Crosscon.com – A Calvinista Student Missions Conference

"Why a new student missions conference? … With 7,000 schools of higher learning, and 15,000,000 students, and a spread of 5,000 miles (from Maine to Hawaii), there is room in America for another conference about the most important issue in the world."

John Piper

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=26500&picture=park-of-the-cross

Park Of The Cross

If you're a college student who has been captivated by Young, Restless and Reformed movement, have we got the conference for you!  It's called the Cross Conference, and it is slated to take place December 27-30, 2013 in Louisville. 

Last week Desiring God and The Gospel Coalition simultaneously announced the conference, and Kevin DeYoung quickly followed with his announcement – Come to Cross.  DeYoung explains that for several years some leaders have been 'dreaming and praying' about a student missions conference based on the doctrines of grace and focused on lost people groups around the world.  He then shares the following about the conference: 

"Cross exists for the global purpose of magnifying the kingly majesty of Jesus Christ. Our focus is on all the unreached peoples of the world where Jesus is not worshipped as God and Savior.

To that end CROSS aims to mobilize students for the most dangerous and loving cause in the universe: rescuing people from eternal suffering and bringing them into the everlasting joy of friendship with Jesus.

Jesus said that every person without faith in him, remains under the wrath of God (John 3:36). He also said that God did not send him “to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).

That saving faith is born through the message of Jesus’ blood and righteousness—his cross. Everyone who believes is saved. But nobody believes without a messenger.

World missions is the glorious gospel enterprise of going like Christ into another cultural world to rescue people from eternal suffering, and renovate their broken lives, that they might render to God the splendor of his majesty through faith in Christ.

There is no better reason to lose your life and no greater way to live it."

The Cross website is up and running and features details about and the conference and its organizers.  We were especially interested in the Cross Leadership Team, which includes:  Thabiti Anyabwile, Kevin DeYoung, John Piper, David Platt, Zane Pratt, David Sitton, and Mack Stiles.  As many of our readers know, the first four are widely recognized, so we have provided links to their biographical information.  Because we were not as familiar with the last three, we decided to do a little digging… 

Here is some information that might shed some light on why they were chosen for the leadership team.

Zane Pratt

According to the 1979 Chanticleer (Duke University's yearbook), Pratt earned his undergraduate degree that year.  He graduated two years ahead of me (Deb) and three years ahead of Mark Dever, although I never met either Pratt or Dever during my four years at Duke.   A Towers article published June 15, 2011, states:

"At both Duke and Gordon-Conwell, Pratt was a fellow student with Mark Dever, senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C."

Well, Pratt and Dever were fellow college students for one year, and it appears that Pratt worked at Duke after graduating.  In that Towers article, Mohler reveals his long-term friendship with Pratt this way:

“I’ve known Zane Pratt for more than 30 years. Few people have been more used of God in my life – and I know in the lives of so many others."

One factoid that surprised us about Zane Pratt and Mark Dever was revealed by Tom Schreiner, who wrote this last year:

"Pratt has been at SBTS for just a year, and he’s already one of the most popular professors due to his intellect, kindness, and incredible wealth of missions experience. Seriously–this guy is a gospel Navy SEAL (and won Mark Dever over to Calvinism while the two were at Duke)."

Now I remember hearing C.J. Mahaney interview Mark Dever for 9Marks back in 2007, and if I remember correctly, Dever admitted that he was an agnostic in his formative years.  Unfortunately, that audio has since been removed.  However, we can confirm Dever's agnosticism because he wrote this back in 2010:

"Reading Kell's book also made me thankful, in God's strange providence, for my time as an agnostic…"

It certainly sounds like Dever embraced Calvinism while he was in college, and now we know who influenced him.

Zane Pratt became dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism in 2011, and for the two decades prior he served overseas as a missionary.   Because of this background and his relationship with Mohler and Dever, he was likely selected for the Cross Leadership Team.

David Sitton

He is the author of Reckless Abandon and founder of To Every Tribe (located in Los Fresnos, Texas).  You can read his testimony here.  Sitton, a former church planter in New Guinea, was invited by John Piper to speak at the 2006 Desiring God Pastors Conference.  He returned in 2011 to speak at the Desiring God National Conference.  Here is a clip from Piper's interview of Sitton in 2011.

Did you catch it?  Sitton quotes his pastor as saying:  "Train others.  The need of the hour is for more missionaries.  But not just missionaries.  We need the right kind of missionaries.  How are we gonna get the right kind of missionaries if some of the right kind don't come home and train them…"  (more on this later)

Among the To Every Tribe Board of Directors are Scott Anderson, Executive Director of Desiring God, and Gregg Harris (whose endorsement is also included on the website). 

You might also want to take a look at To Every Tribe's Vision and Mission, which indicates that they are reformed and baptistic.

Mack Stiles

He lives in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, according to his Facebook account and is CEO for Gulf Digital Connections.  Stiles spoke at the 2012 Together for the Gospel conference and gave a talk called The Church, the Gospel and Our Call to the Nations.

He has been in Dubai for over a decade and became an elder of United Christian Church of Dubai – a 9Marks affiliated church.  He and the other church leaders hired the current pastor, John Folmar, and then that church planted Redeemer Church of Dubai where Stiles currently serves as an elder.  According to his bio, Stiles "served with InterVarsity in the US for over 20 years in various management roles" and has written several Christian books. Stiles' writings are sometimes featured on the 9Marks website.   An interesting tidbit he revealed in his T4G talk is that his son lived with Mark and Connie Dever while he was in college.

Plenary speakers at the first Cross Conference include a who's who of Calvinistas (not to be confused with 'traditional Calvinists'):

 John Piper

Thabiti Anyabwile

​Kevin DeYoung

Conrad Mbewe (who spoke at the 2010 Rezolution with John Piper and is called 'The African Spurgeon' by some)

​Richard Chin

Mac Stiles

Matt Chandler

Michael Oh

D.A. Carson

David Platt

There are breakout speakers as well including: Kristie Anyabwile, Andy Davis, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, John Folmar, Greg Gilbert, Al Mohler, Zane Pratt, David Sitton, and others.  Oh, and how could we forget – C.J. Mahaney.  Look, don't sweat it about Mahaney and the class action lawsuit.  By all appearances, the Cross crowd isn't the least bit concerned… 

As we hopefully have demonstrated, those involved in this student missions conference are "together for the Calvinista gospel".  No one outside of their camp is participating as far as we can determine. 

Are we concerned?  You betcha! 

When a member of the leadership team (Sitton) indicates they need to train 'the right kind of missionaries', and when a Southern Seminary professor (Schreiner) brags that Zane Pratt 'won Dever over to Calvinism', you can be sure that this crowd is advocating an extremely narrow approach to missions. 

As parents, we would want to know this information before sending our children to this conference.  Check out this suggestive Tweet sent out earlier today:

Looking for a good Christmas gift? Come to #CrossCon2013 http://crosscon.com/register/

And that was the motivating factor for writing this post.  As our readers know, we believe in full disclosure…

Once again, we must emphasize that we are not attacking reformed theology per se or condemning traditional Calvinists who have a live and let live approach to theological differences.  Unfortunately, we don't believe the same can be said of the individuals involved in planning this conference.  It's their way or the highway…

Here is a perfect illustration of the superiority often demonstrated by those whom we label 'Calvinistas'.  Not long ago, R.C. Sproul, Jr. responded to a question on his website (see below). 

Ask RC: Do Arminians go to heaven when they die?

"From one perspective, to even ask this question seems almost ghastly. From another perspective, asking this question seems like surrender. On the one hand, no one believes in justification by having all my theological ducks in a row. On the other hand, many of our fathers saw the divide between Arminian theology and Calvinistic theology as a decisive one. We want to honor our brothers if they are our brothers, and we want to honor our fathers, if they are right on this issue. Better still, we want to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely."

To be clear, R.C. Sproul, Jr. is not involved in this conference, but his father has been known to share the platform with those who are "Together for the Gospel". 

We are left wondering whether those involved in the Cross conference are more interested in coaxing attendees and unreached people groups to embrace Calvinism rather than Christianity in general.  They appear to marginalize anyone who does not believe their particular brand of theology. 

We find it rather odd that the Calvinistas focus on college students and young adults but don't seem all that concerned about those in their thirties and beyond. 

We are left wondering what will happen to the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement a decade from now.  Statistics appear to indicate that the 'Nones' – those who leave the church while maintaining their Christian faith – are on the rise, perhaps not so coincidentally as the YRR crowd has risen to power over the last decade.  Are the Neo-Cals driving Christians out of church?

On the surface, the New Reformed movement may have some appeal, but underneath there are some serious problems which we often address in this forum.  What will the future hold for the Calvinistas?  Only God knows… 

Lydia's Corner:   Judges 4:1-5:31   Luke 22:35-53   Psalm 94:1-23   Proverbs 14:3-4

Comments

Crosscon.com – A Calvinista Student Missions Conference — 344 Comments

  1. I don’t know. Some of those YRR folks seem not so well, Y. I think I’d rather go to the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting. They have a better book selection.

