after-darkness-light-video-from-geneva
Anon 1, aw yes, bring the emotions into it, sometimes it takes that. When I tried to believe my Calvinist roots, it was if God himself raped me, like a sick psycho who would beat his victim and then kiss the boo boos.
Sorry Jeff S, I don’t mean for this to insult your beliefs, it’s just extremely personal to me when I was still struggling with God.
Argo – I very much doubt that Dee was referring to you! You know I’m behind you all the way.
I’m also personally, but not theologically, behind JeffS, who is both kind & wise. This will come as no surprise to him!
I remember a L’Abri worker telling me about a meeting at which Francis Schaeffer was repeatedly pressed by a University sudent as to whether he was a 4 or 5 point calvinist – he replied ‘I believe in a significant God, & a significant man’, & was content to leave it there, as are my beloved close calvi friends….it doesn’t work for me, especially if someone goes on to try to define ‘freedom’, i.e. Sproul, but those who hold off from this…I find that easier to deal with.
P.S. I have no problem in saying that God created a world, & chose sovereignly to do so, in which he would not micro-manage his creatures, not that he could not, but that he would not…so morality has meaning.
@ Beakerj:
P.S. I have no problem in saying that God created a world, & chose sovereignly to do so, in which he would not micro-manage his creatures, not that he could not, but that he would not…so morality has meaning.”
This is it, Beaker! Without Free Will and responsibility of humans, morality has no meaning. It is moral chaos. Like the rape example I mentioned above. I think the determinist god paradign is fatalistic.
@ Jeff S:
Sorry for the delay, I had to be out for about 2 hours to a work appointment. And the reply reference seems to cause an error.
You presume that God’s omniscience extends to the future behavior of people down to the minutiae. I believe that God’s omniscience is everything that has happened in the past and is happening in the presence, and all of the things that science can ever discover (cause he created the universe). But I do not believe that God knows, a priori exactly what every individual will do in the future. I believe he knows our tendencies and habits, and he knows for every action every individual may perform, what his response to that will be, in a sort of infinite cross wired (links between different people) tree diagram. But I believe he has chosen not to determine and therefore chosen not to know exactly what we will do in the future. Because if he does, then we have no choice at all, all is predetermined, and we have a tyrannical god who has created some people for the purpose of eternal torment. There is no logical alternative. That is a god I will not worship. Rather, I worship a creator God who loves every being he created and wants to redeem them when they call on him, so they can spend eternity with them. And who weeps when those he loves die without choosing to love him in return.
Hey all
I have been away all afternoon doing some financil things for my mom. The misfits comment came from numo and it was really sweet. I mentioned theology because of the discussions on other blogs which promote only one version of theology as the answer for all of life’s questions. What I meant, and did not say well, is that I prefer to be around a bounch of people who are kind and decent than spend time with people who “know”they are right like Piper, et al.
I promise. I love you all!
Leila
Bless you. I knew I didn’t have it right but I was flying out the door.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one …”(said as he is dying a gruesome death and bleeding green Vulcan blood.
Jeff S
“If you offer a man who desires riches but has none a check for a million dollars, are you really offering him a choice? Does he have free will? I think he does, even though he would never resist the offer (as described).”
Not if you watch the show “Revenge.”
@ Beakerj:
Thank you for your kinds works, Beakerj.
Jeff S
Can you tell me where control starts and ends? I know that Calvinists believe that God does not control everything RC Sproul has this to say. “There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” If He cannot control the tiniest bits of the universe, then we cannot trust Him to keep His word.”
I don’t think the issue is can He but does He? Either He controls everything down to the smallest detail or he chooses to control some things and then lets a great deal of latitude in the outcome.
So, today I chose to drive one way to a meeting. If i chose another, perhpas I would have been in an accident. Could not my arrival ay the meeting be as much a part of God’s will as being in an accident. Could not God handle many outcomes and it all fit within his larger purpose?
@ dee:
“5years in PDI” says some off-the-wall, downright abusive things, mixed in with some occasional insights — bless her heart.
@ Beakerj:
Beaker,
Thank you for your kind and excellent post.
Argo
I was not talking about you. I promise, really ,really promise.
I promise it had nothing to with Argo. i like Argo. If I had a problem, I would call him out by name. I was referring to being a part of Numo’s world.
@ Bridget: Yep.
Jeff – it’s very hard for women to be able to relax in the kinds of church environments that we’re talking about here. I know that I pretty much always felt like I was on guard and had to hide my true feelings about many things, because they didn’t fit with the party line.
That’s not to say that men don’t experience the same kinds of things, but comp churches are NOT a healthy environment for women. Some are less strict that others, true, but still…
acme
It really is OK. She needs to say this because it is important to her faith.
Plus, after I stopped feeling sad, I got all excited about the possibility that I am a cult leader. So many heresies, so little time. We start with my first mandate. Chocolate must be eaten every day-God told me. Now I am figuring out which chocolate must be eaten. I just ate Trader Joes dark chocoalte with raisins and hazelnuts- not bad but not quite.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
It’s hard for me to concieve of a God who does not know the future. I think about my own work as a software developer. For a very simple program, I always know exactly what is going to happen for anything that I create. With added complexity or external inputs, then things get beyond my awareness. However, with God there is no external input, nor can I ascribe to him the limitations that I have.
And if you say he limits himself by choice, I don’t think that lets him “off the hook” when it comes to the compassionate view of a rape victim. That is, if God COULD have prevented it had he not limited his awareness, deliberate ignorance doesn’t seem any more ethical to me. It’s like God looking the other way while a crime is happening. Not that I have a better answer (I don’t), I just don’t see deliberate ignorance making the problem of evil any easier to solve, and it is seems to contradict scripture (which has a lot of future-telling prophecy in it).
Re. Geneva – it’s a lovely small city and well worth visiting, if you happen to be in those parts – ditto for the rest of that side of the lake. (I was at Swiss L’Abri briefly, in the mid-70s, and Geneva was easy to get to via public transport.)
@ Jeff S:
But his entire system is based on allowing freedom, which requires that he constrain his power and knowledge, so that he is not predetermining who goes to hell and who does not. That allows for love as opposed to slavery. And, it means he is not responsible for either the good we choose to do or the evil. And, if God knows and predetermines, then we need to dismantle the entire criminal (in)justice system, because it is all god’s fault.
Trina wrote:
You know, I did a spinach smoothie for the first time myself recently. I’m hooked. Only in mine I put Greek yogurt, vanilla whey powder and a few strawberries. Num. I tried another one with peanut butter and that was good too.
Yours sounds super yum. 🙂
@ dee: Have you ever had Nestlé’s special dark chocolate – from the Swiss factory? It comes in a wrapper that has an elaborate black and white engraving (apparently the original label) on the front. The rest of the label is white, and plain.
So… the label design makes it sick out in a crowd of colorful, shiny wrappers. And that’s only right, because it is simply amazing!
If you like dark chocolate, you *must* try this stuff! (Though not late at night – it seems to have a higher caffeine content than most chocolate and has kept me awake more than once.)
Numo
You’ve got me going on a chocolate expedition in the AM!
dee wrote:
Dee, I really don’t know the answer (and I doubt RC Sproul or anyone else does either, whatever they claim).
What I believe with certaintiy is that God works all things for good for those who trust in him. I believe that what people mean for evil, God can work it for good. I don’t believe we do anything that casues God to slap his forehead and say “Whoah, I didn’t see THAT coming!”. And yes, I believe that God can work through whatever route we decide to drive today.
I respect RC Sproul a lot, but sometimes he can dive deep with philosophical musings that carry a lot of assumptions his readers/listeners aren’t privy too- so some subtle disctinctions are missed. Unlike Piper, Sproul was a Philosophy major and studied this stuff before becoming a theologian. Listening to his series “The Consequence of Ideas” was very helpeful because he traced several thousand years of Western Philosophy and how it affected/ was affected by Christianity. So when he talks about “rogue molecules” and stuff, he’s doing so with a background about how phiolosphers in the past have looked at and answered these questions. That doesn’t make him right, but he’s also not off on some weird tangent making up stuff. And he might be talking about “control” in different ways than we assume he means, because philosophers have all of these distinons about what “control” really means (that honestly goes over my head, and I wonder how much if it is useful/really makes sense).
Ack! They changed the packaging: http://www.nestle-swiss.com/details-4.5-Dark-Tablet-100g.php
46% pure cocao, peeps! YUM!!! 😀
Cocoa.
I need to call it a day!
@ dee:
See what I just posted above. They changed the freakin’ label!!! (They might even have changed the recipe a bit.)
You guys are not very helpful. I just raided the last bit of my Trader Joe’s dark chocolate peanut butter cups and the closest TJ’s is 2-1/2 hrs away. Thankfully, I will be going there this weekend to stock up, bless my dark chocolate-addicted soul.
numo wrote:
I will say that I am becoming increasingly sensitized to things that are said in comp churches, and I wonder how I would handle them were I married. I also wonder what would happen if I met a highly patriarchal woman.
Lindt Bittersweet works, too… 😉
@ Jeff S: You know… there used to be a slew of women at That Church who were attractive, intelligent, independent, creative… and unmarried. (Age range from about 30-60.)
Here’s the thing: That Church is comp, though not (in my time there) super-heavily so.
However… I do not think any of the slew of women I just mentioned would be able to live with/in an actual comp marriage. And men who want that – well, they don’t date or marry those women.
As a former member of that brigade, please believe me when I say that I am thankful that I never ended up in a marriage with a man who was comp. It would have been a nightmare for me.
@ Jeff S: What happens is not pretty.
It is very, *very* hard for women who are in those kinds of churches – and relationships – to feel any healthy self-esteem, I think.
Would Jesus counsel that a woman should subject herself to a man in that way? I really don’t think so!
Another Lindt bittersweet bar, with a lovely 19th-c. label. (They do mail order, folks!)
dee wrote:
I wait with baited breath for your announcement of the brand most worthy. It must be available to your international readers, so that you won’t have to disfellowship {gasp} anyone for infractions. 🙂
I mean, if you’re going to run this like a cult . . .
@ BeenThereDoneThat: It’ll involve A Chocolate of the Month club, I’m thinking…
Signed,
Abbess Numo
@ numo:
Mmmmmm. I like variety.
@ numo:
My church is certainly not VERY patriarchal, but it is a PCA church and all PCA churches will be to some extent (it is, after all, the core issue that formed the denomination- women elders, that is). I do notice subtle things, from time to time, though, especailly since I am pretty wary of gender role stuff.
Dee,
I believe you. Thanks! I was a bit worried for a moment. 🙂
@ Jeff S: I have a feeling that you will notice more as time goes on… not that I want that to be the case, but…
“Plus, after I stopped feeling sad, I got all excited about the possibility that I am a cult leader. So many heresies, so little time. We start with my first mandate. Chocolate must be eaten every day-God told me. Now I am figuring out which chocolate must be eaten. I just ate Trader Joes dark chocoalte with raisins and hazelnuts- not bad but not quite.”
Oh no! I promised myself never to join a cult but I never thought there would be a chocolate cult. I need an intervention. (I am eating some Talenti double dark choc gelato)
Eagle
This one line says it all about their attempt at 1st Amendment (snort, snort)
"With some limited exceptions, most courts haven't been receptive to the argument."
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/20/3181144/first-amendment-defense-signaled.html#storylink=cpy
Eagle
This one line says it all about their attempt at 1st Amendment (snort, snort) Who ever heard of freedom of speech inside an SGM church! Snort, ROFL, Snort, Snort;
I want to be there when this argument is made. I will move all obstacles to sit there, listen, start laughing uncontrollably and then be thrown out for disrupting proceedings with snorting laughter.
“With some limited exceptions, most courts haven’t been receptive to the argument.”
JeffS,
The problem with conceding that God knows the future is that you are in fact limiting God to the very concepts of past and future that we are at the mercy of. There can be no future for God to know by definition if He is omnipresent. Thus if God “knows the future” it must be determined, because it’s not future to Him. Thus, He must have determined ALL we do and that includes our sin.
But here’s the thing. It isn’t that God restrains His power, it is that there is no REAL future to know until it is the present. The future is purely theoretical. God does not know what we will choose because there is nothing for Him to actually know UNTIL it is realized. It has been given to US and creation to move in space; to create freely our own “future” and “past”. It is a function of our existential reality, not His.
God always exists NOW. And now is always the present moment, not the theoretical future. God cannot be in the future because the future is not an actual place.
Finally, why exactly does an omnipotent God need to know the future? What does knowing the future (assuming for moment that the future is a place He can be) gain the All Powerful? What happens to His perfect will if He doesn’t know the future? If He doesn’t determine? God’s will is somehow subject to our concept of time?
The concept of determinism, not free will, places boundaries on God’s power, I believe. It subjects Him to creation, rather than putting Him outside of it.
And you do not know the outcome of your program. You predict with great accuracy. But prediction does not make something real before it exists. If your computer crashes, you predicted wrong, for example. Predicting the future is not creating or determining the future. The future is only real when it is now. And no amount of prediction, no matter how accurate, can change that fact.
Eagle
CJ-The Apsotle of the First Amendment. Good flaming night! Snorting, ROFL…..
Anon1
If you move quickly, send me some chocolate, I will appoint you to be a standing elder in my cult. I can be bought!!
@ Eagle:
“(Do they sell kool-aid in Sydney?)”
Or Antarctica?
When do you think about what you could have done? Now. When do you plan what you will do? Now. When do all your thoughts occur? Now. When are your plans realized? Now. When is the past remembered? Now. When do you see evidence of the past; read about it? Now. Everything happens now, not then, not later. Now.
The point is, we talk of God organizing, knowing, determining from places that are purely abstract quantifications of existence. If we did not have free will to be self aware, we would not even be conscious of that which we assume makes up the real “timeline” of our existence. If it were not for our ability to see ourselves outside of Creation, everything would just be IS. Time itself is a measurement concieved by man’s brain.
Beakerj wrote:
Which suggests a great deal about the student.
I believe I’ve said this elsewhere, but a lot of church groups have doctrinal statements to the effect that God is triune. But not many claim (with or without examples) that he is trustworthy.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff S,
I think that is really cool that you told your date you were undecided on the woman preacher issue, I hope that frees her up to do some research.
I hope you had a good date.
Not sure I can wrap my head around God not knowing the future BUT, I tend to go back to the garden on this issue. God gave humans dominion over the earth and did not rescind that after the fall. So there is that with the added evil of the fall including Satan still roaming the earth. So work is harder, we age and die but we still have dominion. We have been given brains to think, hands to do, etc, etc.
So what is our responsiblity? Not to lord it over others but to love others, follow Christ, create new products that make life better, new medicines, seek justice for people,take care of those who cannot care for themselves, etc, etc. That is our dominion. It is not over.
God wanted to dwell with His creation. The fall separated us from God but the bible is one long story showing us God revealing Himself to His creation. Intervenning at times, yes. There is a tension there in the OT of revealing Himself, intervening and man’s free will all at the same time.
Now with Christ, God dwells in us and one day, when God joins heaven and the New Earth, believers will dwell with Him forever.
I think it does God an injustice to say He is actively controlling everything. It does not make him more Soveriegn. More scary? yes. To me, his Great Sovereignty is that he would create beings with free will and after they spit in his face with disobedience and keep doing it, he gives them another chance. Over and over He does this. He is not forcing them to worship other gods, by polygamous, etc, etc.