  2. This statement appears on the information page for would-be exhibitors:

    “The Cross Steering Committee is desirous to have organizations apply to exhibit who are supportive of both the Cross vision statement and the Cross affirmation of faith. An application that is not accepted by Cross should not be received as a rejection of the organization itself; we are simply trying to match closely the goals of exhibitors with the goals of Cross.”

    It looks to me like this so-called missions conference will have a very limited focus, and the attendees will not be exposed to any mission agency that is not “supportive” of their narrow vision. Missions very often requires the forging of partnerships with believers who may hold different positions on secondary issues, which certainly is not the Calvinistas’ strong suit.

    I shudder to think about Calvinista clones turned loose on the mission field.

  3. What an odd statement, to be won over to Calvinism, rather than won over to Christ. Idolatry, IMO.

  4. Deb, I’m surprised you haven’t commented on the fact that all the speakers are male. Perhaps the “right kind of missionaries” is code for “no women allowed”.

  5. Through a glass darkly wrote:

    What an odd statement, to be won over to Calvinism, rather than won over to Christ. Idolatry, IMO.

    This. It really is worrying. Doesn’t Paul say something against the whole ‘I follow Paul’, ‘I follow Apollos’ thing?

  6. I dislike DeYoung’s use of the words “rescue” and “renovate” in the blurb attributed to him above.

    I realize that he’s speaking of coming to faith in Christ, I really do. But the language just smacks of 19th century colonialism and the “white man’s burden.”

    As if they are preparing a group of YRR Spekes and Livingstons to go out and “Christianize the natives.”

    Perhaps people in other cultures don’t feel they need either rescuing or renovating from American college kids? How about using language like “partnering with people” or “walking beside people” or (heaven forbid) “serving people right where they are in the name of Christ”?

    And don’t get me started on “gospel Navy Seals.” I know some members of that community who’d get a big laugh out of that descriptor. Along with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

    “Gospel Navy Seals” brings up images of aggressive, conquering crusaders and is inappropriate.

  7. Well, let me see .. as a non-Calvinist, I’m barely a Christian, as an egalitarian I’m some sort of heretic, as a woman who preaches (on occasion, when they’ll let me) I’m sinning … Just as well I know I’m a Christian.

    Seriously, how do they line up urgency for mission with their theology that says that God has already predetermined from before the foundation of the world who will be saved? Maybe my head’s too small, but I just can’t get those 2 things to fit together!

    Oh I could go on .. the substitution of believing in Calvinism for believing in Jesus can get awfully close to Deism. And the thought of these rigid thinkers trying to minister effectively cross-culturally also blows my mind.

    And one final question: where are these missionaries to be sent? With more and more countries closing their doors to traditional approaches to missions, more and more organisations (at least in the circles I know) are planning more strategic approaches, where the bulk of outreach is actually done by non-Westerners, with westerners in more of an equipping, organising kind of role

  8. It seems to me that they make their intentions perfectly clear in their statement of faith, particularly about the role of women in the church, which is quite unusual for such a statement.
    They say
    12.3 We believe that each local church should recognize and affirm the divine calling of spiritually qualified men to give leadership to the church through the role of pastor-elder in the ministry of the Word and prayer. Women are not to fill the role of pastor-elder in the local church, but are encouraged to use their gifts in appropriate roles that edify the body of Christ and spread the gospel”

    But they also are clear that they are not infallible, nor are their statements prescriptive for all. See number 15.

  9. @ Lynne T:
    I had the same question about why they need to send missionaries if they believe people are chosen by God to be saved. If God already chose them it will be done. I don’t get it either.

  10. The wonders of the internet are such that you will be aware that I have the same IP address as Gavin and the linguists will know that Iolair Bhann is kind of Gaelic for his name. The mathematicians will realise that 2 + 2 = 4.

    I don’t mind eternal moderation and I am happy to play by the rules so any future post will be as Gavin.

    This is what I wrote a couple of minutes ago.

    It seems to me that they make their intentions perfectly clear in their statement of faith, particularly about the role of women in the church, which is quite unusual for such a statement.
    They say
    12.3 We believe that each local church should recognize and affirm the divine calling of spiritually qualified men to give leadership to the church through the role of pastor-elder in the ministry of the Word and prayer. Women are not to fill the role of pastor-elder in the local church, but are encouraged to use their gifts in appropriate roles that edify the body of Christ and spread the gospel”

    But they also are clear that they are not infallible, nor are their statements prescriptive for all. See number 15.

  11. I was watching a TV show last night (some of you might guess what it was).

    This was a list describing a particular political movement. The thing is, it sent chills down my spine because it seemed to describe another group some of you might be familiar with…

    – Ideological purity
    – Compromise as weakness
    – A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
    – Denying science
    – Unmoved by facts
    – Undeterred by new information
    – A hostile fear of progress
    – A demonization of education
    – A need to control women’s bodies
    – Severe xenophobia
    – Tribal mentality
    – Intolerance of dissent
    – A pathological hatred of the US government

    Obviously, a couple of the points don’t fit… but…

  12. Lynne T wrote:

    And one final question: where are these missionaries to be sent? With more and more countries closing their doors to traditional approaches to missions, more and more organisations (at least in the circles I know) are planning more strategic approaches, where the bulk of outreach is actually done by non-Westerners, with westerners in more of an equipping, organising kind of role

    Probably anywhere non-Calvinist mainly charismatic churches are exploding… China, South America. Gotta save them from those barely Christian Arminians…

  13. @ Amy:

    Lynne and Amy – from my time in reformed world, here’s what my personal understanding (stated in the most simplistic and thus poor way) is of the view of missionaries:

    The totally depraved, once they are justified (because they are the pre-determined elect), become alive and knowledgable about the utter depth and totality of their sin. Previously they were dead in their sins.

    Out of this “quickening” comes an overwhelming sense of gratitude at the sheer grace shown to them by God in salvation through Christ.

    Out of this gratitude, the elect are thus driven to glorify God and delight in Him and so the commant of carrying out the Great Commission through the world becomes an imperative. The impulse for missions is to grow out of sheer gratitude and joy for one’s own salvation.

    Because people don’t know who is elect and who is not, preaching the Good News throughout the world is still important. Remember that God’s Word goes out and does not return void. God can use the elect as agents in the present.

    However, in the real world, people get morbidly, introspectively stuck in legalism such as “sin-sniffing” and emphasis on their status as worms, and don’t understand the magnitude of grace that has been extended to them, their justification, their salvation, or their “sonship” as adopted sons and daughters.

    So they roll over fatalistically and say “meh, God has predetermined the elect from the beginnings of the world, so I’ll just sit pondering and debating doctrines of my worm-like misery, worrying if I am elect, and not bother with the Great Commission.”

    Again, that’s my simplistic understanding. I ain’t a theologian and I could be very very wrong here.

    I’m also not here on TWW to debate points of doctrine as believe me, I’ve had enough of impersonal graceless egghead doctrinal debates that are divorced from real world circumstances, thankyouverymuch.

    Just trying to provide my own very personal conclusions of missiology from my time in reformed churches.

  14. @ Warwick:
    One of the reasons I am grateful to Dee and Deb is that they are exposing a structure that develops anytime humans are allowed/encouraged to be power-hungry. It is a familiar pattern, repeated in and out of the church, throughout history.

    So, when we understand what is going on in the church these days, we also see more clearly what is happening in the nation and across the world. And that is a very good thing!

  15. Lee said:

    “Missions very often requires the forging of partnerships with believers who may hold different positions on secondary issues, which certainly is not the Calvinistas’ strong suit. I shudder to think about Calvinista clones turned loose on the mission field.”

    Lee,

    In preparation for this post, I watched a 9 Marks session held during last year’s SBC Annual Meeting.  Your comment brought to mind what I heard IMB President Tom Eliff say starting around the 28:40 mark. 

    I agree that missionaries should be sharing the true gospel, but who gets to define it – Mark Dever?  His theology is WAY too restrictive IMHO.

    http://www.9marks.org/media/9marks-9-southern-baptist-convention-2012-annual-meeting

  16. “Arminians are Christians, barely”

    Simply following Jesus and spending your time on earth worshiping the living God is not enough, is it? It’s never enough. These calvinistas are masters, aren’t they, of tying up heavy burdens and laying them on people’s shoulders – and they themselves will not lift a finger to move them.

    So much for “saving” people.

    “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” –Jesus

  17. @ Rafiki:
    Yes, God factored in mission work from the beginning. Believers want to do God’s will (they aren’t “driven”) and His will is that they go out to preach the gospel to those people He has predetermined will be saved, even though the believers don’t know who they are.

    In the “classical” Calvinist community, it is a matter of wrong emphasis and poor application, because of course God IS sovereign. But the Calvinista community has taken the worst aspects of these doctrines and used them to garner personal power and control.

    Brought up in a Christian Reformed parsonage, I saw a few members agonizing over whether they were actually saved because of the so-called “doctrines of grace”. I will never forget the depth of pain. On the other hand, there were many people who recognized that some of the implications were rabbit holes to be avoided, and were fairly healthy, spiritually.