What I worry with is that we cannot take ONE attribut of God and put it over all the others. The REformed tend to do this with Sovereignty to the detriment of Mercy, Grace, Wrath, Love, Justice, and a big one we see all the time in the OT…His ‘Hesed”. His “lovingkindness” it is translated but does not begin to explain it. It is so much more than that including patience, long suffering, etc. He is an Ezer. A help. We do not need the help of One who really controls us, do we? Just thinking how that could play out can make God look monsterous.
Oh, there is so mucb more but my gelato is waiting…..
@ dee:
Dee: I am absolutely constitutionally fitted to be part of this cult….why, I’ve eaten chocolate every day for years now! Who knew I was so obedient? And, if it pleases you & Abbess Numo, may I be appointed British Heresy Hunter who will most assiduously aquire & test all chocolate to determine which is the most holy & pleasing, & which needs to see the error of it’s ways…I can creep into sweet shops & shout, ‘No-one expects the British Aquisition!’
Next you’ll be telling me the Lord has told you to drink diet cola all day….
@ dee:
Dee: I am absolutely constitutionally fitted to be part of this cult….why, I’ve eaten chocolate every day for years now! Who knew I was so obedient? And, if it pleases you & Abbess Numo, may I be appointed British Heresy Hunter who will most assiduously aquire & test all chocolate to determine which is the most holy & pleasing, & which needs to see the error of it’s ways…I can creep into sweet shops & shout, ‘No-one expects the British Aquisition!’
Next you’ll be telling me the Lord has told you to drink diet cola all day….
@ Argo:
I absolutely know the outcome of my computer program, short of external inputs (which the computer crashing would be), something that God does not have.
God created not only the program, but also the hardware.
I’m sorry, but I cannot conceive of a God who creates something and doesn’t know what it’s going to do.
@ Patti:
Thanks Patti, it was a fantastic date. 🙂
Trina wrote:
This is supposed to be GOOD?! Are you a health food freak? Yuck.
I am sure your cult, Dee,has small group confessions, right? Ok, so here is mine. My family loves dark chocolate. So every Christmas it is a competition to see who can find the most bizarre exclusive unusual types. We have ordered from all over. I once had my secretary bring some from Vienna and Basel that I stashed for 2 months! I was so proud I did not eat one bite. So, I want to thank fellow cult member Numo for giving me a new one to order! See, public confessions are good.
Elder, eh? Can I be called a ruling elder? I can feel the power corrupting me already!
Ooops, double post. I’m just over-excited about finally finding my spiritual gift…
b>@ Jeff S:
” it was a fantastic date”
I am so glad to hear this! Good for you!
No problem, Beaker, that was brill!
@ Jeff S:
Hi Jeff,
And there is the crux of the disagreement. The metaphysical fact is that if God Creates something knowing precisely what it will do in the “future” then it has, for an omnipresent God, already done it, which is a logical contradiction.
If God creates a thing having already determined the entirety of its existence then the thing itself is irrelevant. The thing is merely an extension of God, it’s purpose God, its objective, God. It is God. Which is a logical contradiction. Impossible. Something cannot both be a created thing and God at the same time.
Yeah, JeffS,
More about your date please. I’m a married fuddy duddy. LOL 🙂
Doesn’t anyone else hate chocolate around here.
I miss Trader Joe’s. They have great food! I wish we had one here.
“Doesn’t anyone else hate chocolate here.” I don’t like white and dark chocolate.
Okay, haha. Just wondering. Back to the shadows… 🙂
@ Jeff S:
I am in a PCA church, too, and my experience is similar to yours. It’s subtle but it’s there. I stay because we’ve been there 20 years and it really is a loving community. I think most folks there, including the pastor, are unaware of Piper’s weirdness and heavy patriarchy. But when we move to another state in a few years, we will not be attending any denomination that does not permit women in leadership.
@ Oasis:
I was going to raz you, and say you might be the first one to be shunned, but . . . well . . . It’s no longer funny when somebody gets hurt, so I decided to shut up. I am currently being shunned by my former church. It’s not so funny, really. I’ll step into the shadows with you.
@ Jeff & Leila:
My experience with the PCA church (small one in New England) was that comp was definitely NOT subtle. It wasn’t patriarchal per se, but I guarantee you if you had expressed even sympathies for egalitarianism, the pastor and/or one of the elders would have taken it upon themselves to explain to you why you were wrong. My mom even got a funny look from one of the wives when she said, vehemently, that husbands and wives are equal in Christ (after another mom said that she wished her husband would pick his boots up off the living room floor – he forbade her from expressing this to him because she’s not allowed to “complain” about his behavior).
This church also did all the typical conservative things – encouraging debate; favoring representational art over abstract (except heirloom quilts – EXCEPTION CLAUSE! And no we won’t explain if you ask); looking down on modern music (except their modern praise songs – EXCEPTION CLAUSE AGAIN!).
Combine this with Gary North’s statement that Reconstructionism half “owns” the PCA…and this is my mental image. I don’t mean to offend, but suffice to say I will never attend a PCA church again in my life. I’m glad your churches aren’t crazy.
Doctrinal question – can the dark chocolate have filling (raspberry, coconut, etc.)? Or will The Cult of Wartburg have to have our first schism over a secondary issue?
“Combine this with Gary North’s statement that Reconstructionism half “owns” the PCA…”
Now that is weird. You are the third person I have heard that from and none of you would know each other. What is up with that? Do people know about Gary North? Yikes.
@ Hester:
No secondary issue there, Hester. It changes the whole flavor of the doctrine. It can never be!!
Argo wrote:
Haha, too early to say much- it was nice and she is nice (and very pretty).
@ Anon 1:
I just now tried to search for the quote – I remembered a few piecemeal phrases from it – and I can’t find it now. Interesting? If anyone here knows how to use the wayback machine it might be worth a look. I remember exactly what the quote’s message was even if I can’t find it:
“We’re Reconstructionists. We captured the OPC completely and we’re well on our way to doing the same thing with the PCA. No one will ever be able to figure out how we did it because we left no paper trail.” *blows big wet raspberry at non-Reconstructionsts*
All right, well, maybe not the last part…but you get the idea. : )
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Welcome to the dark side. Hey, it’s no problem. I will pretend to love chocolate and no one will be the wiser. Appearances are all that matters, you know.
Dee will make a wonderful Great Leader. Her hallowed bathrobe will really complete the look.
Kidding aside, how very sad that your former church is shunning you. I have a feeling you’ve come to the right place; you will not be shunned here. ♥
In lieu of the quote, try this website – North’s Institute for Christian Economics (ICE). It’s got his newsletters from 1977-1996 and all his books in HTML/PDF. Goldmine.
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm
JeffS,
Ha, ha. That is awesome. Seriously. 🙂
@ Hester:
I am a puritan on the chocolate front, but I will not complain if there are sub-cults for chocolate with raisins, chocolate with nuts, chocolate with caramel, etc., and I will share with you when you eat the sacrificial chocolate. However, chocolate with coconut is nothing but heretical in my opinion.
56 Years
For that prophetic understanding of you clut leader sho despises coconut in chocolate, you shall be immediately ushered into the furling 12 apostles of the Holy Order of Chocolate.
Jehh S
Did she have a god sense of humor?
@ Oasis:
I too hate chocolate. But the rest of my family members are self-proclaimed chocoholics who have come out of the closet with their addictions to all forms of chocolate. I think they secretly enjoy my status as a chocolate hater because that means more for them to enjoy. I do make a killer white chocolate chip-dried blueberry-pecan cookie if that satisfies anybody. 🙂
Hester
No problem with raspberry filled chocolate here. I shall adopt the idea of Holy Orders and appoint mini-Dees to lead each order. The Heretical order of Raspberry Chocolate. The Heretical Order of 60% Dark. We shall have no schisms except over coconut.
Mandy
I am the cult leader. I shall decide the value of those cookies! Send 4 dozen, no make that 5 dozen immediately. Fast compliance will assure you status in my organization.
stormy
I eat it all. True confession-I love cheap, hollow, Balmer milk chocolate Easter bunnies.
Anon1
May I become a member of your family at Christmas? If so, you may be a ruling elder.
@ BeakerJ:
Oh no – The Comfy Chair!!!
Oasis wrote:
You understand life inside a cult. 🙂
Oasis wrote:
Thank you. You people are the best!
@ Hester: I’m not at all surprised re. North’s claim. (Grandiose though it might be.)
If the cult’s communion is a white desert wine with dark chocolate wafers, I’m all in
@ dee: You and me both on the coconut thing!
Now, German chocolate cake made with *fresh* (right off the tree) coconut is another thing entirely…
I am a chocolateour and all I can say is you want to be my friend at Christmas time and…………..not the comfey chair!!!!!!!!!!!lollollol
@ dee:
Looks like I need to post that recipe on the cooking page here pretty soon. I’m not really baking much right now which stinks. My latest knee surgery isn’t healing correctly and there’s nothing that can be done except “adapt”.
For breakfast, my dad pours almost a pint of milk into his bowl and adds a little cereal. After he’s finished eating the healthy stuff, he is obligated to finish the milk – by crumbling in chocolate chip cookies. The first time I caught him doing that, he blushed. Now he yells out “I’m out of breakfast cookies”. That’s my cue to either start baking or someone has to make an emergency run to the store.
dee wrote:
Dee, are you drinking? It seems you are slurring your words . . .
We laughed a lot, now whether that gives her a “god” sense of humor, I’ll leave that up to your definition.
@ Mandy:
Silly chocoholics, they make me laugh! (Wait a minute, did someone say caramel?!)
@ dee:
Please remember that some of us must eat chocolate of the sugar-free variety, even if we need special unction to do so.
@ Mandy:
Ok, you can’t “hate” chocolate. I’ll never believe it. Perhaps it doesn’t ring your bell, but surely it is not possible for chocolate to be hated.
I bet this would do it: sitting on your well-made bed with many beautiful pillows behind you, a hot water bottle against the small of your back, in your spanking-clean bedroom, wrapped in your favorite blanket, a glass of deep red desert wine, “The Long Long Trailer” (Lucille Ball / Desi Arnaz) playing on the big dust-free screen, and plenty of Lindt truffles (those round individually wrapped ones) in milk, dark, white, and maybe peanut butter.
(my totally unfulfilled dream)
@ elastigirl: Not sure why, but your comment (which I loved) reminded me of a factoid: that Alexandra (last empress of Russia) was fond of eating candy and crackers in bed.
She got a lot of crumbs on the sheets, apparently.
@ elastigirl: My “chocolate moment” could be…
– Being in the Swiss Alps, on a day trip, sitting on a rock by a mountain stream, having a yummy sandwich, some delicious Swiss yogurt with strawberries (believe me, the stuff sold in US grocery stores isn’t even close to what they have in W. Europe!), and to finish off, some dark chocolate – Lindt or Nestlé, maybe, though I’d settle for Toblerone if needs must. (Wine would be nice, but I can’t partake, so…)
– Provençe, lounging outside on the stone-flagged patio, watching the breeze in the leaves and lavender across the road. Looking down on the sea and a secluded beach, finishing off some fresh seafood or else one of those savory dishes that they do so well (with wonderful olives!) And a piquant wine to go with (never mind that I can’t have it) a small portion of some truly decadent chocolate – maybe a truffle or two?
– Churros (light, crispy) and really thick, dark hot chocolate. (Not location-specific.)
– Thin mints while being rowed slowly down the Thames.
– My sofa, bag of M&Ms in hand. (Oh yeah – I’m not really all that picky!)
Something good on the tube – like a good sci-fi movie or show, or else a juicy costume drama. Or The Philadelphia Story (alternate: His Girl Friday, w/Cary Grant and Roz Russell.) Just loungin’ in my old pjs.
That enough for you? 😉 (Might be a shade too personal; I dunno – but the Swiss thing is something I’ve done, and boy, did that food taste wonderful after a day spent up in the higher altitudes! Was at the foot of the glacier for lunch.)
Debra Baker wrote:
Actually, y’all will want to be my friend at Christmas, too. I make fudge. Six different varieties.
Tikatu wrote:
Tikatu – are you Type 1 like me, or Type 2? (If you don’t mind my asking…)
Aw nuts! Did someone just say caramel??!!! That did ME in.
And on the subject of chocolate my favourite colour (or favorite color, if you prefer) is Cadburys Purple.
@ Anon 1:
I agree with you Anon 1.
And I believe that where predestination comes in is that the Bible is telling us that certain things and plans are predestined, like the remedy for us if we sinned. Like once we do know God we will become like Christ. Like we who have become sons of God will live with Him forever. Like those who love darkness and hate God won’t be forced to live with Him forever. Like He will wipe away all tears, etc.
I can’t comprehend not liking chocolate. Nor could I handle not being able to eat it. I love properly dark chocolate – none of this 48% cocoa bizzo, give me a good 70% cocoa content. If you can, track down Green and Black’s 70%, and also their Maya Gold, which is dark chocolate with orange and spices. Their white chocolate with shaved vanilla bean has also converted friends of mine who didn’t like white chocolate.
And be warned – I’m willing to split the Cult of Wartburg on chocolate and coconut – Whittaker’s coconut block (it’s a NZ brand so might be hard to find in the northern hemisphere) is amazing.
Also, anyone else love the combination of dark chocolate and chilli? That stuff’s manna from heaven to me.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, despite loving dark chocolate more than life itself you are singing my song. Cadburys is the taste of childhood to me, my inner child demands it frequently.
And coconut? It should be excommunicated from the Church of Chocolate.
Beakerj
And coconut? It should be excommunicated from the Church of Chocolate.
There is going to be a schism in this cult if some people just can’t accept the fact that chocolate and coconut are, in fact, a holy alliance.
But if we ban coconut that means we have to ban Samoas.
I like orange with my chocolate as well as raspberry. I also must confess that I do like white chocolate…I used it in white chocolate chip-lemon scones just a few days ago.
Also, how long do you think it will be before someone discovers this thread and roundly proclaims we are all taking cults and Christianity “too lightly” or “blaspheming”? : )
Mandy
Breakfast chocolate chip cookies? Wow-a guy after my own heart. You guys are accepted into the cult.
Jehh (ff) S
I had to laugh about all the typos! I was tired last night. However, I do admire your sense of humor.
Tikatu
My husband is a diabetic so sugar free chocolate receives a dispensation. It is so nice to have you own cult. You can make all the rules. i see why some of those guys out there like it.
Nick
My husband is a 1.5-he has an odd mix. He is thin and exercises 30 minutes a day without fail and had done so all of his life. So far, he is managedo n orals but he might like a bit tighter control so he is waiting for his A1C later this month.
Patti
I love conversations like this. Have you ever tried Paula Deens caramel frosting? It will have a place in my cult.
Leila
There will be a room built off to the side of the cult mansion in which those who MUST indulge in coconut can do so.
dee wrote:
I love food and exercise in equal measure, so I’m kind of slightly thin. But I have just enough middle-aged spread to bodge an insulin injection into. Win-win so far!
Beakerj wrote:
With you on the coconut thing, Beaks. Coconut – like ginger – is of God, but is only for use in savoury dishes such as Thai grub. Savoury does not fall within the core ministry of this cult, of course; it’s a para-church ministry.
IMHO, Cadburys remains the most bestest chocolate in the world. I simply cannot understand why people give Belgian “chocolate” as a posh gift – unless it started out as a joke, and nobody’s got it yet.
Hester
You can be in charge of creating our Holy Orders so that people can serve out their lives by serving up their favorite chocolate.
LOL, I’ll stay away from the coconut.
Nick wrote ‘I simply cannot understand why people give Belgian “chocolate” as a posh gift – unless it started out as a joke, and nobody’s got it yet.’
You remind me of a joke one of my lecturers told (he was Belgian). ‘How do you get a Belgian to laugh in mass? Tell him a joke on Friday.