  18. If you’re not familiar with the Reformed / Arminian debate in the SBC, here’s some information that might be of interest:

    http://www.abpnews.com/archives/item/6862-sbc-leader-cites-calvinism-as-top-challenge#.UUr80I4vFUQ

    “Renewed interest in Calvinism, also known as Reformed Theology and the Doctrines of Grace, began with influential leaders, including Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler, who view it as a healthy return to Southern Baptists’ historic roots.

    Others see it as a negative trend that threatens to take over the convention in a manner similar to the “conservative resurgence” of the late 20th century. That is a name used to describe a movement that redirected the more moderate and mainstream theology held by many SBC leaders before the 1980s toward a more conservative embrace of biblical inerrancy that now holds sway.

    Page, who has a Ph.D. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, claims he is neither Calvinist nor Arminian but says there needs to be honest dialogue between the camps. A 2007 LifeWay Research study found that about 10 percent of rank-and-file pastors considered themselves five-point Calvinists. Among recent seminary graduates the number grew to 29 percent, suggesting that the small but increasing number of Calvinist-led churches will continue to grow.”

  19. @ lilyrosemary:
    and

    My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely.”

    So, there were barely any Christians for 1500 years? Or all Christians were barely thus?

  20. @ Patrice:

    Great P.O.V. Patrice!

    Do know that I meant to use the word “driven” in a positive sense (I happen to think being driven and focused to reach a goal or an accomplishment is a good quality!), not in a negative sense of an external force pushing one reluctantly along against one’s own will. Driven = desire in my meaning, just want to be clear. 🙂

  21. Deb wrote:

    A 2007 LifeWay Research study found that about 10 percent of rank-and-file pastors considered themselves five-point Calvinists. Among recent seminary graduates the number grew to 29 percent, suggesting that the small but increasing number of Calvinist-led churches will continue to grow.”

    Wow, that is a fascinating stat, Deb.

  22. I wish they would just say it already! “If you aren’t a Calvinist, you aren’t saved.” Then we could all move on with our lives and they could spend theirs seeking out people who believe Jesus is God in the flesh who was crucified and rose on the third day to forgive your sins in order to tell said person “if you don’t believe In double predestination you will be damned!” Sadly, I think soon Calvinistas will lose their relevance in America simply because this nation will continue down the road of rejecting the gospel. I wonder how many flee from the gospel not because of the gospel but because of the heavy handed Calvinistas?

  23. Another conference. Just what is needed. We do not have enough of them yet. (snarky sarcasm)

    Could this new youth conference possibly be linked with Piper’s announcement from Geneva that the world needs to hear “his” testimony and about his new career as a 21st Century John Calvin, Global Apostle?

    So, if they are able to influence thousands of young men to be missionaries, who pays? Will there be a structure in place to train and support them to spread the “Good” News of John Calvin that you MIGHT be one of the elect? It worries me Mohler is involved. Does he plan to hook them up with the SBC for funding where most of his buddies now control the purse strings?

  24. Rafiki wrote:

    And don’t get me started on “gospel Navy Seals.” I know some members of that community who’d get a big laugh out of that descriptor. Along with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

    “Gospel Navy Seals” brings up images of aggressive, conquering crusaders and is inappropriate.

    And according to the SEAL who keeps records of ex-SEALs, there are a lot of SEAL impersonators out there, claiming to have been SEALs when they weren’t. He said that “clergy” seem especially prone to faking a SEAL past.

    It’s wanna-bes who’ve never Seen the Elephant. Any vet will tell you that the Gung-Ho, Aggressive Conquering Crusader types are those who have NEVER seen any action for real.

  25. Ian wrote:

    Deb, I’m surprised you haven’t commented on the fact that all the speakers are male. Perhaps the “right kind of missionaries” is code for “no women allowed”.

    Because God made women to stay winsomely at home, Gospelly making babies to Outbreed the Heathen.

  26. @ Rafiki:

    This isn’t surprising when you consider who is running the SBTS. We can also now see different denominations that join together under TGC flag that don’t seem to be as concerned for about the Gospel as they are for sharing their Reformed and complementarian beliefs.

  27. mot wrote:

    Does anyone else see one of the major characteristics of the YRR movement as arrogance?

    Package deal with being The One True Way, Predestined as such by God Himself.

    After a while you fall deeply in love with the smell of your own farts.

  28. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I wonder if they are going to give women a cut rate for attending the conference !?!? Seriously, I’m sure they want to fill the seats and have the money roll in, but what exactly are they going to tell the women who come? What “separate” classes are they going to provide for women, since women can’t teach men in the Church?

    Are they going to build church buildings first thing in every place they send missionaries to make sure the women don’t teach in church?

    How are they going to teach complementarianism to peoples that practice subjugation of women? . . . stop raping your women . . . but wives you can never say no to sex with your husband . . . Jesus has come to set the captives free . . . Oh, except ladies! You have these 86 separate rules from Wayne Grudem that govern your activities.

    I’m sure the oppressed women and children will not see the hypocrisy in any of the reformed views. It will take another 20 years or so to see how the comp laws play out.

  29. Anon 1,

    Those are great questions!  I do hope Southern Baptists are paying attention.  It’s incredible that so many from outside the SBC are being revered in Looeyville:

    John Piper (Baptist General Conference – now called Converge Worldwide)

    Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian Church of America)

    Kevin DeYoung (Reformed Church in America)

    C.J. Mahaney (Sovereign Grace Ministries)

    What other denominations have I left out? 

    These guys really need to go start their own denomination! If they plan enough conferences, maybe they can fund their missions outreach that way.

  30. Bridget wrote:

    How are they going to teach complementarianism to peoples that practice subjugation of women? . . . stop raping your women . . . but wives you can never say no to sex with your husband . . . Jesus has come to set the captives free . . . Oh, except ladies! You have these 86 separate rules from Wayne Grudem that govern your activities.

    I am sure that the Gospelly Lords of Male Headship will be delighted to discuss comp doctrine with (to give but one example) the women who are responsible for actually carrying out FGM in the countries where it is practiced.

    If it weren’t verboten for women to teach men, the CBMWers could get a lot of great pointers on furthering female subjugation from these gals.

  31. “Arminians are Christians, barely.”

    So parrots the greedy, abusive and defrocked R.C. Jr., another miserable excuse for a “minister”.

  32. Many years ago…maybe 12 or so? There as a Reformed conference in Louisville at the Galt house which was a sort of new thing back then. I think it was John McArthur or had something to do with his movement.

    Some young 20 something couples I knew, bought tickets to attend together, my niece and her husband among them. Problem was they oversold it and there were not enough seats. Guess what they did! they asked the women to give up their seats so the men could learn! yes, the women were asked to leave…go shopping I guess. And they did NOT refund the money….and it became obvious that it was considered not Christian to ask for a money refund. It was even communicated what a great thing it was for the women to give up their place for the man to learn.

    The funny thing is my niece was clearly agitated when discussing this but desperately trying to hold it back. It is not as if they had tons of money, either.

    This stuff is creepy to me.

  33. “Cross exists for the global purpose of magnifying the kingly majesty of Jesus Christ. Our focus is on all the unreached peoples of the world where Jesus is not worshipped as God and Savior.
    To that end CROSS aims to mobilize students for the most dangerous and loving cause in the universe: rescuing people from eternal suffering and bringing them into the everlasting joy of friendship with Jesus.
    Jesus said that every person without faith in him, remains under the wrath of God (John 3:36). He also said that God did not send him “to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).
    That saving faith is born through the message of Jesus’ blood and righteousness—his cross. Everyone who believes is saved. But nobody believes without a messenger.
    World missions is the glorious gospel enterprise of going like Christ into another cultural world to rescue people from eternal suffering, and renovate their broken lives, that they might render to God the splendor of his majesty through faith in Christ.” De Young

    Does anyone besides me have trouble with some of this verbiage? Some of it sounds very Piperish.

  34. Dear college students, if you are looking for a missions conference save your $$$ and wait for Urbana 15. In the meantime, all the resources from Urbana 12 are free online.

  35. Rafiki wrote:

    I dislike DeYoung’s use of the words “rescue” and “renovate” in the blurb attributed to him above.

    I realize that he’s speaking of coming to faith in Christ, I really do. But the language just smacks of 19th century colonialism and the “white man’s burden.”

    As if they are preparing a group of YRR Spekes and Livingstons to go out and “Christianize the natives.”

    Perhaps people in other cultures don’t feel they need either rescuing or renovating from American college kids? How about using language like “partnering with people” or “walking beside people” or (heaven forbid) “serving people right where they are in the name of Christ”?

    Yes. Like you, I get that they mean “rescued from hell,” yet I wonder if there isn’t a smidge of white American smugness behind it.

    I hear pastors say this about poor black inner-city people. I don’t really ever hear pastors say it about middle-class white people. When you talk about that demographic, the conversation changes to something like “come alongside them and show them that they need Jesus.”

    I don’t think anyone running this convention is actively racist or anything–but I think it’s very easy to be unaware of our own internal biases and how they are reflected in our language. And this is a lesson that I myself have had to learn as a privileged white person. Learning that lesson can be hard, but it’s so worth it.