@ Pam: Yes!
OK guys. For all of you chocoholics, I have to link you to this recipe. It is incredible. I used a combination of Lindt dark chocolate and dark chocolate with orange and almonds instead of the chocolate chips, but you know. It’s pretty flexible. And super yummy. Just make sure your chocolate is the kind that melts well.
http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2012/02/pots-de-creme-a-lorange/
Hester wrote:
That is impossible. Look at the subject matter! We are talking chocolate here!
Estelle
🙂
anonymous
I have long given up hoping that legalists will understand what we are doing over here. So, instead of getting mad, I make jokes! Besides, by joking about it, it brings home the point far more effectively.
Sincerely
Your benign cult leader.
Bridget wrote:
This is it exactly for me. I will not swallow doctrine whole, or a belief system, just to fit in. Ask anyone who knows me, and I’m always the one who doesn’t fit. It used to mean very low self-esteem, now I say “God made me this way and it is good” and some read it as arrogance.
@ numo:
hi, numo.
EVERYthing about chocolate is personal. You know, like “A-ny way you want it THAT’s the way you need it A-nyway you want it…..”
loved the chocolate moments. Yes, to the Swiss Alps one. Although I’d add the detail of keeping the chocolate in some ice (or snow?) while I eat my sandwich so that when I’m ready for it it’s cold and cruncy.
Yes, to the Provence one. With a cigarette. (I don’t smoke, but one’s own cigarette is not unpleasant.)
(are you familiar with Epoisse cheese? Horribly stinky but delicious & quite an experience. I’ll never forget a flavor olfactory experience of sitting in London Gatwick airport, having Epoisse on water biscuits, sipping espresso, and smelling the tarry cigarette smoke of the person near me. It all worked together like a dream.)
The Thames one — how cute… I can’t do mint, but how about an Uno candy bar, and… what would be the right beverage (chocolate always has to be accompanied by something to drink)….cold milk? hot tea with milk in a porcelain cup?
The sofa one — truffles of all kinds (except raspberry, lemon, orange, cherry, and ESPECIALLY not pineapple) with sprinkles on top, and how about “Two For The Road”? (Audry Hepburn, a very handsome Albert Finney, all filmed in the south of France)
dee wrote:
Oh, I meant that as a joke. I should have used a smiley. We are talking chocolate here! 😉 They wouldn’t dare call that blasphemy! 🙂
anonymous
I knew it was a joke. I, too, was joking. Whenever you see me say anything about our cult-it is a joke-totally. So, what do you think should be our song. How about The Candy Man?
@ Pam: Dagoba Xoclatl. It is a hot chocolate mix (dairy free) with dark chocolate, a wee bit of cane sugar, cinnamon, and chilies. I make it with raw goats’ milk and it is the BEST THING EVER. I drink it every day. SO GOOD.
Also, since we at TWW stand up for the victims…can our official cult position be that we stick to organic and/or fair trade chocolate? It’s a bit more expensive, but it is also more delicious and doesn’t involve little kids being stolen from their families and forced to work as slaves. BTW, almost all of the Trader Joe’s chocolate qualifies.
I guess I’m the outsider again. I like chocolate, but I don’t understand this devotion. It makes my teeth hurt, and the caffeine will make me wired.
dee wrote:
Works for me! 😀
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Tikatu – are you Type 1 like me, or Type 2? (If you don’t mind my asking…)
Type 2, Nick. I’ve developed a love for Russell Stover’s sugar-free chocolate. My husband bought me a bounty of dark chocolate that I’m still nursing here a week after Valentine’s Day.
VelvetVoice,
Perhaps you missed some of the recent commentary. Someone over at SGM Survivors criticized Dee and me and insinuated that we are cult leaders.
Dee then responded here by saying if she is going to be a cult leader, then it would have involve the love of chocolate. Hope that makes sense.
@ StacieMao:
I have that! It’s seriously good hot chocolate.
@ elastigirl: Ah yes, “Two for the Road” – good one!
I am not a fan of fancy candy – except where well-made chocolate sushi is concerned. 🙂
Cigarette in France: I hear you, though I did smoke (very heavily) at one time, so … yes and no. Besides, it dulls the palate. (Seriously, since you’ve always got that overlay of nasty by-products of combustion coating your mouth.)
though I must admit, I’ve been watching a Canadian TV series about theater people and got all nostalgic when I saw that some of them were smokers, and noticed how nice it was to see the cast ably using cigarettes as props 9to emphasize gesture and all of that). I guess I will always associate the drift of cigarette smoke with bohemia (in a positive way), though I have to say that the ban on indoor smoking in NYC is such a godsend – you can go to a club and come home without having your clothes and hair reeking of smoke. (A musician pal of mine says he has to do far less dry cleaning post-ban… saves time and lots of money.)
Swiss Alps: The sun is either out, or it isn’t. And the altitude tends to keep things on the cooler side, even on lovely sunny days, so … no chilling was necessary, besides keeping the food in the trunk.
@ elastigirl: I’ve never had Epoisse, but it sounds tasty. I suppose the trick is partly in getting past the smell – ?
Water biscuits – yum!
Why is Piper’s fictional Jason taking fictional Sarah to McDonald’s in his story? Is Olive Garden too fancy or too expensive?
@ Daisy:
Good point! Call me shallow, but a date at McDonalds would be a deal-breaker.
@ Pam:
Except if hypothetical date guy were getting me a chocolate Sundae (I love chocolate), in which case, I might be willing to overlook it 🙂
JeffB wrote:
Maybe Piper is okay with a woman being a black belt as long as when she does Karate on an assailant, she does so in a feminine, submissive, ladylike way.
Which I guess means after she karate chops the mugger to the ground, she should cover her mouth daintily with one hand, bat her eye lashes at him, and giggle a lot.
Piper might expect the lady to paint her black belt pink, too.
@itsme said
Why should those women be treated as freaky exceptions?
I believe the man Jael killed was an enemy combatant, and Deborah led Israel’s military.
Killing a man is killing a man and still takes some amount of skill, courage, and ability. I don’t think one necessarily has to add the stipulation “at the enemy front lines” to make the example qualify.
What about female police who get caught in shoot outs with robbers? Would anyone here say those female cops are not being brave and tough because they are not in a strictly defined military operation?
Links for itsme:
John Piper, Women in Combat, and How Gender Roles Fall Short of the Glory of Humankind
Vision Forum, Female Soldiers, Passive Women, and “Barbarians”
(did this itsme guy/gal ever return to the blog to see answers people left for him/her)?
Hester said,
As one of the only YECs who sometimes posts here, I do occasionally chime in to remind every one that YECs are not anti-science, we don’t all believe that a person has to be YEC to be ‘saved,’ and we’re not all gender complementarians or Neo Calvinists (we’re not – I’m not).
I don’t even agree with good old fashioned, watered- down Calvinism.
@lilyrosemary
While Driscoll is supported by some big-name pastors, there is a fair amount of criticism against him by Christian and Non Christians on the internet.
You just have to do searches for things in google such as “Mark Driscoll creepy” or “Mark Driscoll sex obsessed” or “Mark Driscoll sexist,” (and terms like those), and you will find a plethora of critical information on him.
@ Jeff S
That’s just what the Bible teaches. I don’t see it as necessary to pin the label “Calvinism” on it.
@Jeff S said,
I don’t understand why Calvin is held up so, placed on a pedestal, defended.
Many Calvinists claim to disagree with the Roman Catholic papacy, yet they’ve made John Calvin into their Protestant Pope of sorts.
Calvin was just a man, no better than anyone else. It’s possible his views on some things (including biblical concepts/ doctrines) were wrong.
Jeff S said, “It does not deny that humans act as free agents”
That’s not what many Calvinists say online. They believe God is sovereign to the point that we are all puppets, and that any free will we think we have is an illusion.
Argo wrote:
I’m not sure I agree with this, but maybe it’s semantics. I do think that God, who lives in eternity, “knows the future.”
I don’t think that ultimately knowing how each of us will choose about whatever over the span of our lives means that the future is determined.
I think the other guy in this thread who was saying God does not know the future probably believes in ‘Open Theism.’
I must, on reflection, take back some of my earlier words. Specifically, about coconut being specifically a savoury flavouring. Asda’s own-brand white chocolate and coconut yogurt is really good.
I was not saying that God could not know the future, but that he chooses not to, just that he could predetermine everything and make us automata, but has chosen not to. He is Sovereign and Omnipresent (everywhere) and Omniscient (knows everything he chooses to know. And he has a plan for how he will respond to our free will choices, but he does not know what our choices will be in detail and does not predetermine them.
It is the way of love, not control. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the incarnation.
56 years
You make a good point. I think we sometimes believe that the sovereign God must manipulate the most minute matters. Being sovereign could also mean that He can allow a wide latitude of freedom and all of it be within His big picture plan. As humans we are binary. Do we go left or right? And when we do, we go one way. However, within God’s kingdom, we could go left, right, up or down and all of it fit into His plans. By seeing God through our human lens, we can limit His possibilities.
56 years, I believe that God knows the future and what choices men will make. He
is all knowing.
This is why it is so hard to argue the metaphysics. People always come to the table with their preconceived notions of what is “real” and what is “abstract”, and they are not necessarily correct. I am not saying that God cannot know the future, per se…that is, there is a future, and it is set, but God is blind to it (limiting his omnipotence), or has “chosen” not to see it. I am saying that God cannot know the future because there is NO future for God to know.
The problem is that we are assuming that the future, which by definition MUST be abstract, because by definition the future is NOT YET, is in fact a REAL thing for God to know. What I argued was that the future is abstract, it is only REAL when it is NOW, or the present. And how is the future realized? It is realized by the actions of man and everything else God created to do what they do according to THEIR ability. YOU make the future (abstract), real (present)…that is, you bring it into being so that God can know it like you know it, by YOU’RE doing.
The other half of my argument is this: if God is omnipresent, that is NOT bound to our linear “time frame”, then the terms “future” and “past” can have NO meaning to God. So how do we reconcile God knowing something that cannot possibly apply to HIS existential reality? If God cannot know or be in (it is contradictory to say that God can be NOW in the FUTURE…that makes NO sense) or experience the FUTURE because by definition He is omnipresent, how can we rationally declare that He knows the future? That is an irrational argument. You can qualify it all you want, but the fact is that if you say that God knows the future, then you declare the future is not abstract, but is REAL, and if it is a real place where real things have happened or are happening that God KNOWS, and He IS THERE (even though, obviously YOU are not there YET), because He is all knowing and omnipresent, then you and creation are determined. This makes God the author of sin and everything else. You cannot possibly exist as YOU because everything is already determined by God. Creation becomes merely an extension of God. And THIS is why I say God cannot know the future…because if He does, then we and creation are all utterly determined by Him, and this constitutes a totally contradictory metaphysical paradigm. God cannot be BOTH God AND Creation.
To apprehend this, it requires that we stop making assumptions about past, future, etc., etc. And if that is just a bunch of gobbledy gook, then just look at it this way. If God has control over you or determined you, then how could He have created YOU in the first place? Why would God need to create you in order to determine, control, predestine you? God does not need you to BE Him. He is perfect in HIMSELF. Thus, if creation exists, it MUST exist to be able to do whatever it can do ITSELF, because it is metaphysically impossible that God control it.
I will not argue this point any further here; we are just going around in circles. I cannot make or force anyone to see what they don’t want to see or have decided they cannot see for whatever reason (which I don’t believe, by the way). Arguing these kinds of deep metaphysics is not the intent of this blog. I refer you to other sources if you have any interest further in this subject.
Daisy wrote:
Just to point out- I wasn’t defending Calvin- I was merely saying that the same bad behavior he is blamed for is exhibited by people who do not share his beliefs, so without further information we cannot say his beliefs are to blame for his behavior.
Daisy wrote:
I understand- and quite frankly it doesn’t matter what label is pinned to it. I would believe what I believe were it called “Calvinism” or not- it’s merely shorthand to say I believe in Calvinism which should communicate a whole systematic theology in a single word.
Daisy wrote:
I don’t personally know any Calvinists who believe we are puppets or that free will is an illusion, and I know this is not what historic Calvinism teaches either. So people who are preaching that (and I don’t deny there are those who do) should not be taken to represent the whole.
JeffS,
So because Stalin also committed mass murder we cannot assume that Hitler’s ideological beliefs had anything to do with his committing mass murder? That if we can point to another similar atrocious act by another then we can never assume that what someone actually believes is culpable? Abuse just exists in an ideological vacuum?
Total depravity is utterly antithetical to free will. Calvinism very much denies free will. There is no major Calvinist doctrinal point that can logically or practically apply free will.
Please explain to me where free will applies to man’s relationship with God.
I just wrote a blog post on the lie of “inclined” towards sin.
Argo wrote:
I’m saying more information is needed- which beliefs were the cause of the bad behavior? How do we know it was Calivn’s systematic theology that was to blame for the bad thigns he did?
I don’t disagree that a person’s theological outlook definitely influences behavior, but it is not the only driver. There have been many wonderful, compassionate people who share Calvin’s systematic theology- clearly if he did evil things and they did not, there was a difference in belief, but it may not have been in the area of the doctrines of predestination, sovrignty of God, etc.
Perhaps you are right and Calvinism is the great evil and everyone who is good doesn’t actually really believe it, but saying Calvin (or any other Calvinist) has behaved badly does not prove it.
@ Argo:
OK, so to you it is nonsense because free will and Calvinism cannot co-exist. I am fine with believing that they do. I am fine believing in apparent contradictions because I can’t see any view of reality that doesn’t have them. Thus I fall back on what I believe the Bible teaches.
But it’s not right to say that Calvinists do not believe in free will when they do. It would be more appropriate for you to say you think Calvinists believe in logical fallicies.
I have said this before, and I submit it is axiomatic: the only difference between a good Calvinist and a bad one is how far towards the logical conclusions they are willing to take the doctrines. I am not insinuating that there are no true kind, loving, caring people who claim to be reformed/Calvinist. On the contrary, I know many myself. I apologize if I have not made this clear. What I AM saying is that if they are loving, empathetic and kind people it is either because they only take their theological presuppositions but so far and then their OWN internal moral red flags pop up and tell them something is wrong and they adjust accordingly and (usually, if asked) equivocate, or they are calling themselves Calvinist and say they believe the doctrine but don’t actually practice it; that is, they function as though they are NOT actually reformed. Finally, with some, I admit it it is a strange combination of the Calvinist cold empathy and the warmth of genuine Christianity and I don’t always understand where or what the plumb line is.
Argo wrote:
You have been VERY clear on this- don’t worry. What I’m saying is that you haven’t proven it. You believe the difference between a well behaved Cavlinist and a poorly behavedCalvinist is the degree to which they apply their beliefs. I think the issue lies outside of their systematic theology. The fact that some prominate Calvinists have behaved badly makes sense under either of our views, so you cannot use that as proof that you are correct. You need something more.
@ Jeff S:
Or to say it differently, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. Many choclate lovers behave badly, but that does not make the love of choclate the cause of their behavior. I am willing to hear arguments that the love of choclate leads to evil behavior based on other evidence, but not that some choclate lovers behave badly.
JeffS,
At the risk of offending you again, I refuse to concede your premise that Calvinists believe in free will. It has nothing to do with what they think they believe, the fact is that the doctrines are categorically incompatible with a functioning free will. IF they believe in free will, it is only as I said before: that of someone who is buried alive. Appeals to free will are deceptions designed to make the theology more palatable. There is a reason Calvin choose his words purposefully and carefully. The formal acknowledgment is TOTAL depravity, not “inclined”. The formal acknowledgement is LIMITED atonement, not “limited to those who have not freely chosen Christ”. Calvin was much more careful in how he defined his theology than many neo-Calvinists, who want their metaphysical cake and eat it too. You cannot have it both ways. Either man is determined or he is not. Either man has free will that is effective for morality and ALL choice or he does not. There is no compromise…no “partial” free will that is nothing more than free will which is irrelevant to what will REALLY happen to man; what REALLY matters. If you want to believe in contradiction that’s fine. If you believe the Bible teaches contradiction as the root fundamentals of “faith”, then…okay, that’s cool. But I believe in a God more powerful than that. A God who can stand the free will of man, who purposefully and consciously willed it, and doesn’t declare that he must control what He has created precisely to be separate from Himself.
I believe that before we ever concede that God must rule by contradiction what amounts to the VERY WAY and REASON man organizes his reality and his ability to exist (to choose for himself, to know right and wrong, to love or hate, to rule and subdue by apprehending the TRUTH of his environment) we must find a better way to interpret the Bible.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff,
I have many times qualified and defended my assertions. I have argued that Calvinism subverts the free will ability of man; that puts man outside of himself. That makes man, in his present form, a mere determinant, impediment to the doctrine which is supposed to “save” him. And that when you view the fact that humans ARE what they ARE as the root of their evil, then abuse (like the Puritans burned and banished, as did Calvin, as did Luther withhold his favor from those who disagreed) becomes the logical outcome of that belief. Human abuse becomes the very means to maintaining doctrinal integrity, which amounts to little more than the power of the ecclesiastical authority. In many many posts I have declared just how what SGM believes has directly contributed to the abuse and horror in that church that is before our very eyes as we speak.
However, I started a blog because I also acknowledge that to go as deep as possible into the flaws of a 500 year old strain of medieval, western european theology, this site is not the best format.
Argo wrote:
As I posted above, “total” does not me “utter”. We are depraved in every area of our being, but does not mean we are as evil as we can possibly be (or to say it another way, we are capable of doing good). Calivn acknowledged this.
Calvin didn’t even say anything about “limited atonement”- that came after him.
I don’t believe in a God of contradictions- I do believe there are some things that are beyond my understanding. As I’ve said before, I cannot concieve logically of ANY form of reality that has free will, so I take it on faith. Calvinism isn’t any more of a threat to free will than the idea there is not God and we are slaves to our genetics.
Argo wrote:
And this is a fundamental piece of your logic where I don’t agree. So I can’t buy anything that comes after it in the chain.
@ Jeff S:
And that is fine, but you have not logically defended your reason. You just disagree because, well, you can’t “imagine” agreeing. You accept contradiction because you don’t see it another way. Please do not blame this on me for not “proving” myself. You have already conceded you are fine with contradiction and accept it as a tenant of your Christianity. Your position makes it essentially impossible to convince you otherwise, regardless of argument, because reason will be given no quarter.
I’m sad to read this because in the past I’ve appreciated John Piper. He must be going downhill! Scripture seems to require at least some degree of “submission” of women to men in only two areas: Wives to their own husbands whom, presumably, they had freedom in choosing; and as church members (along with men) in submitting to elders who are usually male AND whom members freely choose to elect as their authorities. In both instances, freedom to choose or reject person to be submitted to existed beforehand. No mention of other areas of society such as occupations or political leadership.
@ Jeff S:
Not being as evil as we could be is Calvinist doublespeak. How evil we are or are not is irrelevant to the cosmic equation. If we have to be elect to be saved, to be chosen by God rather than freely choose Him, then our morality by definition, regardless of how close or far from the standard we are is meaningless. This is NOT free will at all.
And scientific determinism is just as much an affront to free will as Calvinism. They are both rooted in logical contradiction. They are both rationally impossible.
The word “utter” is used in the definition of “total” according toy dictionary. “Adj: Complete, utter, absolute”.
@ Argo:
I’m not blaming you. I agree that it may be impossible to convince me, and it may be due to the limitations of my own intelligence or it may be the limitations of your aguments. I do not know which, but it’s not something I can fix (it’s not like I haven’t thought about this stuff a LOT).
I do not accept contradictions- I accept that there are things that I do not understand. Since I can’t make since of them in a way that does not conflict someway logically to me, I accept that it is a limit of my intelligence.
But in the practical sense, when my experience tells me that those who profess Calvinism treat others the best (despite some publicized cases of professing Calvinists being completely different), that the best effort I can put into scripture tells me Calvinism is true, I’d rather believe it than just throw up my hands and not believe anything because I cannot be purely rational (I’ve accepted a long time ago that no one is thoroughly rational because there are limits to our understanding- we can’t know everything so therefore we cannot be purely rational because we’ll never have all of the facts).
Argo wrote:
Yes, which is why in the article I linked RC Sproul renamed it to be more clear: “Radical Corruption”. I think he may just like the acrostice RC though 🙂
Argo, To say that God doesn’t know the future is your opinion. It’s not fact. Although you may say you have facts, I don’t see them. There are just things that we as humans won’t know. Trying to figure it all out in this life is futile.
@ stormy
Understanding the nature of our existence in light of God’s perfection is not futile. To declare it thus is but passive thinking. That is manna to the spiritual abusers. They love it when you concede that whatever faith you have is part and parcel with not ever being able to really understand.
And “we just will never understand” is just so very convenient an argument. It is purely design to shut down critical thinking. It is what you’ve been told all your life. It isn’t true.
I’m not arguing God cannot know the future. I’m arguing that the future is an abstract concept man uses to quantify his movement and that of Creation.
This is not an opinion. It is a fact. The future, by definition, is not real…that is, not yet realized. It is realized by man moving through his own existence. When you claim God knows the future you are claiming that God knows as real something that never actually exists.
That’s not an opinion. Show me the future that already is, and I will concede that God knows it.
I said I wouldn’t argue this further. I won’t. Show me “the future”, then we’ll talk, Stormy.
Argo, you don’t have all the facts but I see your logic. If you are implying that Iam not a critical thinker, then that’s is your opinion but it is not a fact. Again, neither you nor anyone else can know everything about who God is.That would put you at His level which we are not.
@ stormy:
Stormy,
I am sorry for how the passive comment came out. That was not fair to you. Forgive me…it isn’t right to make that assumption.
I’m not arguing that I know all about God. I am arguing that there are certain logical assumptions we can make about our existence and His work in light of His perfect omnipotence. The central theme of my ideas being: God cannot create a thing in order to control it, because this makes that thing an extension of God. And God will not create a thing to do something He can do better Himself. And in light of THAT the free ability of man to act and think categorically apart from God must be implied.
I don’t have the first clue the “how” of God’s power, but we can know the “how” and “why” of God’s relationship to us.
“Not being as evil as we could be is Calvinist doublespeak”
This one never made sense to me. I can see the concept of “common grace” in theory but when we start with the practical applications of the Augustinian/Calvin construct it simply does not make sense.
Just to give one pedantic example that we cannot just blow off this stuff with such wording involves someone I knew well who was a total athiest. However, this person was undoubtedly the most generous, compassionate, humble loving man I had ever met in all my life and I knew him well. He lived this! And he was successful to boot! And I am sure there are many more just like him who are not believers.
Contrast him with someone like CJ, a professing born again believer, who has done very deceptive evil things to increase his personal power and celebrity. (There are tons of examples of this in Christianity)
In the Calvinist paradigm of total depravity then God would cause the athiest to be wonderful but CJ to do evil to others. Does this make sense to anyone? Why would God want His Name sullied and confused in such a way?
The only explanation is human free will. God put certain immutable laws into action like gravity, free will, etc.
I think Calvinism works well on paper. But does not work well in practical applications. In fact, I have jokingly asked some of my 5pt Calvinist friends why they bother disciplining their children. My 5pt friend, Scott who is wonderful, responded: So I can bear to live with them now! :o)
@ Anon 1:
I love your question: how would God cause the atheist to be wonderful and CJ, the elect, to be so naughty?
I love it when people bring a different way to look at these untenable doctrines. Thanks! Great point!
@ Jeff S:
The I in TULIP is “irresistible grace” which means that the predestined elect will be saved. The necessary corollary is that the predestined non-elect will not be saved. That is double election or double predestination, which is a key concept to most Calvinist systematic theologians. Once you make God Omnipotent, Omniscient (as to the future and well as the past and present), and Sovereign to the extent that his will is always accomplished (unrestrained tyranny), then human kind has no free will remaining. It is a logical impossibility.
OTOH, if you believe as I do, that while God is Sovereign, he is also sovereign over his sovereignty and restrains his power to allow human beings to chose to follow his son Jesus, is fully omniscient with respect to the past and present, is eternal rather than outside of time, that he has not created some people for the purpose of condemning them to eternal torment but would love for them to love him, so that no one would end in hell, that is, get rid of election, double predestination, then man has free will and God is not an evil tyrant. But my beliefs are not in any way Calvinist, except that I do not believe in works salvation and do not consider the pope particularly different than any other human being.
Jesus taught us to pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. That prayer suggests that God’s will is not always done on earth!!!! Which means that God is not a Calvinistic tyrant.
@ Argo:
I don’t buy that the future isn’t real. Again returning back to my software program. If I had no external inputs- if every part of the creation was in my control, I would know exactly what would happen in the future. In fact, there’s no way I’d be able to not know unless I forgot or was unable to suss out the logical complexity. But God does not have those limitations.
Again, my argument is not that God is deterministic. My argument is that with or without Calvinism my logic tells me he must be- since I know he is not, I have to accept the mystery. Believing in Calvinism and a non deterministic God has the same difficult for me as believing in agod at all and believing he is non deterministic.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
I do not believe that God is a tyrant.
“The I in TULIP is “irresistible grace” which means that the predestined elect will be saved. ”
Would you like to know what cured me of the “I”?
Mark 10 (among others)
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
So the God who elects and irresistably draws us so we cannot say no to him…..LOOKS AT HIM AND LOVES HIM then consigns him to hell? He either could not or would not draw him to HImself to give up his wealth. So which is it? If it is Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, would NOT give him irresistable grace then we have a serious problem
@ Jeff S:
Jeff,
If your logic tells you something that you know isn’t possible, then your logic is flawed. You need to reasses what you believe. Contradiction is the opposite of logic.
You knowing what the outcome of your computer program is does not make what WILL happen real until it happens. You still have to wait for what will happen to happen. You are NOT in limitless control if you have to wait for the “real” future to become realized. And neither is God. Limitless control means that God does not have to sit and wait for the effect of the cause to come to pass. God cannot be beholden to the time it takes for an effect to happen if He has no limitations to his control as you suggest. Everything just IS. All IS to God already. Therefore if you don’t buy that the future is abstract and is merely a way to quantify the actions of Creation, then you have to concede that ALL is determined by God. You cannot appeal to logical inconsistent/contradiction/paradox/ etc.
The only alternative is to concede that “the future” is purely the effect of a thing/act being realized, period. And that effect, like the cause is always realized only in the singular “present” of creation’s existence. Thus, God, who is only ever NOW, knows what “will” happen when Creation has manifested the effect in the present according to its own free ability to exist as a thing apart from God.
@ Argo:
I realize that my logic is flawed somewhere, but I don’t know where. But just because I’m not smart enough to figure it out doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on belief. Looking at scripture, I believe it teaches predestination and that salvation comes by grace through faith, and even that faith is given to us by God.
As for whether the future has happened or not, when God creates all of the variables, things behave exactly the way he has created them. How could they do anything else? Well, if I believe in free will than it must somehow, but I can’t figure it out. Your answers aren’t addressing my chief concern, that things behave how they are created. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer- it means I haven’t gotten there and may not this side of heaven. But without an answer, I have no reason not to believe what I wrote above- that the very faith that saves is a gift from God.
@ Jeff S:
Hi Jeff,
I’d have to disagree with you saying that Calvinists treat people the best. While it may be true that some individual Calvinists may treat people well (especially those of the older generations), this certainly does not seem to be the trend among those in the “New Calvinistic” or “Young Restless Reformed” movements. This is especially the case among younger internet apologists. As a person who believes in moderate soteriology (such as Norman Geisler and C. Gordon Olson), I’ve encountered severe juvenile arrogance and condescension from some younger Calvinists. I used to have more respect for Calvinists, and I certainly respect the older Calvinistic preachers such as Spurgeon and the older scholars as Shedd and Hodge, even if I don’t always agree with their soteriology.
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.
And now there is the alleged sexual abuse of children within the SGM, the spiritual abuse reported at Mars hill, among other abuses. Where is the outcry from the young Calvinists? Where is the responsibility? What about the victims? We all need to see sermons loudly and publically preached by these men condemning such abuses, but all we’ve encountered is silence or excuses. This is not acceptable.
I’ve had it, absolutely had it, with the excuses, the lies, the bullying, the downright nasty attitudes comes from the young, restless, reformed movement. Young Calvinists and other authoritarians need to take a long hard look in the mirror and look at the ugliness and sin inside of themselves, and then seek some hunility. Do they not care about the future of evangelicalism? Or has church just become some kind of a business, a brand to be sold to gullible sheep? What about preaching Christ and Him crucified for our sins?
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.
Jeff S wrote:
Well, yes…now you are really getting to the root of the matter. The variables. The idea that God as the “first cause” must have created not only the matter, but the “laws” which direct its existence. And here is where I think we must acknowledge that, in light of our understanding that in order for Creation and man not to be merely an extension of God, they must have the ability to act apart from God. I do concede that this is not possible if in fact God did, as you say, create all the variables to behave precisely as they behave; that is, they could not do anything other than exactly what God has ordained that they do. And this is, in effect, another form of determinism.
However, if we agree that determinism is not logically workable because it makes God the author of sin and effectively says that man is not man, but merely all thoughts and acts of everyone are categorically preordained, determined, and INEVITABLE (which is logically contradictory if we concede that cause and effect is real, but…that’s another thing) acts of God, then we must readjust our meaning of “first cause”. This is hard.
I do not concede that God created all the variables. I do not think that it is necessary that an all powerful God create nor ordain all the variables, because any variables in Creation are irrelevant to Him; that is, they can NEVER amount to a subversion of His supreme power. Again, it is NOT contradictory to God’s power to declare that Creation is free to act on its own; on the contrary, it IS an undercutting of God’s omnipotence to declare that He must make His perfection redundant by making it dependent (thus qualifying it as DIRECTLY tied to Creation; which makes no sense) on direct control or ordaining the inevitable events of Creation. I would argue that the only thing God must create is the “ability” of something NOT God to exist. That thing then creates, by default, its own laws of existence; its own variables. Again, Creation makes its own reality, by moving according to its own ability…it is this movement of being that allows us to “see” past and future.
If by “first cause” we mean that God purposefully, Himself, directly ordained the “laws” of existence so that we can argue that any event is merely an inevitable act, unmovable to such a degree that it can be said to exist in a vacuum (which IS implied if an act is inevitable…by definition it does not NEED a cause, it is inevitable; meaning it is an eternal event, not really dependent on any law…for how can something be both inevitable and dependent upon a “cause”; hmmm…it’s a good question)…yes, if we argue that any event is merely the preordained “inevitable” outcome of a preordained cause, and both are a function of God’s direct creation of ALL possible variables, which are merely laws of existence, then what we are saying is that God has determined Creation; and that must mean sin. The “Fall” was a variable, inevitable according to divine AND scientific natural LAW, and thus, it was, according to your argument, created by God.
Your belief in contradiction has serious, serious implications concerning what you are saying about God. This is something worth thinking about.
@ Argo:
Argo, once again, I do not believe in contradiction- I believe I don’t have everything figured out. How many times do I need to say it?