  36. @ Lynn:

    I can’t tell if you can tell that I was quoting Sproul Jr. from the above post. Believe me, my jaw dropped when I read that Arminians are Christians – barely. I honestly cannot wrap my head around this utter lack of grace and graciousness. The gospel is not enough. One must accept double predestination or one isn’t a follower of Jesus. This is the “good news” according to the calvinistas: Guess what, you aren’t really a Christian after all! Surprise!

    Jesus condemned the Pharisees for adding to the Law and expecting everyone to follow their authority instead of the living God. The parallel is exact, but calvinistas don’t see it that way. They have “the gospel” and they get to decide who’s OK based on whether or not they “love their theology.”

    BTW I grew up in the Church of Christ, which was part of the so-called Restoration Movement. They believe, literally, that they have restored the “true church” after 1500 years of apostasy. This about being saved by ticking the right boxes instead of relying the grace of God (in the case of the CoC, it’s about no instrumental music, baptism by immersion, etc.). Same song, different tune.

  37. Amy wrote:

    @ Lynne T:
    I had the same question about why they need to send missionaries if they believe people are chosen by God to be saved. If God already chose them it will be done. I don’t get it either.

    Lynn: I am reformed when it comes to salvation and we send missionaries because God uses us and scripture(God’s words to men) in order to bring people to Christ and salvation, but contrary to the Reformed I believe the Law to show our need for a Savior because we can’t keep the law, not as a list of things to do.

    “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:17

    “14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Romans 10:14&15.

  38. Kristin wrote:

    Dear college students, if you are looking for a missions conference save your $$$ and wait for Urbana 15. In the meantime, all the resources from Urbana 12 are free online.

    I suspect that one pastor here in my community will be pushing Cross over Urbana. He tweeted his opinion that Urbana has become “Gospel-Lite” in recent years.

  39. I guess that Urbana is no longer good enough. This brings me back to right after the Haiti earthquake. I asked my reformed-leaning pastor if our church was going to do anything for Haiti. Since I had grown up and served in Haiti, I had some suggestions of where to donate. The church bypassed my suggestions and donated to SGM’s fund for Haiti. We all know what happened with that…

  40. @ Warwick:

    Sort of sounds like one of our political parties in the U.S. or at least a significant faction within it. Also sounds like a couple of evangelical denominations who only transparently falsely claim they do not support said political party.

  41. Amy wrote:

    @ Lynne T:
    I had the same question about why they need to send missionaries if they believe people are chosen by God to be saved. If God already chose them it will be done. I don’t get it either.

    Oddly enough, many missionaries have reformed leanings, or are reformed. Here’s how it works: They go to a place and look for the people God is calling. The funny thing is that even those with Arminian leanings often approach it much the same way. Each camp would describe their perspectives quite differently, but how it works out in the end looks much the same.

    I can’t help but explain it with this illustration, because it was a light bulb moment for me in my life:
    One woman believes in scheduling her baby with BabyWise. Her friend is a LaLeche gal who doesn’t schedule. Both women are extreme in their application of their philosophy … with their 1st child. By child number 4, both women still espouse their philosophies, but one day they notice that they are actually feeding and caring for their babies the same way. The reality of life has a way of changing our application.

  42. @ Patrice:

    I too, was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, I have seen people in utter despair believing that they are not ‘chosen’ and they cannot do anything about it no matter how much they believe in Jesus. I myself, after fully surrendering to God when I was 30 had come to a place where I believed that I must not be one of the chosen either, because after a year of closeness and growing in the Holy Spirit and reading and living the Bible, I was still and increasingly so depraved in what I thought were my own thoughts. I was sure that I was not saved and conceded that Calvin must be right about predestination. God saw my heart however and rescued me, in the form of deliverance and the renewing of my mind, I was then fully able to study the scriptures for myself, and I have concluded that we are body, soul and spirit beings. We are given free will to choose Jesus. Women are to live equally with men in all categories of life. If a Christian has demonic thoughts, pray for deliverance rather than getting them to say the sinners prayer a thousand times ( from my non Calvinist Baptist School) or condemning them to the ranks of the predestined for hell (CRC).

    One thing I do not understand is how CJ Mahaney can believe that he is the worst sinner he knows and yet doesn’t question his ‘chosenness?’

  43. Sounds like Urbana’s not good enough. It doesn’t fit the mold for training up the “right kind of missionaries.”

  44. Minusculus: Hijacking The Biblical Gospel?

    @ Deb:

    “I agree that missionaries should be sharing the true gospel, but who gets to define it – Mark Dever?  His theology is WAY too restrictive IMHO.” -Deb

    The last time I checked, the scriptures define the Gospel. 

    That these men are hijacking the biblical gospel for their own purposes is evidenced by the ‘fruit’ they are producing.

    sad.

    If you know your history of such religious movements, these type of men nearly destroyed Western Christianity. To malign, marginalize, mush, and atomized, kind folk like John Wesley, who upon taking the simple gospel that he found in the pages of new testament scriptures, to the common man in England, –is attributed as the leading restraint of civil war, in that nation, at that time.  

    What ‘spirit’ motivates these men of the cloth, as to dictate who is or is not saved?

    Before John Calvin, I Am?

    Jesus said clearly, come unto me all who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest and comfort.

    I am the door, says the Lord, all who came before are thieves and robbers.

    Body of Christ, please check these men at the ‘door’.

    Would you trade the ‘King of the universe’, for a ‘cult manifestation’ that apparently worships the ‘writings’ of a dead holy man.

    …certainly the Lord knows who are His, don’t hinder the little children to come to me, Jesus said.

     He didn’t say anything about the writings of one John Calvin, good or bad.

    Jesus offers a guarantee, Who So Ever Believes (in Me) Shall Not P-e-r-i-s-h (to go to destruction) But Have Everlasting life…

    Hear the Master’s Voice!

    Don’t get no bedder, Kind Folks!

    Would these marching minuscule misguided zealots perish Jesus’ hard won gains?

    hmmm…

    Greater is He that is within us, than he that is in the calvinesta world.

    Sopy

  45. @ lilyrosemary:

    I agree that the “Arminians are Christians, barely” came off as kinda arrogant. The phrase “doctrines of grace” annoys me also as it seems to imply that non-Calvinists don’t believe in grace. I don’t think most Calvinists mean to come off this way but for some reason it happens a lot.

  46. @ Amy:It’s a simple matter: either we are going to obey Jesus by going and making disciples, or we’re not. IMO, we don’t get to pick and choose what we want to do based on our estimate of its necessity or success.

  47. Dave A A,

    I find Dever’s remarks, as well as Eliff’s, very disturbing. And, of course, Zane Pratt won Dever over to Calvinism…

  48. Deebs point out in the post:

    Statistics appear to indicate that the ‘Nones’ – those who leave the church while maintaining their Christian faith – are on the rise, perhaps not so coincidentally as the YRR crowd has risen to power over the last decade. Are the Neo-Cals driving Christians out of church?

    Gavin further points out, from the conference statement of doctrine:

    We believe that each local church should recognize and affirm the divine calling of spiritually qualified men to give leadership to the church through the role of pastor-elder in the ministry of the Word and prayer.

    Of course, the role of “pastor-elder” is completely contrary to scriptural teaching. The YRR’s aggressive emphasis on this false role (which excludes not only all women, but the majority of men as well, don’t forget) is, I dare to hope, actually being used by God to help more people acknowledge the elephant in the room that the medieval reformers never went near. Not only did they fail to address the clergy/laity divide, they enshrined it in their 5-point definition of “a church” which in turn paved the way for the splintering of The Church into countless isolated, self-contained denominations.

  49. @ sad observer:

    The language accurately reflects the condition of fallen man and has been used for centuries. For example, Johann Heidegger, c1700, states “The number of the elect has been fixed by God from eternity. His universal love and grace God of course shows to all His creatures. But His redeeming grace is not universal but particular. It has only chosen those whom according to His unsearchable counsel God wished to elect, in order to make known to them the glory of His sin-forgiving love, which rescues them from eternal death.”

    As to why missions are necessary, it is the Lord’s Great Commission. Faith comes through hearing the preached word, the means appointed.

    Heinrich Heppe makes the point that ” the number of the elect is known to God alone, and therefore no man can know about the other man with full certainty, whether he is elect or not. But of his own election – yes!….the moment he is converted and born again, the individual elect may have the most undoubted certainty, resting not upon a conviction gained or derived from reflection, but upon faith in Christ, given with Christ himself”

  50. RC Sproul answers the question himself this way (“they” are Arminians in the quote):

    “The real question is whether they are safe? Saved? Most are, barely. Really the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is an intramural debate among Christians.”

    It’s a confusing quote because we’d all agree with the last statement. Really, the only objectionable part is the word “Barely”, but it’s a huge modifier that is very disappointing.