What gives you the impression I haven’t thought about this? I have thought about it a lot. A very lot. And what I’ve concluded thus far is there are things that don’t make sense to me, but even if I can’t explain everything, I still chose to believe what I think scripture teaches.
Ryan
You description of the YRR/NeoCalvinists is a dead ringer for our term Calvinista. We wanted to differentiate bewteen those who believed in Reformed theology and those who act like the ones you described. Deb and I have met a few of those guys ourselves.
“Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn’t agree with them is utterly wrong. They spend lots of time running around to conferences, getting together with other guys (women have no place in this discussion) who also agree with them 100%. In fact, they spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches” link
@ Ryan:
Ryan, I understand your frustration. It’s enough to drive anybody crazy. For me there is the additional frustration that these folks have hijacked something that is very good in my experience.
But I’ll also clarify I wasn’t meaning to speak about Calvinists in general- just my personal experience. My experience appears to be a lot different than many here. I realize that some will say my experience is the exception to the rule; my hope is that it is the exceptions that get the press. But I suppose it really doesn’t matter to much in the end- if I am happy with my own choices and feel the church I’m plugged into is filled with loving, Christ-like people, that’s good enough for me.
Ryan said:
“Or has church just become some kind of a business, a brand to be sold to gullible sheep?”
Ryan,
Absolutely! This is the problem with the neo-Cals (not to be confused with traditional Calvinists).
They have made merchandise of the Gospel. They want devoted followers who attend their conferences, buy their books, etc.
Where is the good news in their ministries? It’s all about idol worship IMHO.
@ Ryan:
Bravo, Ryan, you nailed it on the head.
I’ve said it on another thread, but someone here coined the phrase “soulless eggheadery” to describe the average Calvinista church enclave. I think the term is spot-on.
Ryan, I hear ya. I live at ground zero and it has been wrecking havoc here for almost 10 years now. I have never in my life seen such mass narcissism in my life.
It seems to attract this unthinking arrogant young types that possibly would not fit in anywhere else? They needed a movement to make them feel important? They needed gurus both dead and alive to follow?
It is nothing but the cult tactic of "doctrine over people". It is not just about James White's sister being Catholic. It is more than that. She claims she was molested by their father, and James says she is lying.. (She used to have a blog where she discussed this.)
My huge concern is how this is going to play out in 20 years. The YRR who are seeking power will probably remain that way. But what about all the 20 somethings caught up in being followers?
We are already seeing some evidence of some burnout and some even becoming atheists. The determinist god is hard to apply in everyday life. And it can become a fatalistic view for many. In the free will world, we just had backsliders. :o) And I say that tongue in cheek because the typical young person who walked away did not view God in the same way a person who has been immersed in a determinist god paradigm.
And what is worse, the Calvinist filter is hard for people to get rid of if that is what they have been taught. But when they continue to try and apply it in every day life it can be devastating. Just like the young couple I know in a very YRR church whose baby was born dead. They have been taught God controls everything.
Anon 1,
Thanks for all you have done and continue to do to get the word out about the YRR leaders and their sycophants. We need to keep preaching it! I do believe we are making a difference.
“mass narcissism” Exactly…which is completely opposite of christ.
Thanks Deb. I was hoping the Piper Geneva video would be a big wake up call for many but it seems it is the new normal for a pastor to view himself in that way. there was a time when many believers would have called for the guys in white coats to get the guy some help.
@ Anon 1:
I think you make an important point about the potential bleakness of the deterministic view. I was an atheist for 20 years and was regularly depressed by the idea that life is ultimately pointless because we don’t really choose anything in a godless universe. The neo-Calvinist view seems weirdly similar to me.
I’m not sure how much we really choose in this life; an awful lot does seem to be determined for us by forces outside our control. But to me it’s crucial that we choose our response to God, that we truly choose between good and evil, and that we are not merely pieces on God’s chessboard.
I don’t believe Calvinism always results in bleak determinism, any more than scientific materialism does, I guess. But there’s an interesting overlap there.
Jeff S
I believe that there is a distinct difference between Calvinists/Reformed and the Neo Calvinists. I spoke with a theologian from one seminary who seemed to indicate that such is the case. I hold up John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and CJ Mahaney, and those who follow them, as the examples of the NeoCalvinists. Loving is not the word I would use to describe them. But I will leave it there.
Anon1
I think we should do a post on that video.
If you believe in full and complete control by God and that everything that happens is because God predestined it to happen, then we need to shut down the criminal justice system, because it is based on the idea that people choose to do evil and should be punished for their choice, and hopefully reformed from the choice they have made.
And why do Calvinistas have so many rules of behavior and try to do “church discipline”. When a member criticizes them, that is God speaking through that member and God predestined every word they say. And when a member commits adultery, that is God causing the adultery, so why punish the adulterer. Etc. Etc.
It is terribly internally contradictory, impossible to logically defend, makes God a tyrant and the author of evil, and it also makes God someone that no one should love. And if you believe in complete predestination, then God made me say this!
“In fact, they (Neo-Cal’s) spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches…” -Dee
Is this true? (Dee, can you provide supporting evidence to shore up your claim?)
Leaving the 99 to grease a few palms?
hmmm…
Sopwith
I wish I had the time and money to travel to all the conferences they do. What a good time!
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
56 Years,
And that is the problem. You say God made me say this…perhaps tongue-in-cheek. But it makes a strong point. Those who support determinism must concede that even their very thoughts aren’t really their own. In other words they cannot possibly know anything. So by even arguing a certain perspective means they must concede the debate before it begins. You cannot have an opinion if your very thoughts are already determined by something else, either God or natural law or both. You don’t really exist….that is, your self-awareness is an illusion.
And though the Calvinists speak of free will, they have no logical paradigm by which to explain where sovereignty ends and free will begins. Even with all the theological equivocating the best they can do is show that it is totally subjective.
Calvinism is quite a rational hot mess. Which is why in the end they just live with/ignore the contradictions that make up their theological foundations.
JeffS, Argo
For a wonderful, thoughtful discussion on the merits of Arminianism which carefully shows that Arminianims does not equate to Semi-Pelagianism, there is none better that Roger Olson.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/ I respect him greatly and read his posts for balance. Awsome theologian and very careful to keep the discussion off personalities and the focus on doctrine. No matter what side of the coin you are one, or, in my case, spinning on its side, he is a must read.
Dee, Roger Olson said the Trad statement written by a segment of the SBC in response to the growing Calvinism was Semi Pelagian. Therefore a lot of pastors and even a seminary presdident or two are heretics according to Olson.
You might want to take the time to read the trad statement to see if you think it is heretical. The problem boils down to the opposite of Calvinism is NOT Arminian. They are the same side of the coin. It is one reason so many Calvinists refer to non Calvinists as Arminians. It helps to keep the debate framed on one side of the coin.
http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-introduction-to-%e2%80%9ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%e2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%e2%80%9d/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-%e2%80%9ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-%e2%80%9d/
The problem is that Olson is a ardent an Arminian as Calvinists are for Calvin over one point!
non1
I think we should do a post on that video
”
Yes!! It needs to be analyzed.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
Again, in my personal experience I don’t know a single Calvinist who believes that everything we do is preordained by God. Not one.
I realize Argo will say that that means all of these Calvinists are not real Calvinists then- fine. Whatever name you want to ascribe. But the point is, you are arguing against a point that most people do not hold.
@ Anon 1:
Anon,
Excellent point! I often get accused of being Arminian. I am not. I don’t even know completely what they believe. I grew up Lutheran and was a Calvinist for 15 years. I know Calvinism, and then I know what I believe. That’s it.
I may be akin to Pelagius; I do vehemently deny original sin, predestination, as well as all 5 points of Calvinism. I also believe that one can reject Christ after salvation, and that pursuing moral goodness is a important to salvation as accepting Christ. I’m not sure what that makes me, but I’m pretty sure I disagree with Arminius somewhere in there LOL. I deny biblical inerrancy and deny that it is God’s “Word”. I do not believe that the prophets and apostles were little more than the Holy Spirit’s ghost writers.
I reject the doctrines I reject on the premise that while some may claim to see Scripture as “clearly saying” this or that, the doctrines cannot be defended rationally. Thus, they always boil down to subjective interpretation. This is further compounded by the Protestant rejection of higher critical methodology in favor of gnostic/mystic pursuits of scriptural TRUTH.
@ Jeff S:
All I am saying is that a Calvinist cannot defend any sort of free will rationally if they believe in Calvinism. I am not saying that they are liars. Thanks for calling me one.
@ Anon 1:
So true about Clavinists saying everyone who doesn’t agree is “Armenian” I HAVE experienced that before, though not at my current church. Actually I know of several folks in the church who are not Calvinist at all and are in lay ministry positions. Right up front our pastor says when you join the church that you do not have to agree to be a member, but you do need to know this is the perspective if he and the elders. Talking to one guy I know isn’t a Calvinist, he said he is not pressured in any way.
But I certainly have been around the types who will say things like “that sounds pretty Arminian to me” when it really just isn’t Calvinism. That sounds very non-discerning to me.
@ Argo:
I honestly did not mean that to say you were a liar- I meant to quickly sum up what you’ve said- that folks who deny predetermination are not following Calvinism to its logical conclusion. I promise that is all I meant to say and did not mean anything inflammatory by it. I was trying to acknowledge your position, not put it down.
JEffS,
My cognitive dissonance was listening to a Calvinist like Sproul or Piper and thinking it was such truth! It sounded so good because it seemed to really Glorify God when so many churches were preaching Him as some big bellhop in the sky.
But applying their teaching to real life becamses a constant problem. With Piper, you have to stay in his emotional passionate Glory land. You cannot come down to every day application in a synergistic sanctification. Sproul teaches that God is controlling every molecule. So how do we apply that to every day life?
And then we are told it is all a mystery. Which means only the super anointed can really grasp it so we need them to keep teaching us.
At some point we have to ask if the premise is wrong? I think it is.
Every single Calvinist I speak to about this tells me I do not understand Calvinism or I would get it. That is the default answer to a T. I am also told I am constantly misrepresenting Calvinism. But how can I when I am quoting their guys? Calvinism looks very different in the cold light of day when you are not around other Calvinists agreeing. And I was immersed in it for several years, too. But I knew soemthing was not right so I decided to really do so research on it.
If you go to mainline Calvinists this is really not a problem because they have downplayed the determinism and focused on other things like social gospel, etc. History has a funny way of dealing with this doctrine.
Deb wrote:
Oh I’ve read it. My comment was supposed to be a joke, I don’t really do sarcasm well. No worries! And I love the Candy Man song, Jeff and I can do it as our institutional cult song.
“I do vehemently deny original sin,”
I think we should call it what it is: Original death.
Jesus did not swim around in sin goo in Mary’s womb for 9 mos. Not possible. Sin is not a virus one contracts at conception. It is more like a tick that has attached itself to us.
Just one more achilles heel for Calvinism is the belief in imputed guilt. We are all born guilty of Adam’s sin.
@ Jeff S:
Thanks Jeff,
Sorry for concluding that.
@ Anon 1:
Anon,
Boy, once again excellent points. You say a lot if thing I wish I had thought to say! LOL
Anon1
I am aware of that statement. As you know, I m a coin spinning on its side. No one person has been able to convince me ofone particular viewpoint which leaves me spinning. I try to read a diverses group of Christians who are thoughtful. Olson is one who helps me to see that the Reformed point of view does not have a death grip on the faith. It is orthodox but not the final word.That does not mean I always agree with him. However, today he has a good piece outlining why Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian.
Hugh Ross has helped me to understand that the universe is so complex- many physical dimensions along with time, etc as its own dimension. When I see great theologians fighting on these issues over time, it means that there is no conclusive answer, no matter what they all claim. So I am continuing to spin on my side.
One point in Olson’s favor: his favorite pastor is a woman!
@ Anon 1:
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon, this is what was so incredibly exhausting for me personally and you are correct, it’s hard to drop the filter after many years still.
Take “utter depravity” for example.
When life inevitably buffets you around, its all connected to your own depravity and you, you insignificant worm, just need to get to work thanking your lucky stars (or is that glorifying your Creator?) that you are one of the elect by the grace of this very wrathful god, bottom line.
Oh, and while we are scaring the crap out of you with double-predestination (you jar of clay fitted for destruction, you!) we will mess with your head and at the same time teach you about sonship. You’d better be on an emotional glorifying high over your adoption and driven by sheer gratitude to go spread the gospel. If you are not on that high then … well maybe you aren’t elect. You worm.
You cannot imagine the total crisis of confidence and fearful paralysis this leads to in real life. Or maybe you can, anon.
JeffS
Help me to understand something. I have talked with a number of Reformed theologians who do not believe that men like John Piper, RC Sproul and others represent classic Reformed theology. Why is that?
Sproul is the one who said that every molecule is controlled by God. If that is so, then we are incapable of making any sort of independent judgement since there are molecules in my brain.
Jeff S
I wish more pastors were like yours. So many hide an agenda and then get mad if you don’t know that it is important. That happened to me in one church in regards to young earth creationism. I asked the pastor why he didn’t say something up front. He said he didn’t want to make it a factor in joining the church. Boy, but once you were there, you got in big trouble if you did not comply.
I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church. I remember being around 12 years old or so and suddenly for the first time we began reaching out to the neighborhood around us to come to church. I remember listening to the adults argue about why we were ‘evangelizing’ when it was not necessary due to election and predestination.
Some were saying it was because we just needed more people in the church to keep things running. I remember community families starting to come and become members. I remember many of them were always treated as outcasts by the staunch hardline Calvinists in the church. Soon so many community families were coming that the Calvinist mainliners were complaining about ‘the community is taking over the church.’ I remember a snobby air in that church and denomination my whole life. I mention the whole denomination because we were involved with the other CRC churches in our state, and all of my family on my Mother’s side were all CRC, even my great grandfather was the first CRC pastor in our state coming over in horse and buggy.
Many years ago I decided to study the doctrine of predestination without any help from my catechism or writings other than my KJV and the Strong’s KJV exhaustive concordance. I came up with the same conclusions that Argo has concerning our free will. However, I see that I have a little bit different ideas on some other aspects of our salvation, scripture inspiration, etc.
Where is your blog, Argo? I know I visited it a while back from Spiritual Tryanny but I’ve forgotten. And thank you for taking the time to articulate your (our) conclusions to the study of free will.
Jeff, you are a good sport! The yrr i talk to here immediately fall back to accusing me of not believing God is Sovereign. It gets old.
To all Calvinists and non-Calvinists
I do not believe that this issue will be solved on this blog or others. If really, really theologicall astute people have not been abe to convince one another throughout the ages, we will not as well. However, I believe that the value of the discussion lies in our ability to understand the reasons why people of good will disagree on the matter.
Better yet, how do people of good will and conviction open a dialogue the helps both sides to gain a bit of insight into each others perspective. Then, knowing this, are we able to worship with and pray for, one another?
I am shocked and dismayed that Christians will break fellowship with one another over secondary issues. That usually happens when our secondary theology trumps the love of Christ and the love for the body of Christ. Secondary doctrine is just that, secondary!
What I find interesting is the number of people out there who believe strongly one way for awhile and then suddenly become convinced that the other side is correct.
I think that the best way to approach the theological differences is to ask the other person how they deal with a point (determinsim, man’s response to salvation etc.) Then accept it while disagreeing. Accept their answer and try to respond in a way that shows you understand what they said and how they might have come to that conclusion. The most basic question to as oneself is this. “After this conversation, would I go out to a pub with this person and be able to sing Johnny Cash songs together and laugh?” If the answer is yes, all is well.
In the end, when I get to heaven, I think Jesus is going to smile at all of us and then show us another way to look at things. I expect to slap myself upside my head and say “Why didn’t I think of that? Think of all the Johnny Cash singalongs I missed!”
Anon1
This is exactly what I am talking about in the above comment. Thank you so much!!!
@ Patti:
Patti,
You are welcome! As you can tell, I love talking about this. Just click on my name and you’ll go to my site: unreformingtheology.com
Dee,
Your post was done in love. I agree that love trumps all. But in order to love, you have to be ABLE. This is precisely why I can never accept that trying to convince people of their personal ability and obligation to willfully pursue love is ever futile.
The ability to please God by proactively pursuing love out of your own ability to be who you are is not a secondary issue to me. I would not be honoring God if I ever give up in my quest to thoroughly dismantle reformed theology at the root. It is my personal calling. 🙂
@ dee:
I think Sproul probably DOES represent the classical view of Reformed Theology pretty well (nit that I’d be an effective judge of that). And while he talks about God being in control of every molecule, he also talks about different forms of “power”- that God is one “power” that drives us, but we are also agents that have “power” to drive ourselves. I may be mischaracterizing here, because It’s confusing stuff and I only remember dimly the content of that particular lecture. I don’t think these concepts come from his Reformed background, but rather his philosophy background. These are questions that philosophers have been wrestling with and trying to answer before the Reformation (and even before the New Testament).
I also do think there is a fair amount of contemporary influence in Sproul’s teaching. I would say the huge difference between my exposure to Sproul and Piper is that on numerous occasions I’ve heard Sproul be quite gracious to opposing viewpoints, and even say “I don’t know” or “this is what I believe, but I’m not necessarily ‘taking a stand'”. That is a quality lacking in a lot of the popular teachers today.
@ Anon 1:
Thanks Anon 1- I appreciate your comment and attitude toward me.
To be fair, I think one difference between myself and folks like Piper is that I do not look at other people through the lens of Calvinism. I’m not that dogmatic and I find it not very useful. I look at myself though the lens of Calvinism and feel that looking at salvation as a gift I have received is not only the biblical model, but it keeps me humble and away from the “get smart, choose God” kind of evangelism that makes me ill. The attitude in many Christians I’ve met is that they are above the world because they were smart enough to find Jesus, and if others could wise up they’d be acceptable to God to. When I think of Paul and his attitude, this is just not what I see. God literally accosted him on the road to Damascus and called him to repentance, and Paul was thankful and humbled by this experience. Did he brag that he was smart enough to find God? No- he was grateful to God for the gift of his ministry.
I’m NOT saying that the “get smart, choose God” attitude is held by all non-Calvinist, but for me Calvinism is the constant reminder that I am blessed to be a Christian and that there is nothing for me to boast about. So I look at myself through that lens, but other people? I might as well be Armenian (or some other belief) with how I look at and treat others.
@ dee: One thing that puts me off some types of theology is the way in which these systems seem to have everything figured out.
there are so very many “unknowables” in this life (cf. the ending of Job, where God speaks to him), and I am more inclined toward this simple statement of “the mystery of our faith”
(Above – including material re. “mystery” – is from the current English US RCC liturgy; also found in Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran communion liturgies.)
@ Anon 1:
It’s interesting to read your comments about having been immersed in it. See, my experience is exactly the opposite. I’ve predomitely been around Christians who weren’t Reformed, so I’ve always been the odd man out. I think it’s a tough framework to accept and I understand why people don’t buy it- for me it’s the theology I see in scripture, but I think it’s wise to be gracious in non essentials. Since for so long I was the odd man out, of course I see it as a non-essential.
Jeff, That helps to know your background about it. I was not raised in it. I thought it was the anecdote to the seeker world that pretty much portrayed Jesus as some sort of santa claus or personal valet with some of the same arrogance. Both sides have big problems with application, if we are honest about it. In the end, I see little difference between cheap grace and the determinist paradigm in application. both are basically looking to excuse sin, imo. I kept asking, where is personal responsiblity?
Jeff S
I do not think it is the tough framework that causes many not to accept Calvinism. There are many who simply do not see it in Scripture. I, for one, see elements of both sides in Scripture which causes me not to accept either side. I think, in general, if people believe in hell, then it is not the tough framework of Calvinism that is the deciding factor for nonbelief. Hell is the toughest obstacle for many.
I have had people come here and tell our readers that one cannot read Scripture and not become a Calvinist. They must be talking about their good buddies because I can name many, both now and in history, who do not. And then there is me.
Also, I have been a member of a number of good churches which were not Reformed.The one Reformed Baptist I was at is the one which screwed up a pedophile situation and enforced a stringent believe in YEC. I think you made a statement awhile back which is true. There are jerks on both sides of the coin. There are also jerks in my position which is a firm “I don’t know.”
For me to know what I believed about certain secondary issues became extremely important when my Calvinist family said that my miscarried babies were in heaven because of the election and my Arminian family said that their is no election and since I was not saved at the time of my miscarriages…when I combined the two doctrines, even though I was saved now my babies could still be in hell. This is just one example of why I need to personally be convinced of certain secondary issues. Personally I have been able to let go of striving to know just how old the earth is or just how the end of this age will unfold, but to others it might be extremely important to their trust in God as important as some secondary issues are to me. If I feel a call to the pastorate how is it possible not to separate over that. I know it shouldn’t happen but even Paul said somewhere in the NT that it is inevitable that ‘clicks’ to form.
@ dee:
That is fair, and I did not mean to over generalize. I realize there are varied reasons people may or not at not accept Calvinism.
Patti
Arminians usually say that all babies go to heaven. I have been searching all over google for an Arminian who says differently. I have not been able to find one but that does not mean there are not any who believe differently.
Within the Calvinist camp there are three dfferent opinions. One is that all babies go to heaven which is espoused by John Piper. Then there are some who believe that babies born to elect parents go to heaven and babies of the unregenerate go to hell. Then there is the opinion that babies are not saved which you can follow at this link. http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00126_do_babies_automatically_go_to_heaven_web.htm
Once again, we see differing persepctives within the traditions.
@ Patti:
Patti,
Wonderful post. The definition of just what a secondary issue is, is ultimately subjective. The “ecclesiastical authority” is not the arbiter of what is the most important Christian issue to a person. What a brilliant point! Again, I so wish I thought of that.
BTW There is NO rational argument for the condemnation of babies. That is SUCH a reformed lie! That is why I will never stop assaulting their doctrinal premises.
I was 17 years in non-reformed and now 15 years in reformed (that didn’t start as reformed), but both groups were sheperding upstarts. Sometimes I wonder that I am still a professing believer (honestly!). Thankfully, God has never stopped being God and has held on to me as he said he would; and I have the testimony of my conversion.
Everyone’s systems (ST) and doctrines can drive me to distraction most of the time. If God wanted us to have it all pegged down I figure He would have communicated to us differently (tomes of rights and wrongs possibly in STs). Instead, He told us stories about people and God’s interaction with them. It is interesting to me how He chose to convey His messages.
Jeff,
It is interesting to me that you are an IT guy and you seem more inclined to a system of theology. Not judging it, just interesting. I think Brad has touched on this.
Jeff S
This is what I hate and it goes on in both sides of the argument. Here is RC Sproul arguing that Arminians may not be saved or just barely saved.He also misrepresents the Arminian position.
Why do we do this to one another?
http://highlandsministriesonline.org/ask-rc/ask-rc-do-arminians-go-to-heaven-when-they-die/
My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely.
In the Arminian scheme there remains in man a part of him that is still righteous, that part out of which comes his ability to choose the good as it is offered in the gospel. The Arminian is not, according to his theology, fully repentant. Second, we must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. In the Arminian schema, he trusts a great deal in the finished work of Christ, but trusts some in his own ability to choose the good. If a man believes that God does 99% of the saving, and man 1%, then that man is not truly saved.
@ PattiPaul and Barbamabas certainly had an explosive disagreement between them, and I think we can regard both as Godly Christians. Strong disagreement can happen within the body, even division, and God will work through it.
In the subject of the fate of babies, IMO (and it’s really just my opinion here), I feel this is an example of people taking their soteriology constructs too far, with potentially damaging consequences. The Bible says very little with regard to the fate of infants, but we know God is good and just and we can trust him. Perhaps that seems like an oversimplification and someone who has been through what you have needs more- I wouldn’t presume know how it feels to be in your shoes. But regardless, telling someone their baby is in hell is beyond sick to me. It’s an example of treating theology like a puzzle regardless of who it hurts or is left out once you have the perfect Rubick’s cube in hand. The presumption of such a statement is beyond me.
@ dee:
Well, wow. Piper got one right. As for that link…I’ve rarely seen such egregious license taken of scripture in defense of someone’s narrow presumptuous interpretive premise. Every verse a proof text; every interpretation preceded by a Calvinist presumption.
@ Argo:
Note that according to Patti, in her situation it was an Armenian lie, not a Reformed one.
@ dee:
Yes, this is a point where I think Sproul is wrong and it shows an idolization of all things Reformed which is a weak point with him.
@ Bridget
There’s certainly a correlation. I am a puzzle solver by nature and I work at things until I can make the best sense of them possible.
But note that I am also a musician, and that taps into the emotional, messy part of me. So while I think a lot about systems and how to make sense of things, in the end I believe that the core of our faith is found in our behavior toward one another, not our ability to solve theological puzzles.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff,
I’m not Arminian! I don’t defend Arminianism! :-). I think the are both products of the reformation. What little I know of Arminianism I only partly agree with. And Patti said it was a combo of the two doctrines. As far as I can tell my metaphysics don’t align with ANY traditional orthodoxy.
If you read the link in Dee’s post about the subject, that person is purely reformed, very likely Calvinist. It is precisely what I was taught as a Calvinist.
@ dee:
You and Jeff both realize that the quote was from Sproul Jr.?
It is easier to understand that Calvinists believe it is heresy to think that anyone can choose or even RESPOND to God. They have to be forced.
There is also a totally different understanding of the “finished work of God”. It gets very convoluted. For example, WhenJesus said, “It is finished”, what was He referring to? Could it have been the work of God in me who was saved 2000 years later? Or He is speaking of the ultimate perfect sacrifice for sin being made for Israel?Is it only about Justification or is sanctification included? See, it gets very hairy or overly confused. (When it comes to this I think NT Wright is instructive and keeps it simple. We cannot ignore the historical Jewishness of the sacrifice or the political aspects of Roman crucifixtion)
Piper and Mahaney called it “The Scream of the Damned” which I believe is blasphemous. Jesus was not damned on the cross but then they redefine words to be shock jocks.
Bridget
Whoops I thought I hit only Seniors quotezs! My bad! However, same question. Does this represent standard Calvinism or the NeoCalvinistic trend? Can anyone tell me because I would like to be able to help others differentiate between the two.
Jeff S
I have a proposition for you. Would you be interested in writing a post, you can take as along as you want, that spells out what I would call mainstream Calvinism which I respect and the latest NeoCalvinism which is definitely in a category by itself?
@ Bridget:
I didn’t click through on the link so I did not realize it was Jr (who I have no regard for on tall), however, I’ve read that opninion by Sr. in the past.
“I was 17 years in non-reformed and now 15 years in reformed (that didn’t start as reformed), but both groups were sheperding upstarts. Sometimes I wonder that I am still a professing believer (honestly!). Thankfully, God has never stopped being God and has held on to me as he said he would; and I have the testimony of my conversion.”
I hear you!!! I simply took a long break from all of it. For about 3 years.
I DESPISE ST. Of course I do delve into them just for the sake of research but why would we need to systemize the Holy Spirit? That is how I think of it. I believe ST has us going in a wrong direction. It is man made. Sort of like a syllabus for belief but leaves out a lot that matters NOW in how we live.
The best thing I ever did was spend 3 years reading the Gospels every single day focusing on Christ and praying.,,,,, totally avoided any gurus.
Patti, Did your Reformed church growing up baptize infants?
Bridget
One point, however, he did say that this was the belief of his father in the post. Does that count?
@ dee:
I didn’t see that part. (Daddy’s coat tails?) I didn’t get the impression that this was Senior’s view when I read the Olson article you linked to earlier though. Olson referred to Sproul Sr. several times.
I guess if I don’t claim to be Reformed nor Arminian (nor Argoinian – just joking) then surely I am a true heretic 🙂
@ dee:
I think that would be a fantastic post- I fear that I’m not in a position to write it, both for time constraints and because I’m no expert in Reformed Theology- I just enjoy my view from the cheap seats. And in fact, there are places I am certain I disagree with it, but I generally agree with the core aspects. Most of my view on Reformed theology comes from listening to/ reading Sproul (Sr), Alistair Begg, and Tim Keller.
I will say that In a lot of cases, what I see and hear from these guys like Piper isn’t so much a disagreement with their ST as it is the way they apply it, especially when they erect themselves in places of power and authority.
I have someone in mind who COULD write such a post, so I’ll check- but I don’t know if he has the time or inclination.
@ dee:
There is a difference. My son went to a school connected to a CRC church. Even the high school students that went to that church and were interested in theology commented about Neo-Calvinism (Neo-Reformed) not being “true” Reformed. The “Calvinista” crowd is an entirely different grouping I would think (have to add the glitz in for these guys). The CRC believed in covenant theology and baby baptism. During high school there is a push for a “commitment” (don’t know the technical name) to the CRC from the children before they go off the college. I’ve never been quite sure when these children are saved.
I agree with JeffS in the sense that there is a certain degree of more repsectability of older Calvinistic apologists and theologians. Men who have gone to be with the Lord such as Charles Spurgeon, W.G.T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and John Gresham Machen all had great character, though not without their flaws. They were gentlemen and scholars at the same time. I can agree with these men about the Trinity, about the attributes of God, theism, while at the same time rejecting their views on salvation, covenant theology, and the structure and nature of the church. They were dogmatic, but they also had a heart, and they understood love. In this respect, they did not consistently practice their Calvinism to its logical conclusions. They separated their theory and their practice.
Anon 1, you said:
“It is easier to understand that Calvinists believe it is heresy to think that anyone can choose or even RESPOND to God. They have to be forced.”
This is totally correct and is exactly what I’ve been looking into recently. I used to consider myself a Calvinist, without really understanding what the implications were. I’ve been studying Calvinism very hard over the last few months, buying books on the subject and trying to make sense of it all, coming to the conclusion that I’m somewhere in the middle, while holding to the eternal security of the believer.
Some great books are:
Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler
What Love is This? by Dave Hunt
Calvinistic Paths Retraced by Samuel Fisk
Election and Predestination by Samuel Fisk
The Death Christ Died by Robert Lightner
The Other Side of Calvinism by Laurence Vance
The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson
The God of Calvinism by Louis Ruggiero
Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism by C. Gordon Olson
The idea of being forced to believe the gospel by coersion is totally against Scripture, but it seems as though many modern Calvinistic scholar and apologists seem to want to promote it.
“New Calvinism” is even worse, becuase it confounds the concepts of justification and sanctification to the point of works required to maintain salvation. Why do New Calvinists such as John Piper teach this? I believe it is becuase they want CONTROL. This way they can keep people in bondage and fear. This is also why they promote authoritarianism (the “Moses Model”) in the office of the senior pastor. And ultimately this leads to abuse.
@ Anon 1:
8 years ago, I came to the conclusion, and shared it with Roger Olson at a church event in the home of friends, that Calvinists believe that God is Sovereign over everything EXCEPT his own Sovereignty. That is because they do not understand what sovereignty is.