    For my own part, I can say that I recently met and am hoping to spend more time with a very pretty girl of a Wesleyan tradition, which I’m pretty sure means Arminian. I know she loves the Lord, though, no “barely” about it. I don’t know much about Wesleyan churches, but I am to enjoy learning more 🙂

  51. Deb:

    What I am about to say is– it has been years now that I could say–Were has the SBC that I loved so very much gone and do the men leaders not even recognize it is vanishing right in front of their own eyes?

  52. Call me crazy, but maybe instead of attending another conference about missions, these students could actually go out and do missions…. You know, the whole, put your money where your mouth is. Oh, strike that, these “pastors” want the money where their mouths are.

  53. scotT,

    Amen! Instead of spending time recreating during her recent time off from college, my daughter did what’s called a “Sacrificial Spring Break”, along with several of her friends who stayed with us.

    All week long they left our home at 8 am and didn’t usually get back til around 9 pm. They worked hard helping others and enjoyed the experience. I was proud of them.

  54. Tom Eliff is not Calvinist. I don’t see the objection to his words on the video. Mark Dever also has good points. We don’t “Christianize” nations. We don’t teach that prayers go up and blessings come down. He is right in that is bordering on the Hindu religion.

    The reformed believe the true Gospel is centering on Jesus Christ and the Cross. Belief on Christ and repentence from our sin are what bring salvation. This is what the true Gospel is. I think both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree on this. I would hope the discussion would turn more truthful as to what these men are actually saying. Not all are Calvinists in this discussion. Tom Eliff definitely is not.

  55. I do disagree with RC Sproul. It’s faith in Christ, not perfect theology that God grants us salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Acts 16:31.

  56. Until each and every one of these men make it their mission to speak up on behalf of the abused, they have no business promoting a conference centered around the cross.

  57. Debbie,

    The other three – Dever, Platt, and Pratt – are staunch Calvinists. In all likelihood, many in the audience probably were as well.

    Eliff was outnumbered, and he sounded like he was agreeing with Dever and gang about the ‘right way’ to do missions. I doubt Dever and I would agree about how to do missions. I actually believe women can be missionaries. What does Dever believe about that?

  58. mot wrote:

    What I am about to say is– it has been years now that I could say–Were has the SBC that I loved so very much gone and do the men leaders not even recognize it is vanishing right in front of their own eyes?

    It’s truly frightening. I grew up SBC. After high school I joined a fringe group that splintered from the UPC. Now that I’ve left that cultic group, the SBC churches of today, except for the obvious theological differences of the UPC, operate much like the group I left. I haven’t studied theology like many here have. I’m just shocked at the similarities in hierarchy, authoritarianism, and control between mainstream Christianity and cultish, fringe groups. What happened? And where will my faith lead me now that I’m looking for something more balanced?

  59. @ Hester:
    The church I grew up in believed EVERYONE was going to hell. It didn’t matter if they followed Jesus their whole lives, if they had a piano in their church, they were doing Christianity wrong (I’m not sure how aware you are, as an organist, of these churches that oppose instrumental music!)

    I know people who are within a particular religious tradition don’t always see how nutty that can all seem to someone outside the tradition. I was surrounded by a lot of very decent and godly people growing up in the CoC. But I see it as moving the goalposts. It’s “the gospel … plus.” E.g. You have to believe in the gospel plus Calvin. Or the gospel plus arbitary CoC rules. The CoC is a pretty obscure church, at least in the Northeast where I grew up, and yet everyone is somehow supposed to figure out that they are the one true church (according to them)?

    I believe that is what Jesus meant about putting additional burdens on people.

  60. Wow. This subject is close to my heart. I have a very close relative that is a missionary in East Asia right now.
    He told that the ratio of girls to guys going on the mission field is four to one. And the girls are choosing to go to the most dangerous places on the planet. And apparantly, these poor women are doing a phenominal job.

    Please someone tell Katie (from Kisses for Katie) that she’s not supposed to be doing what she’s doing. And what a shame no one told poor Amy and Lottie that they shouldn’t have been missionaries either. I mean really, how is this “gospel”?

    Seriously, we also have dear Armenian friends on the field that are seeing amazing things happen. Many people are coming to Christ there in Central America almost on a daily basis. Poor barely saved people that they are, they are experiencing the “gospel” gospel. 🙂 And all this without ever once hearing of Piper. Rather amazing when you consider it.

    This couple, who have seen countless numbers of people that are considered the lowest of low come to Jesus, from what I understand, wouldn’t be allowed to go as missionaries from the SBC right now because they speak in tongues (Assembly of God). There is something very wrong here.

  61. And herein lies one of the great truths of our salvation, that it is rooted in the love of the Trinity. Jesus said “I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep…..This charge I have received from my Father”.

    Neither Calvin, nor Arminius, nor Sproul nor anyone else has anything to do with our salvation, it is God alone and it is God alone who knows the number of the elect and who keeps them safe. (As argued in my earlier post).

    @ Sopwith:

  62. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Tom Eliff is not Calvinist. I don’t see the objection to his words on the video. Mark Dever also has good points. We don’t “Christianize” nations. We don’t teach that prayers go up and blessings come down. He is right in that is bordering on the Hindu religion.
    The reformed believe the true Gospel is centering on Jesus Christ and the Cross. Belief on Christ and repentence from our sin are what bring salvation. This is what the true Gospel is. I think both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree on this. I would hope the discussion would turn more truthful as to what these men are actually saying. Not all are Calvinists in this discussion. Tom Eliff definitely is not.

    But the true gospel doesn’t stop at the cross. It begins three days later. All of this navel gazing about sin and this obsession with personal holiness is sub-biblical. It may sound spiritual and it may be part of the Calvinista lingua franca, but I don’t “cling to the cross” I don’t lament how terrible I am all the darn time. I don’t think I’m some sort of worm, and I’m certainly not in the grip of an angry God dangling me over the pits of hell.

    God chose to be with/for humanity in the form of his son. That’s election. That’s good news. That’s salvation. God said “Yes” to you and to me. We don’t need to build God up by tearing ourselves down, and there’s absolutely nothing gained by an infatuation on the pain and torture of the cross. Christ rose. There’s new life. There’s new, eternal hope. That’s what nations need to hear. That’s what is held in front of us. Piper, Mahaney, and Dever continue to tear down the individual & grossly overemphasize the wrath of God. It may sound like the same message, but it’s not. And the consequences are severe.

  63. @ Patti
    “I too, was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, I have seen people in utter despair believing that they are not ‘chosen’ and they cannot do anything about it no matter how much they believe in Jesus. I myself, after fully surrendering to God when I was 30 had come to a place where I believed that I must not be one of the chosen either, because after a year of closeness and growing in the Holy Spirit and reading and living the Bible, I was still and increasingly so depraved in what I thought were my own thoughts. I was sure that I was not saved and conceded that Calvin must be right about predestination. God saw my heart however and rescued me, in the form of deliverance and the renewing of my mind, I was then fully able to study the scriptures for myself, and I have concluded that we are body, soul and spirit beings. We are given free will to choose Jesus. Women are to live equally with men in all categories of life. If a Christian has demonic thoughts, pray for deliverance rather than getting them to say the sinners prayer a thousand times ( from my non Calvinist Baptist School) or condemning them to the ranks of the predestined for hell (CRC).”

    I can so identified with what you said here- I myself started going to a Reformed church and the exact same condition happened to me. My poor husband was raised in this environment when he was younger and still has suffered from the effects of this fatalistic mindset. i just hope that many of these young people when they realize they cannot exactly measure up to the “standards of salvation” that Calvinistas preach excessively about, that they will not abandon the Lord Jesus Christ. If they only knew how much Jesus loves them and wants us to know freedom, not bondage.

    Calvinism in its pure form promotes depravity as its “saving grace”; one just has to read up on the Puritans and see that this is so. They see you as depraved as you were before you came to know Jesus- this does not stop. This is a reason that the Holy Spirit is not emphasized or the fruits of the Spirit are not preached unless it is in the context of “nothing you do, but everything God does”. So, if you are not measuring up – uh oh! you could possibly be NOT SAVED! This is why Lordship Salvation is an extension of Calvinism – You must SURRENDER ALL before you are saved. Calvinism states that it does not promote works, but in reality it does by promoting that if you are not doing these works something is desperately wrong and somewhere along the line you missed the election process. Believe me Calvinism DOES believe this!
    The real thing is this- when we do become saved we do have the ability to work with the Lord Jesus- everything is not outside of us and we are depraved no longer- WE ARE REDEEMED and held righteous! We have the ability to work in our sanctification and do things for the Lord, but it does not nothing to alter our justification one way or the other. If we don’t do works and just sit around, we are only keeping ourselves from experiencing greater growth and joy in the Lord; reduce our witness to others around us and we will have to face the Lord Jesus with regret that we did not use our talents and gifts for Him. In NO WAY, however, is our justification in Him altered or relinquished!

  64. scotT

    As soon as I heard the name of the conference, I had some of those same thoughts.

    I have seen Piper and Mahaney misrepresent Scripture before in the 2009 Resolved promo with their ‘Scream of the D@mn#d’ rants.

    Usimg sensationalism to influence young people is manipulative and WRONG!