Sovereignty is the authority and power to bring about what one chooses. God is Sovereign. But as a God of love and grace, he has chosen to restrain his use of his authority and power (being sovereign over his sovereignty), just as any non-tryrant governor and any sane and sensible parent, so that his subjects can choose to love and obey him out of love, and not live in terror.
Otherwise, God would be a tyrant. And if he predestined everything, then he would be an evil tyrant, b/c it would mean that he willfully and intentionally caused evil, including creating people for the sole purpose of burning them in eternal hell.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
56 Years,
I see what you are saying and the rationale behind it. On one hand it is a healthy way to view God, and is certainly more compatible with practical faith application in the real world than an doctrine the Calvinists hold.
The problem I have with your explanation it inevitably runs into a logical contradiction. If God curtails His power, exercises control over His sovereignty, then He is willfully making Himself less than all powerful. This in itself is s cintradiction in terms. But even more to the point, because He is an AM, an ever present, never moving AM, He cannot occupy two states of being at the same instance. That is, He cannot both be all powerful and NOT all powerful at the same time. That is not metaphysically possible. Thus, I would argue that the idea of man’s free will must be logically compatible with God’s utter omnipotence. That is why I submit that creation and man, in order to exist, MUST be utterly separate from God’s control, because it is a logical impossibility that a Being who is ALL powerful in Himself should ever find a need to control anything outside Himself.
Remember, anything God controls is controlled perfectly, by definition, which means it becomes an extension of Himself. This is logically impossible; for a thing cannot be both created AND God.(Any extension of God must be completely God; for nothing can be “part God” because this would mean it is “partly perfect”. Impossible.)
@ Argo:
You give God the Midas problem. But God is in control of his power. He is all powerful, but restrains his power to avoid the consequence of the use of unlimited power.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
56 Years,
There can be no logical separation of God from His power. God IS His power, thus limiting or restraining His power amounts to a contradictory limiting of Himself. And He cannot be both all powerful and not all powerful; it is the sames as saying He can choose to NOT be fully God. Anything God does then, must be a reflection of His fullness. His fullness of power is always how He acts. He cannot act any other way.
“New Calvinism” is even worse, becuase it confounds the concepts of justification and sanctification to the point of works required to maintain salvation. Why do New Calvinists such as John Piper teach this? I believe it is becuase they want CONTROL. This way they can keep people in bondage and fear.
Ryan, The desperate task we have is to cut through the flowery verbosity, confusing maze of redefining biblical words and concepts and false dichotomy’s in that ST to communicate this is what guys like Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, Mohler, etc are actually teaching.
If you notice there is no real sanctification in their belief system. They mold together Justification and Sanctification so that people have no respons-ability at all. Such as “Jesus imputed his righteousness to you. You remain a perpetual active sinner not able to grow in Holiness and mature in Christ.” There is NO “indwelling” HOLY SPIRIT in their determinist paradigm. That is why you so desperately need the guru to teach you and remind you of your continued depravity.
I personally think the New Calvinists are practicing the purer form of Calvinism as in the results of practicing the beliefs that come from his ST. and I remain grateful they do not have state power. The arrogance, deception and anger I have personally witnessed from the YRR is chilling. Remember, I am at ground zero and am surrounded.
BTW: I think the best description of Justification/Sanctification is in JC Ryles book, Holiness. Kind of ironic because he was the Bishop of Liverpool hundred years ago. But his book is fantastic.As he explains, they are two totally different things but you cannot have one without the other.
56 years, I have another view and it is just my opinion. Mucb is made of God’s Sovereignty from that group. It has become almost a “little red book” type of mantra. If you do not go along with their mantra and definition then you believe God is some sort of wimpy grandpa in the sky who cannot do anything. It has become a group think mantra. I just refuse to go along with their definition.
I refuse to put that attribute above all of God’s other attributes that are displayed all through scripture as if there is a ranking. Each attribute is God.Holiness, Love, Mercy, Wrath, Hesed, Omnipotence, Sovereignty, etc, etc.
What is really interesting sometimes is to read and listen to these guys and what comes out of their teaching. They continually harp on the Sovereignty and how everything is about God and Him getting His Glory. He will Glorify Himself they proclaim! And that attribute is constantly put forth above everything else. (Piper is the worst). So, one is around this all the time and what does some young guy ask the other young guy who is proclaiming this? Is God a Narcissist?
Personally, I think that question was totally warranted because of how they teach that for God the most important thing is His Glory. But you and I know the ONE TRUE GOD could not be a narcissist because Narcissist do not hang on trees for other people’s sins!
I sometimes wonder if they know that if they want to understand what YHWH is really like all they have to do is look at Jesus of Nazareth. Do they realize this?
Ryan, I have read a few of the books you listed. I read Vance early on when I first started questioning Calvinism as an ST. (Before that I had a hard time reconciling the behavior of Calvin in Geneva as a despot with his belief about God)
More books are coming out from ex Calvinists that are interesting.
http://www.xcalvinist.com/ (free ebook)
http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Disenchanted-Calvinist-Disquieting-Realities/dp/1462712851 (on kindle for 4 bucks!)
Dee,
I didn’t mean to say that an Armenian had told me babies go to hell. I know that they don’t believe that. At the time that I was in an emotional crisis over some secondary issues, it was my own trying to combine the logic of the two opposite doctrines mixed with my own spiritual state at the time of my miscarriages. I was trying to make the point of how confusing it all can get. After God revealed to me in a dramatic way that babies are in heaven, one of the verses that spoke to me was Jesus saying…their angels are always before the Father’s face. And as far as all Calvinist’s believing that babies go to hell? I know my mom never believed that, but she just told me she didn’t a little while ago, i had just figured she believed it at least when she was a Calvinist because that’s what the church doctrines said. Even though she has been in the Assemblies of God church now for 33 years I still consider her a Calvinist to a degree because when I press issues with her we dialogue like Jeff S and Argo.
Anon 1,
Yes, the Christian Reformed Church still baptized infants today as well as when I was born and raised in it. Some of the teachers at my Baptist school would poke fun at us ‘sprinkled’ kids from the Presbyterian and CRC. It all has to do with their covenant beliefs.
Jeff S,
As far as trusting in a good, just God, there are things that we need cleared up some times. If we don’t believe that God is good all the time and just all the time, I do not believe that even He wants our devotion. I have personal testimonies of God working in me that has led me to trust that He is always good. I don’t think there is any virtue in a mustered up trust and faith if we don’t really have trust and faith. If you really do have that trust and faith and you have been able to have it without doubting, that is great. I think even Jesus said blessed are those who believe, yet have not seen.
56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC wrote:
Interesting philosophical position…very similar to an Arminian philosophical assertion I’ve studied that asserts God is “Self Limiting” to explain Monergism vs. Synergism and Sovereignty etc. I’m not sure if it’s correct, but what you said in your comment struck me as very similar to that position.
Alex wrote:
I too would agree that God is self-limiting. Just because God chooses to limit his actions doesn’t mean he is not sovereign. God does not need to exercise his power in all things in order to be sovereign – if he chose to intervene in all things he could. Humans are created in the image of God and one of the fundamental aspects of that image is the ability to make choices. I believe that God limits his intervention to allow us to make make those choices for ourselves, with the offer of prevenient grace to all which, if we accept it, will allow us to make the right choices.
@ Argo:
God has many attributes though, not just power or sovereignty. His attributes all function “perfectly” together to bring about His will on earth as it is in heaven. He has attributes that we do not have since we are created beings and He is not. It is very hard (impossible) for me to completely understand how God functions as I am not exactly like Him.
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. This is the same state of being that man seems to exist in if we believe God has predetermined the lives of every man and man has no will.
I will say that it is a mystery to me how God’s attributes all work perfectly together without one trumping the other. The best example we have of a man functioning like this is in Jesus the God/man. Jesus gives us a glimpse of God and a glimpse of man funtioning as God originally intended.
Bridget,
What I am saying is that no matter what God does it is always in accordance with the fullness of His being. And this includes power, because God’s attributes cannot be separated out (why Jesus is FULLY God). He is not self limiting as this is a contradiction in terms. So if He is being merciful it is in accordance with His perfect/complete power. If He is being wrathfully it is likewise in accordance with His perfect power. Power has nothing to do with how destructive He can be; it has to do with His HAVING to always act in a way that is consistent with His perfection, which again includes His power. If He does not, He becomes a hypocrite/redundant, which of course is impossible for God.
@ Argo:
No…I vehemently deny your assertion that my perspective is deterministic. Determinism is wholly opposed to God’s perfect power, not in accordance with it. As I have explained several times in several posts. Determinism is metaphysically impossible/irrational.
“Pin Theology: Stratospheric Disturbance In Da Farce?”
Argo,
HowDee,
…everybuddy knows dat you can fit ten thousand dancing Calvinestas on da head of a single pin…
-snicker-
hmmm…
I’ze rememba dis:
God when he broughtz da first begotten into the world, he said:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Yea!
To His Son:
✿*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•` ¤ Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Again, To His Son:
Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you shall remain; and they all shall wax old as a garment does; And as a suit of cloths you shall fold them up, and they shall be changed: but you are the same, and your years shall not fail!
Ye haaaaaaaass!
Gotz any more ‘pins’…
>>>—–> go fish!
(grin)
hahahahahaha
S㋡py
Argo
I am counting on a win for your namesake this evening at the Oscars. Go Argo!
I am hoping to find a down to earth Calvinist who can help some of our readers,including me, to see the differences between Reformed theology and Neo-Calvinism. I also want to do a post refuting the argument that Arminianism is SemiPelagian.
@ dee:
LOL, me too!
“I am hoping to find a down to earth Calvinist who can help some of our readers,including me, to see the defferences between Reformed theology and Neo-Calviism.”
Dee, Not sure how this would work. What is the difference between Karl Barth and Jonathan Edwards? Barth is considered anti orthodox by many at SBTS. Or would it be the difference between Roger Willians and John Cotton? I think the New Calvinists are the purest form of Calvin there can be without a state church and infant baptism.
Mohler defined New Calvinism in this video with Kevin DeYoung and Ligon Duncan. Listen to his definition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T6lRMMvNCn8
listen to how he describes the New Calvinism.
@ Anon 1:
Well — according to Mohler if you don’t stand with Calvinism/New Calvinism then you stand against all those godly dead people, inlcuding Paul (the Apostle). Mohler comes across as an arrogant pontificator.
Argo –
Such strong assertions are not really necessary with me 🙂 We are just expressing our thoughts and I am not trying to pin any thoughts on you. You sometimes make statements about God, as if they are fact/truth, that I am not convinced of, myself, about God. I may not always agree with you even if you have explained yourself. I’m okay with that. I hope you are as well.
@ Bridget:
Briget,
I am not making statements “about God” that I am declaring truth. I am making discursive statements concerning the logical/rational inconsisties about doctrines about God. We can disagree about what we believe doctrinally, or whether we feel that reason and logical consistency should be used a the basis for doctrine, rather; but you cannot disagree with whether an idea is actually following a logical path or not. It either is or isn’t. If you think my logic is flawed that’s fine, but you need to show me. You can’t simply say we should just agree to disagree.
It doesn’t bother me if people don’t want to rely on reason to define how God works. I’m most concerned with my arguments being sound in that department. You asserted that my position was inconsistent with my rational metaphysics. I simply denied that strongly because I had spoken to that very issue several times already.
Well, you don’t NEED to show me. It would be helpful to me. No one is under any obligation here, of course.
Bridget, I have a problem with Calvin being proclaimed a godly person. I understand they like his writings and think they explain scripture. But to call him personally, godly, needs analyzing in view of history. We also need for them to define “godly” as they define it. A person’s writings do not make them godly.
This is the part I think is doctrine over people. The standard is “love”. Calvin was loving if you agreed with him. So that is the side they usually project. They leave off the other side that give me a problem with the term “godly”. Actually, I have a problem with that term in general.
Could they term him as a man of character and integrity. Love and humility? I guess that depends on how they define those concepts, too?
@ Bridget:
Actually, I do make statements about God. About how He acts and what He can and cannot do according to His perfection. I believe that rational consistently is implied in perfection. So, yes, I would expect God to be subject to His own perfect omnipotence. The only way to observe that as a human being is to judge what He does according to what is reasonable. That would mean, again, that He could not be self-limiting; could not possess creation, could not determine, could not rebuke Himself, could not be arbitrary, redundant, or do anything irrelevant. If we can define perfection by FLAWED reason, then there is no way humans can ever truly acknowledge that God is all powerful/perfect except by blind faith. Which means that God’s omnipotence is purely subjective. I don’t see this as a way to relate to God. I see it as mysticism.
@ JeffT:
“God does not need to exercise his power in all things in order to be sovereign.”
************
JeffT,
The image that immediately came to mind was of an orchestra or band, and all the instrumentalists exercising their musical power through their instruments all at the same time — because they can. They have the skill, the knowledge, the ability, the legal right.
The result is chaos, nonsense, it is oppressive, it is not a peace-inducing, not a health-inducing experience for any of the listeners nor the musicians themselves. If animals and plants were present, I think they would be disturbed, become unhealthy, and their lifespan shortened. I think the buildings in the vicinity would suffer some deterioration, even.
For the peace, health, and sheer good feelings and pleasure for all (animate and inanimate), the musicians HAVE to hold back. And follow the laws of music as arranged in the piece of music.
Argo,
When you listed the comment:
“I do vehemently deny original sin,”
and then said:
I think we should call it what it is: Original death.
What do you mean? What are we talking about here?
Can you please elaborate?
“Original death” was not my comment. That was a response from Anon1, I think. His/her explanation is in his/her post.
@ Patti:
And the adherents of both Calvinism and Arminianism contain those who would say heaven, those who would say hell, and many who would say perhaps ensoulment had not yet occurred, therefore there was no soul to be in either place.
Sorry Argo, my mastake… 🙁
@ Anon 1:
Anon1,
When you listed the comment:
“I do vehemently deny original sin,”
and then said:
I think we should call it what it is: Original death.
What do you mean? What are we talking about here?
Can you please elaborate?
@ Argo:
Under your thinking, God is also his LOVE. So which trumps the other, his love or his power?
I do not accept your definition that to be God, he must exercise his attributes to their fullest. That makes God an idiot trapped by his attributes into ridiculous consequences. God is omnipotent — has the power and the wisdom as to how to use it and when to use it. God is omniscient — he knows all he choses to know. God is omnipresent — he is co-extensive with the universe. But I do not believe that God is omnitemporal – being in all times at once, because no where does scripture say that; rather, he is eternal, without beginning or end. God is just. God is merciful. God is loving. God is kind. There is good scriptural basis for all of these. And to be all of these requires that God be wise in the application of each of his attributes.
BTW, please keep in mind that theology is not really the study of God, but rather the study of mankind’s thinking and writing about God. And I suspect a lot of people will be surprised that their theology has led them astray when they stand before him.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
And according to your definition the perfect IS, or I AM, is a collection of separate attributes, each one needing to be limited by His omnipotence-another separate attribute altogether- per your subjective criteria in order to be effective for man. In other words, for man to exist, and for God to function as his God, God must be less than He really is at any given moment. I don’t accept that as a legitimate description of the Almighty.
You are confused as to what I am saying. I am saying that God cannot limit one attribute in service to another, because each “attribute” is fully Himself (how do you have “part” of the perfect One?). He is not outside His attributes. THAT thinking is a product of man attempting to define God the way he defines himself.
How is being eternal functionally any different from being omnipresent? If God is omnipresent, He is beyond time, or all is NOW to God, from His perspective. It’s the same definition, practically speaking.