  65. Looks like somebody forgot to tell my friend Layla that she wasn’t supposed to go to Ch*na and journey through the countryside for two years with nothing but her backpack and a Bible. Oops. Apparently she didn’t have a wise man at a conference like Piper, Chandler or Pratt point out to her that she needed a husband to be her spiritual head and do all of the work (leaving her the jobs of looking pretty and keeping him “happy”). I guess that the people who became believers during her travels aren’t really believers since they learned from a woman. Shame shame shame.

    *sarcasm off now*. Does anybody know if this conference offers a married student discount? It would fit in with this group’s obsessions.

  66. Mandy wrote:

    Looks like somebody forgot to tell my friend Layla that she wasn’t supposed to go to Ch*na and journey through the countryside for two years with nothing but her backpack and a Bible. Oops. Apparently she didn’t have a wise man at a conference like Piper, Chandler or Pratt point out to her that she needed a husband to be her spiritual head and do all of the work (leaving her the jobs of looking pretty and keeping him “happy”). I guess that the people who became believers during her travels aren’t really believers since they learned from a woman. Shame shame shame.
    *sarcasm off now*. Does anybody know if this conference offers a married student discount? It would fit in with this group’s obsessions.

    What women do on the mission field would blow the minds of patriarchal men. They do everything, cause no one else is there. Even when men are there, there aren’t enough of them. Everyone has to pitch in and do whatever it takes.

    Most of the missionary women that I know in this context don’t tell people back home all that they do. So many would not understand. I know some who come home to their supporting patriarchal churches and just assume their submissive position so as not to upset anyone.

  67. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    mot wrote:
    Does anyone else see one of the major characteristics of the YRR movement as arrogance?
    Package deal with being The One True Way, Predestined as such by God Himself.
    After a while you fall deeply in love with the smell of your own farts.

    LOL! I love it!

  68. @ lilyrosemary:

    “I’m not sure how aware you are, as an organist, of these churches that oppose instrumental music!”

    Oh, I’m very aware of those people. You have to work your way through that argument if you’re a church musician. I was never anywhere close to accepting it (I still think even a cursory review of the Bible refutes it handily), but you have to deal with the information. I dealt with it more from the hardcore Calvinist perspective than the COC one, but I did know that the COC was against it too. (In fact, when you mentioned in your original comment, I thought to myself, “I wonder if it’s THAT Church of Christ…”)

    I don’t remember what the COC reasoning is, but the hardcore Calvinist perspective does it based on typology. They claim that the instruments in the OT temple ceremonies were typological of the joy of the Holy Spirit and that, since they were part of the ceremonial law, they are “shadows” that have passed away and we can’t use them anymore. Unfortunately they can only do this by defining away every example of worship with instruments that happens outside the temple and/or before the giving of the Law (i.e., Miriam singing with a tambourine after the parting of the Red Sea). They also have to ignore the fact that the word for “psalm” in the NT more literally means “striking of chords on a musical instrument,” and thus the vocabulary of the NT itself allows for instruments in its root, most literal meaning. (I’ve never even seen them address this last point.) They also get there from an extremely strict rendering of their “regulative principle” (only do in worship what is explicitly commanded) – i.e., the Bible doesn’t spell out “thou shalt use flutes and harps in church” therefore we can’t.

    I think the joy typology above is going too far but it isn’t the first time I’ve seen Calvinists make their typology that detailed. There’s a part in Pilgrim’s Progress where Bunyan takes the Jewish dietary laws to a whole new level by saying that “chewing the cud” = meditating on God’s Word, and “splitting the hoof” = separating from sinners. Therefore, only those who meditate on God’s Word and separate from sinners are accepted as believers, since the Jews could only eat animals that chew the cud and have cloven hooves. Interesting observation? Sure. Handy to remember the dietary laws? Definitely. Timeless typological truth? …Meh.

    Worship practice is one area where Lutherans and the Reformed differ a lot (though in my experience Reformed folks try to de-emphasize that). Luther kept a lot more from the Catholic service than the Calvinist reformers and it still shows, even in church architecture. His numbering of the Ten Commandments reflects it also. He regarded the 1st and 2nd commandments as one – worship only God – and thus lumped them together (there’s still 10 because he splits coveting up into coveting people and coveting property). The Reformed, however, thought the prohibition against images applied more broadly and kept the commandments separate – thus, no pictures in New England Congregational churches. I think they also classified musical instruments under the images commandment.

    So yes, there’s a very good reason that Bach was Lutheran and not Presbyterian (no offense intended to modern Presbyterians who aren’t anti-instruments).

  69. @ Lilyrosemary:

    Oh boy, even MORE to say! : ) My handbell choir once performed in a Church of Christ. Normally we perform in the sanctuary, but we had to set up in the fellowship hall because we play musical instruments and they didn’t want to “give the wrong impression” even though a concert isn’t worship. Our director had never encountered this and it boggled her mind so much she interrogated me about it all the way home:

    Her: “But there’s musical instruments in Psalms! What’s with these people?!”

    Me: (shrug and sigh) “I know…”

  70. @ Deb:

    Dever and I would disagree on their roles as most in the Evangelical world both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but he believes as all Southern Baptists believe, that women belong on the mission field. My view would be more in tune with Lottie Moon. The differing view of women’s roles transcends to those who are non-Calvinists as well.

    Tom Eliff is the head of IMB. I didn’t see anything he said (as he didn’t mention either men or women) that should be disagreed with. I certainly don’t think we can attribute something to these men that they did not say. That is my point. I think those who hear it should stick with what is actually being said, not conjecture that most times is not factual.

  71. Interestingly enough, I remember a sermon by RC Sproul talking about how people went ballistic on him for having pictures in his church. Guess we all end up on the wrong side of someone else’s rules.

  72. So, lawsuit aside, can someone please explain to me how anyone affiliated with SGM is qualified to speak at a conference about global missions to lost people groups? Many of the stories at SGM Survivors mentioned that SGM doesn’t do missions at all beyond their own brand of move-to-a-new-neighborhood church planting.

  73. Bridget wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Who gets to decide who the “spiritually qualified men” are? Who is the arbitrator of this decision?

    I thought that was obvious – me. Everybody apart from me is deceived and has wrong motives.

  74. Jeff S wrote:

    Interestingly enough, I remember a sermon by RC Sproul talking about how people went ballistic on him for having pictures in his church. Guess we all end up on the wrong side of someone else’s rules.

    You put it so well, Jeff!

  75. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Tom Eliff is not Calvinist. I don’t see the objection to his words on the video.

    I’m not familiar with Tom Eliff, but his words on the video didn’t seem Calivinst at all. The words I object to, “sending them to hell”, may betray a wrong motive for missions. If you don’t go or give, you’re sending people to hell. If you bring wrong doctrines or practice (which the evangelist in India may well be doing), you’re sending people to hell. If I live an un-radical or not-radical-enough life, someone may go to ECT and it will all be MY fault — neither that of his own Arminian choice nor of God’s Calivinist choice. In that case, who should be going to hell?

  76. @ scotT:

    You are right, it did begin three days later, but also includes the Cross. Without our sins being paid for through a perfect sacrifice, there is no salvation. The salvation portion of the Reformed doctrine, which I believe to be taught all through scripture, is not a “I am not chosen” or “fear of not being chosen” response. If one fears they are not chosen, those are the ones who in fact are the chosen, those not chosen do not care.

    As for holiness, fact is that the Holy Spirit produces sanctification. The Apostle Paul tells us that we change our minds through the reading and hearing of the Bible. It is not the road to salvation, but a sign that one has indeed been indwelt by the Holy Spirit through salvation. We can’t help but change. Where I differ with the fully Reformed is the use of the Law. It’s not our performance that brings us closer to Christ, but what Christ did on the Cross. When God sees a person who is born again, He sees Christ. That is why I can totally sin, or mess up and still not fear retribution from God. Christ paid for the retribution that should be mine to take.

  77. A few years ago I attended an SGM church and during a small group meeting was accused of being “Arminian”. I was encouraged to grow and learn more. This did not sit well with me and in a room full of men and women I disputed their accusation. Yes, dear TWW readers I, a mere mortal female schooled a bunch of men (and a few gals) on Arminian vs. Calvinism. Some points I made: 1) These are not the only two schools of thought or positions in Christianity. So we do not neatly split into two groups.
    2) I was neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist. 3) I was a Christ follower who believed the original gospel and a member in particular of the Body of Christ and was not under the impression that Christ’s gospel needed “reforming”. After a few chuckles and a pat on the head for being such a dear and devout sister we continued with our lesson. Not long after that the church secretary called me to have a weekly prayer meeting by phone. Before praynig we would discuss any issues or concerns I had. She was part of my small group and I’m sure she was sent to sniff out the sins of a misguided sister. Lol …

  78. @ Dave A A:
    Tom said those words under his breath, so he he may well have just been frustrated over whatever strange things were going on in India, and might not teach this usually. But I’ve heard it elsewhere, usually from extreme Arminians.