As for your last sentence, I could not agree more. The sentence before that is purely an excuse to accept contradiction and logical inconsistency as legitimate faith/understanding, in my opinion.
For example, God limiting His power to destroy a thing in favor of mercy is not “limiting His power”, it is the perfect manifestation of that power with regards to the full manifestation of His mercy, knowledge, etc. All His attributes are One, so anything He does is the perfect and full singularity of who He is. It is not a limitation of power in FAVOR of mercy, but the perfect and full work of God who is both power and mercy and knowledge and everything else perfectly and fully for eternity. Whatever God does is a manifestation of God, not just a manifestation of an attribute of God.
For the past year or so, I have been attending the early service of a mainline Presby church. The pastor has been preaching on Calvin’s principles for the last several weeks and several more ahead. Her take (she has a doctorate in theology) is that Calvin started a discussion but did not end it, and that 450 years later, it is time for mainline Presbys to reassess the past and rethink what those principles mean in light of our deeper knowledge of the scriptures due to research, finding earlier manuscripts, linguistic research, etc. She seems to come down on a much less strident place than traditional Calvinists, let alone the Neo-Cals or Puritans. Eg., our depravity is our tendency to think about ourselves and to fail to think about others, thereby ignoring the command of Jesus, rather than necessarily a tendency to commit overt evil.
@ Argo:
God is not limiting his power. He is limiting his use of his power. Being all powerful is not contradicted by his choosing how to use his power.
Omnipresence refers to place not time. Eternal refers to time. Omnipresence means that God is co-extensive with the universe (or universes, if there is more than one). There is no necessary implication for time. It is only in very recent time that people have talked about God existing in all times at once. It results in worse logical problems than any you have addressed to this point.
Jesus taught us to pray that God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That suggests that it is not always so, or we would not need to pray for it.
BTW, those who believe in predestination of everything are terribly illogical if they ever pray.
Argo,
I have an undergraduate education in sciences (chemistry, physics, math), a Ph.D. in psychology (epistemology, social cognition), a J.D., and a 500 volume library of theology in my home. Your argument is a tautology and such circular reasoning does not impress. You say it is impossible for God to limit his application of any of his attributes because you define God in that way. You choose to do that — it is not necessary to the Godness of God.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
56 years,
Time is always place, unless we are talking of time in the abstract sense. Therefore, omnipresent and being in all times is the same thing without you qualifying your meaning better.
I will cop that my arguments are in a sense circular, but circular arguments are not by definition bad arguments. They are only bad if they do not follow reason. You also use circular arguments to a point, so do I, and so does anyone who proceeds from an assumption at one time or another.
My assumption is that God is One and God is perfect (though this assumption is based on ideas; thus it’s not a raw assumption per se). From this assumption you cannot rationally conclude that a manifestation of God is a function of willingly limiting an attribute which cannot be declared separate from One who is perfect…as One, and as you say ETERNAL. If He is eternal, according to your definition, how can He be a collection of attributes governed by some kind if separate divine will? He and everything about Him is always in the same place. Again, in keeping with my “tautology” He is One. What He does, HE does, period.
I have a doctorate and a library, too. The men I disagree with almost categorically are Luther, Augustine, Calvin, the Bishop of Canterbury, Jonathan Edwards, the whole Mayflower crew and most of the Mass Bay Colony, all the Popes, the Westminster Confession, a couple of Supreme Court justices and dozens of presidents and prime ministers. To name a few. But I can think and read. Save the resume.
So please, tell me how an omnipresent God then can act according to the limitation of one attribute in favor of another? I am using your definition of “omnipresent”, 56 Years.
I think what we are doing is confusing self-control/ self-limiting. To the original point: man’s free will is dependent on God limiting His knowledge. That means for man to be free to act, God has to be effectively LESS than fully God. Less than perfect. That is a contradiction. God can only control the application of His power, He cannot brain-dump a portion of His perfect knowledge in service to His ability to rule over Creation perfectly.
Jeff S
In the discussion on Calvinism, I do not want to get bogged down in too much philosophy. Calvinists claim that beliefs are based strictly on Scripture. So, I am interestedi in the issues surrounding regeneracy, human agency, determinism, utter depravity, etc. I am particualrly interested in how Calvinists view the Imago Dei in mankind. oh yeah, I almost forgot. Almost every Calvinist says that they must believe this because it is in the Bible. There appears to be implicit assumption that others do not really read their Bible. Is this true?
Then, perhaps in a second post, I would like to see a Calvinist differentiate him(her) self from today’s NeoCalvinism. I believe that they are two distinct systems and that is why I have no trouble with “your daddy’s” Calvinism but fight arrogant Calvinistas.
In my opinon, what good is a doctrine if one cannot explain it in a manner that the average church goer, who gives a hoot, can understand it? If that is the case, then we have created the new Magerterium which finds itself centered on certain self proclaimed leaders “who are in the know” which somehow denies the priesthood of the believer.
@ dee:
It has been called a gnostic heresy for centuries — that some have “special knowledge” of the character and will of God.
56 years,
There is more and more research showing that these were novel ideas that Augustine merged with Christianity from his career as in Greek Philosoply. All material world is evil, only the spiritual is good. So total depravity/imputed guilt, etc, etc, are a by product of this. Augustine did not read Greek and really interpreted some passages in a way they had not been interpreted before.
It took a while for them to be systemized. Luther was an Augustinian monk so it would make sense that was part of his foundational thinking and overcorrection of works salvation as in indulgences to the point of thinking the book of James should not be in the canon.
It is interesting the progression that happens after Augustines prolific writings spread across Europe.
“When you listed the comment:
“I do vehemently deny original sin,”
and then said:
I think we should call it what it is: Original death.
What do you mean? What are we talking about here?
Can you please elaborate?”
Hi Sopy, I did not say “vehemetly deny original sin” I DID say I think we should call it original death.
I think original sin is confusing. And we are seeing this confusion in the SBC right now with the term. Calvinists automatically put imputed guilt in there. Others do not. Imputed guilt brings on other problems (which is why churches baptized babies and some were put to death for NOT baptizing their infants in the Protestant REformation)
The wages of sin is “death”. That was the penalty for Adam’s sin. Other things were corrupted such as the land and animals. I do not think we pass down a sin virus of sorts in conception. If we do, then a Holy God was in it for 9 mos! I do not think babies are “guilty of sin” the minute they are born or because they steal another babies binkie (Yep, had cavlinists tell me that) What I see are innate survival instincts some see as proof of imputed guilt. I have often wondered if Jesus cried to be fed after hearing some of these Calvinista sermons. Was HE the perfect baby? Is messing a diaper part of original sin? Is crying to be fed? Or reachoing for a shiney object?
I think we are guilty of OUR OWN SIN when we are cognizant we are sinning. I think we have to have FAITH and be able to repent. I have no idea what that age may be for each individual. But brain studies are showing some interesting outcomes on that score. (If you ever wonder why teens are so bent on risky behavior/ adventure, those studies tell us why and it has to do with braindevelopment)
I think God is merciful and gracious. I cannot see where He holds us accountable for Adam’s sin but only for our own. I realize some interpret some passages to prove we are guilty of Adam’s sin. I disagree with their interpretation. Adam had free will to ignore God’s command and it ushered in corruption and evil kinding of giving Satan a toe hold of sorts. We have free will, too.
Anon1,
Super, Thanx. @ Anon 1:
Question: When the scripture records :
” When you eat of it, you shall surely die…”,
…what did this really mean for Man, his person, his condition, his placement in the cosmos, and his relationship with his creator, when he did eat?
Could you please expound? 😉
S㋡py
@ dee:
I agree- I did not mean to delve into too much philosophy- I was only meaning to say earlier that I think that sometimes Sproul speaks more as a pholosopher than he does as a expositor of scripture, which is fine, but he doesn’t always clearly delenitate the two for listeners.
When you say every believer must believe “this” because it is in the Bible, what do you mean by “this”? Do you mean the entire ST, predestination, or something else? I think most Christians believe what they believe because they think it is what the scripture teaches. When I say I believe the Bible teaches Calvinism, I do not mean to imply that other people aren’t reading their Bibles. I understand we all come at these things with our unique perspectives and part of what makes all of this challenging is that it is hard to tell when we are reading into and reading out of scripture. Of course everyone believes they are “reading out” where those who do not agree are “reading in”.
But see, this is one difference I hear between Sproul and Piper- at least in my experience Sproul tends to acknowledge his own potential failings and that other people have reasonable viewpoints. I realize he is strong in the presentation his views so sometimes this doesn’t come across, but I listen carefully and I often here him say things like “those who aren’t Reformed believe . . .” or “those who don’t baptize infants view it like . . .” Admittedly, sometimes on the same issue he will appear more gracious in one presentation than the next. Of course, whether he is geninue in this or not is probably up for debate- but I think it’s important to view ourselves as fallible in our understanding of God’s Word.
As for how Reformed see Imago Dei, I guess I don’t really understand your question. The idea is that we were created with the image of God, which sets us apart from the animals and gives us a unquie and vaulable role in Creation, but that we are fallen have been corrupted by sin. So while we still contain elements of the image of God, it is a corrputed image that is not what it should be. At least that is how I understand it.
One book I really, REALLY recommend is Tim Keller’s book “Generous Justice”. I admit it, I’m a fan of Keller. But to me, this book shows the geninue compassion and love for the opressed that OUGHT to flow from those of a Reformed faith- and a lot of it is based on the idea of treating our fellow humans as image bearers of God.
At this point I will whisper very quietly that, while I am not planting a flag and ready to die on this mountain, I personally question the Agustinian idea of Original Sin. I DO believe that all humans sin and therefore are corrputed pre-conversation, but I don’t necessarily buy that we are born that way. To me, I don’t see it making a drastic difference, though- none of us have lived a perfect life deserving of God’s favor- we all have earned a spiritual death. Whether that comes from Agustine’s Original Sin (which I do not see in scripture) or by our own actions as those who follow in the footsteps of Adam, the result is a corrputed, fallen person.
As for what separates the neo-Calvinist from other Calvinism- you know, I’m not so sure it is a generational thing. What I really think is that there is a tendency for religious leaders to become Pharisees- to use their understanding of the things of God to whack people and exalt themselves. That doesn’t make their understanding of the theings of God inherintly wrong- Jesus said that the Pharasees DID WELL to tithe 1/10 of their spices. It wasn’t what they taught he had a problem with- it was that they didn’t follow the part of the law that says we are to love and have compassion. I think this has always existed in the church, and today a certain segment of these folks are Reformed. Whenever something starts becoming “cool”, that’s where the Pharisees will flock and use it to weild power.
So when I read someone like Driscoll- there’s a lot of prinicple he says that I totally agree with. But then when he applies them it’s like he grown a second head- it’s that alien to me. With a lot of these really popular Calvinists, I see a lot weird actions that seem very disjoined from their beliefs. It’s behavior that separates a Pharisee from a true believer, and I think that holds within and outside of Calvinism.
Hey Sopy, Not sure I am in the intellectual league to do that.But I noticed that neither Adam or Eve physically died right away but adam sent out of the garden and eve followed where I suppose the earth starting started corrupting. I think there was also a spiritual separation from God which would be described as death of sorts. (I always keep in mind much of the OT is Hebrew Poetry so I look for the main idea not a wooden literal checklist)
I do not see where God took away dominion just made it harder. Nor do I see where the image of God was totally revoked. I also take into consideration the name of the tree. The KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil which tell us evil was already around. We could spends days on that one!
“Argo, I have an undergraduate education in sciences (chemistry, physics, math), a Ph.D. in psychology (epistemology, social cognition), a J.D., and a 500 volume library of theology in my home. Your argument is a tautology and such circular reasoning does not impress…” -56 YABxxx
56 YABxxx,
HowDee,
I have a six pack of grape NEHI, and a case of hot pocketz, and a Franklin pocket electronic bible, that talks ta me… (I hear things…-snicker- )
beeeeeeeeeeep!
Does dat count?
b con-struct-ive!
How about taking on Auntie Dee’s widdle Theological Challenge?
1. …expounding upon the differences between Reformed theology and Neo-Calvinism?
2. …answering da question Is Arminianism Semi-Pelagian? Why or why notz?
hmmm…
I juz thought of stuff…
(I do dat sometimes-)
…when closely examining the very heart of the early christian movement, one can see this outline:
They, on their “better dayz”,
(We all have those right?)
Well, they had their hearts fixed on the one thing needful, the Christian’s great interest, then faced the issues of life in all spheres -in obedience to the commandments of God revealed in the written Word, the Bible.
Were these people a bit over-legalistic, n’ power happy?
p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y
But an error in ‘slightly’ the right direction?
hmmm…
I would tend more…to a ‘could b’
—> i.e. “obedience to the commandments of God revealed in the written Word, the Bible”, tends ta b a good thing!
—> i.e. “trusting the Almighty in faith” is a very good thing!
While we are thinking about it,
…giving expression to ‘a deep appreciation’ of the ‘inner life of the godly individual’ as an indispensable element of religion, is a good thing!
…giving expression to ‘a strong emphasis’ on the ‘inner life of the godly individual’ as an indispensable element of religion, is a gooood thing too!
(not a sermon, just a thought?)
p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y
Giving development to a strong need for Jesus in our lives, His words, His comfort, A strong knowledge of His three and a half year work upon the earth in the land of God’s chosen people; embracing His promises, and His commitment never to leave or forsake us, not loosing any the Father has so confidently committed into His divine care, -are all good things also!
i rememba dis:
—–> the core of the scripture …spoke of Him,
—–> …spoke of His coming,
—–> …spoke of His eventual triumph over the forces of darkness,
—–> …spoke of His fateful return as reigning king, with a septer and a rule of iron, the likes of which have never before been witnessed upon the earth.
—–> …spoke of a day when all eyes will one day witness Him who was pierced for our transgressions; Who was raised up for our hope. Who will reign with un-mistakable righteousness.
These are all very, very, good things…Sopy, I am.
-snicker-
Yehaaaaaaaa!
Looking for Him, preparing your heart for His coming, for He who has called you -is faithful?
huh?
In deze dayz, dem proverbial evil men and women will wax worse n’ worse, as da dayz grow long towards impenetrable blackness (fade to black?); You howsomeever, filled with God’s Holy Spirit, renewed in your mind by the pure water of the Word of God, shall wax with steeled boldness, expressing exuberant praize towards da Savior, and lotz and lotz of thanksgiving!
✿*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•` ¤ O Come thou faithful, unto the joy of your Lord!
(datz for me!)
Why, Oh Why, would I ever settle for a mere pompous theology, a byzantine barrage of bulbous wrangling of con-tent-ious verbiage, when I can have da real thing, baby:
(you betcha!)
Jesus, the Lord of the Universe, calls me “Friend” !
Storm clouds a’ comm’in…
His eye is ever upon da sparrow… (happyface)
ATB
S㋡py
—
P.S. Dr. Zuss, he lives next door, he’s got a searchable library of 28000 theology bookz. (big deal) Sometimes he letz me eat Cheetos, n’ sit in a big chair, and push buttons.
chrrrrchunk!
Illustrious Johnny C. sayz da strangest things…
hmmm…
da bible does too:
“Knowledge puffs up, but love edifys…” (smileyface goesz chere)
hum, hum, hum…you are my sunshine, you are my shoeshine, ya make me ta walk da very narrow way…You never know…how much i love you, …dear Jesus, please don’t take my Logos Bible software awaaaay! ;~)
@ dee:
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”. Admittedly, this is the only thing by him I’ve read, but it stuck in my mind.
http://www.the-highway.com/election_Boettner.html
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)
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.”
I want to say soooo much about this one but no time to do it justice– maybe others can.