  79. The IMB does not believe that women can serve in an authoritative role.

    Here is a quote:

    “Nowhere does it say that women can’t proclaim the Gospel,” Hawkins explained in an earlier interview, careful to distinguish between women serving in an authoritative pastoral role and women proclaiming the Gospel.”

    http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=16032

    I still say it is questionable as to what he meant when he said the “right kind of missionary”. We need to carefully define such terminology, especially because the IMB has limited women’s roles in missions.

  80. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Tom Eliff is not Calvinist.

    Tom Eliff is the one who sent Al Mohler the letter he received from Paul Debussman which got him fired by the then 34 year old Mohler. One does not dare correct Tom Eliff and finish out their 10 months before retirement.

    http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2007/09/whatever-became-of-paul-debusman.html

    Had there been an internet back then, I doubt if Mohler could have consolidated his power. Debussman is one of many treated like that.

    It does not matter in his position whether he is Calvinist or not. Usually they distinguish themselves by points anyway depending on who they are talking to. In some quarters a 4pter is not a Calvinist and in others, they are. Eliff fits right in.

  81. “But the true gospel doesn’t stop at the cross. It begins three days later.”

    Amen. Many were crucified back then. Some Christians were also crucified after that. None were sinless of course BUT they did not understand the point of the Cross until the Resurrection. That is the complete story. To stay at the cross is to not understand it at all.

    The reason Calvinists stay at the cross is because they do not believe man has any volition. And it is easier to control folks that way, too. The last thing they want are freedom loving, Spirit filled believers who listen to the Holy Spirit instead of Calvin and his followers.

  82. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    If one fears they are not chosen, those are the ones who in fact are the chosen, those not chosen do not care.”

    Boy that is not how it is playing out on the ground. I cannot tell you how many folks I know who went Reformed literally ponder this day and night. They care a lot and are constantly trying to make sure and they believe going deep with their sin is the way to do it. They cannot seem to move on. It might be their personality types as I know other Calvinists (mostly in paid ministry) who give nit not a thought but they teach this. This sort of focus can be death to a teen who comes from an abused background. So to say those not chosen never give it a thought is a misnomer. The chosen ones cannot seem to believe they are really chosen.

    Now, I am starting to see people leave the faith over this. They are worn out with the determining god controlling every molecule.

    And if you read the Puritans they certainly did not subscribe to this in practice. It was a constant focus. Same with Edwards.

  83. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    As for holiness, fact is that the Holy Spirit produces sanctification. The Apostle Paul tells us that we change our minds through the reading and hearing of the Bible. It is not the road to salvation, but a sign that one has indeed been indwelt by the Holy Spirit through salvation. We can’t help but change. Where I differ with the fully Reformed is the use of the Law. It’s not our performance that brings us closer to Christ, but what Christ did on the Cross. When God sees a person who is born again, He sees Christ. That is why I can totally sin, or mess up and still not fear retribution from God. Christ paid for the retribution that should be mine to take.

    Your first sentence is a misnomer. The early Christians only had the OT. It was Christ and the truth of Christ that did it. Not some scrolls. The scrolls affirmed the truth. They were not “the truth”. That exists in Jesus Christ.

    Some of us believe we do have volition and can think and reason. We believe the Holy Spirit guides us in sanctification but does not obey for us or force us to change. That would make humans automatons and have no need for the cross at all.

  84. lilyrosemary wrote:

    I can’t tell if you can tell that I was quoting Sproul Jr. from the above post.

    I did. I do wonder if they think there were basically no real Christians for 1500 years.

  85. “The IMB does not believe that women can serve in an authoritative role. Here is a quote:
    “Nowhere does it say that women can’t proclaim the Gospel,” Hawkins explained in an earlier interview, careful to distinguish between women serving in an authoritative pastoral role and women proclaiming the Gospel.””

    I know some folks who had to leave over the new rules because they were forced to sign a document concerning these and other things. Think if you are a couple in a remote part of Africa. Your husband is in the bush working with another church. Obviously the local church you planted with your husband is going to look to his wife to teach them. Some in good conscience could not sign the document because of this “women cannot teach men”. So they left. I know 2 couples that this happened to. They even offered to sign their bibles. No go.

    Here is an interesting article about the SBC and male missionaries:

    http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2012/12/young-male-restless-conservative-sbcers.html

  86. Bridget wrote:

    Who gets to decide who the “spiritually qualified men” are?

    Why the spiritually qualified men of course. Rinse, lather, repeat.

  87. Can we start charting how frequenty the TGC guys are away from their home churches? If the local church is so important, than why aren’t their butts in the seats?

  88. @ Jeff S.:

    “Interestingly enough, I remember a sermon by RC Sproul talking about how people went ballistic on him for having pictures in his church.”

    I’d believe it. See this article for why. When the Westminster Larger Catechism says that believers can’t even picture Jesus in their minds while reading the Bible, pictures are pretty much out…period.

  89. Bridget wrote:

    World missions is the glorious gospel enterprise of going like Christ into another cultural world to rescue people from eternal suffering, and renovate their broken lives, that they might render to God the splendor of his majesty through faith in Christ.” De Young

    If the Almighty has already determined by sovereign fiat who will burn forever and who will get to grovel and genuflect before him for all eternity, why have a conference to try and get more young enlistees?

  90. @ Anon 1:

    Someone ought to ask the SBC leaders if Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong were such great missionaries why do we only hear their names when money is being raised for current missionaries but little to nothing what they did when they were missionaries.

  91. “Can we start charting how frequenty the TGC guys are away from their home churches? If the local church is so important, than why aren’t their butts in the seats?”

    Scott, Add to that the double dipping. They are paid WELL to be away speaking and still receiving that nice 6 figure salary. The speaking gigs and conferences pay better than many think. I know some mega church pastors who make anywhere from $50,000-$75,000 EXTRA a year with speaking gigs and book promotions.

    The pew sitters are to blame for paying them and then putting up with it. They are the ones we need to educate not to follow man. They do not realize they are really subsidizing that guy’s image brand business.

  92. mot, They trot out Lottie’s letter from when she was living in the city (before Pingu) that have her telling how she was waiting for a male to come and baptize for her. In Pingu, she could wait years! Everything changed when she moved to that remote area alone. Talk about courage! I cannot read her bios without crying. What a woman!

    They also trot out the fact she did not give her own report to the convention she attended but had a male read it for her.

  93. @ Anon 1:
    A woman like Lottie Moon would never be allowed to be a missionary in the SBC today. What does that say about the SBC?

  94. mot wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    A woman like Lottie Moon would never be allowed to be a missionary in the SBC today. What does that say about the SBC?

    Mot, It says they have forgotten their first Love. And they are straining at gnats.

  95. Rafiki and Gavin White have I think both put the classic Reformed position well. In this they echo Jim Packer’s book, “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which discusses the issues in a pesuasive manner (J I Packer is in my opinion the best Reformed Anglican writer around, and I think it’s a bit of a pity that he’s got drawn into some stuff espoused by the SGM/9Marks crowd – my impression anyway).

    Although Gavin, I have to quibble a bit with your quote from heidegger – are you thinking of the Swiss theologian, who died in 1698? A statement made in 1700 is in my opinion perhaps not quite “centuries”. It might be more convincing if you could produce a quote in favour of the argument from a pre-Reformation writer.

    Obviously theological boundaries have to be drawn *somewhere* or we would end up viewing the JWs and Mormons with equal enmity, whereas I believe that their views are heresy. But I agree that this in-fighting and judgement about Calvinists, Arminians, etc is saddening, and on the mission field also probably irrelevant. I also know plenty of women missionaries who are evangelical in conviction and have served in some tough places.

    Please excuse any typos, my little cat has lately insisted on sitting in front of the monitor when I’m trying to use the computer!

  96. @ Anon 1:
    What really amazed me was last year 2012 was the 125th year anniversary of WMU. Maybe I missed it but I saw no formal recognition or celebration of this major event in the life of the SBC.

    WMU saved the male controlled SBC’s financial behinds several times early on in its history and through their work for many years raised helped lead the effort to raise money for home and foreign missions. But all of that is conveniently ignored now. It really makes my blood boil!!

  97. Mot, if not for the SBC women there would never have been international missions like there was in the SBC. They were cast aside after saving their bacon and the men took the credit. Don’t get me started!

  98. @ Hester:
    I truly get the shrug/sigh response. Sometimes that’s all you can do!

    The CoC claims to follow the New Testament exactly. So their response about the Psalms would be “Well, that’s Old Testament.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone get into the subtleties you did about Miriam before the giving of the Law, etc. The NT doesn’t mention musical instruments so they don’t use them. QED.

    Of course, the NT also doesn’t mention hymnals, pews, and pulpits, but that’s different! (Nobody can tell me why…)

    Someone commented above that we can all find ourselves on the wrong end of someone else’s rules. That was my experience when I went to a very strict CoC college after growing up in a somewhat less rigid CoC environment — legalism seemed like a losing game when I encountered people with slightly different rules who believed they had the right to weigh me in the balance and find me wanting.

    That is why I bristle at the whole “I know you might THINK you’re a sincere follower of Christ, but let me cure you of your ignorance. Here are the proof texts.” I’m also suspicious of “loving” someone’s “theology” so much (à la John Piper) that you fail to pay any attention whatsoever their true character. That seems like the opposite of what Jesus taught.

    p.s. I really enjoyed reading everything you wrote! I’m very interested in church history and theology even though I don’t believe getting it “right” is as simple a matter as some do. 🙂

  99. @ Anon 1:

    Anon: Read what I wrote again. And the plan of salvation was the same for those in the OT as it is in the New Testament. Belief on Christ, but in the OT it was a future coming of Christ. The OT is full of references to Christ and his future coming, death on the cross, burial and resurrection. Again Read what I wrote again.

  100. Debbie, I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be making a point about something we were not really discussing. I was talking about Resurrection completing the Cross. The people had seen others crucified even though not sinless people. The Jews had also heard about and seen others who claimed to be “saviors of Israel”. The resurrection is what changed everything.

    People in the OT were saved by Faith in God. Jesus was God in the Flesh as proved by the Resurrection.

  101. Quote from original post:

    We find it rather odd that the Calvinistas focus on college students and young adults but don’t seem all that concerned about those in their thirties and beyond.

    That’s actually pretty common among a lot of American Christian groups, Calvinista or no.

    Everyone over 30 is pretty much treated as though they’re unimportant (with the possible exception of married couples with kids).

    On a related note, this guy disputes that lots of Christians under the age of 25/ 20 are leaving church, so all the panic and concern over teens and young 20-somethings in that regard may be misplaced:
    Debunking the Dropout Myth

    I wonder if this conference will come with matching “CrossCon” t-shirts, key chains and other brik a brak?

    Why is there a woman on their speaking list, a Kristie Anyabwile? Or is she going to be a missionary to women on how to graciously submit to their husbands (assuming they have husbands)?

  102. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie, I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be making a point about something we were not really discussing. I was talking about Resurrection completing the Cross. The people had seen others crucified even though not sinless people. The Jews had also heard about and seen others who claimed to be “saviors of Israel”. The resurrection is what changed everything.
    People in the OT were saved by Faith in God. Jesus was God in the Flesh as proved by the Resurrection.

    People were saved through faith in Jesus Christ(God the Son) future. The cross was necessary to procure my salvation and my sanctification.It’s not autonomous because it is God who does the work in born again Christians through the Holy Spirit. “He who began a good work in you is faithful to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Philippians 1:6

  103. Debbie, I think I understand where you are coming from now. You said this:

    “As for holiness, fact is that the Holy Spirit produces sanctification. The Apostle Paul tells us that we change our minds through the reading and hearing of the Bible.”

    I do have a disagreement with this thinking as it tends to make a book a 4th person of the Trinity. A book translated by men.

    Jesus is the “Word” referred to in scripture. Hearing the “Word” is what can transform us. His truth.

    I was making the point that the early believers only had the scrolls of the OT. I took your meaning that reading or hearing words from those scrolls is what saved them. Did I hear you right? What do you do with the Gentiles? Must they have had the scrolls read to them or hear their words to be saved?

  104. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    If one fears they are not chosen, those are the ones who in fact are the chosen, those not chosen do not care.”
    Boy that is not how it is playing out on the ground. I cannot tell you how many folks I know who went Reformed literally ponder this day and night. They care a lot and are constantly trying to make sure and they believe going deep with their sin is the way to do it. They cannot seem to move on. It might be their personality types as I know other Calvinists (mostly in paid ministry) who give nit not a thought but they teach this. This sort of focus can be death to a teen who comes from an abused background. So to say those not chosen never give it a thought is a misnomer. The chosen ones cannot seem to believe they are really chosen.
    Now, I am starting to see people leave the faith over this. They are worn out with the determining god controlling every molecule.
    And if you read the Puritans they certainly did not subscribe to this in practice. It was a constant focus. Same with Edwards.

    Again, having read the Puritians, especially Johnathan Edwards we would have to disagree on your above comment.

  105. In some quarters a 4pter is not a Calvinist and in others, they are. Eliff fits right in.

    Eliff is not even four points or three. I simply point out inaccuracies in some comments. He is not Calvinist. He is a non-Calvinist. I do not know of the situation you spoke of but will gladly read the link you gave.

  106. This:

    My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely.”

    I’ve been barely holding on to the Christian faith lately, but even if I was still in the “I am most definitely a Christian” phase, I was never a Calvinist or an Arminian. (I think both sides get some things incorrect.)

    Maybe the fact that I never accepted Calvinism would be enough for these guys to say I am (or was?) “barely a Christian.”

    The “Calvinist” God is not the God of the Bible, IMHO, so touche’ on that.

  107. quote:

    Women are not to fill the role of pastor-elder in the local church, but are encouraged to use their gifts in appropriate roles that edify the body of Christ and spread the gospel”

    I didn’t see that when I was on their page.

    Translation: even though the Holy Spirit has gifted some women with teaching and leading both men and women, we forbid it. Women may work in church kitchens, nurseries, and possibly as church secretaries.

  108. Hester wrote:

    The last article indicates he seems to have joined Platt’s “trash the American Dream” club.

    I linked this the other day, did you see it?

    I hope Anon1 saw it too, since we were discussing the same thing a few days ago:
    Here come the Radicals

  109. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Eliff is not even four points or three. I simply point out inaccuracies in some comments.

    Which ones? Do you happen to have a link where he mentions this? If he is only three then he might fall under the semi Pelagian charge of Al Mohler and need to be marginalized. :o)

  110. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Go into the Conference a human being,
    come out of it a Calvinjugend.

    But you might get some really awesome posters, t-shirts and bumper stickers that read, “Honk if you love Calvinism.” 🙂

  111. Robin wrote:

    “if you don’t believe In double predestination you will be damned!”

    Jesus Christ presented coming to God to be a very uncomplicated matter, and regularly presented having faith, obtaining salvation, etc, as ‘becoming like a little child,’ or having child-like faith in God.

    Many Calvinists I’ve talked to online over the years are often intellectually arrogant, and will claim or imply that to “really” understand the Gospel (and/or be saved), one must not just be the elect but have multiple college degrees, extensive knowledge of patristic writings, and be able to read ancient Hebrew and koine Greek.

    How those attitudes do not contradict Jesus’ teachings about “the least of these” and “having child like faith in God” is beyond me.

    People are not saved by having a high I.Q., by studies, or by having college degrees, but by trusting faith in Christ. (That’s what I take away from the Scriptures.)

  112. @ Rafiki

    Rafiki, Thanx! God Bless youze socks off too! Thanx for being here!

    RELAX…Youze Gotz Da Real Jesus!

    (da heck wit da bozos…)

    Blessings!

    Sopy

  113. Jesus Christ: “Da Right One Baby?”

    hmmm…

     (While attending a SGM church) “I was neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist.  I was a Christ follower who believed the original gospel and a member in particular of the Body of Christ and was not under the impression that Christ’s gospel needed ‘reforming’ .” -Lori @ Lori:

    “Neither Calvin, nor Arminius, nor Sproul nor anyone else has anything to do with our salvation, it is God alone…” 
    -Gavin White @ Gavin White:

    hmmm…

    “They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture.” -William Tyndale
    ; 1494–1536

    What?

    William Tyndale, (1494–1536) who translated the new testament contained in most modern new testament translations, knew neither Calvin:

    Jehan Cauvin: (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) 

    (In March 1536, in the very year that Tyndale was strangled, Calvin published the first edition of his Institutio Christianae Religionis or Institutes of the Christian Religion.)

    nor Arminius:

    Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609), the Dutch theologian Jakob Hermanszoon, who served from 1603 as professor in theology at the University of Leiden. He wrote many books and treatises on theology, and his views became the basis of Arminianism and the Dutch Remonstrant movement.
    Following his death, his challenge to the Reformed standard, the Belgic Confession, provoked ample discussion at the Synod of Dort, which crafted the five points of Calvinism in response to Arminius’s teaching.

    nor R.C. Sproul:

    (Robert Charles Sproul, (born February 13, 1939, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American Calvinist theologian, philosopher, author, and pastor; who is also the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries.)

    But he (William Tyndale) did equip the ‘plowboy’, and with his translation, turned England up-side-down…

    He (William Tyndale) did so aided by his dear friend Brother Martin Luther, who’s 
    Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money given to indulgence peddler Johann Tetzel.  Brother Martin Luther taught that salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. He also taught that the ‘Bible’ is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge. 

    He (Brother Martin Luther) made no known reference to John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, nor Robert Charles Sproul.

    He did however, make great reference to the one who held his hand:

    Jesus, the resurrected carpenter from Nazareth, Israel.

    hmmm…

    He (Jesus) ‘now’ sits in heaven, next to God Almighty, imagine dat?

    Wonders never cease?

    *

    Imitation sooooo…un-becometh the ‘Body of Christ’?!?

    …doze creep’d me out faux theo-jargon religious petal peddlers can push theyz snake-oil’d faux nefarious religious system somez wherez else…

    huh?

    We want da ‘real’ thing, baby! 

    Sopy

  114. lilyrosemary wrote:

    @ BTW I grew up in the Church of Christ, which was part of the so-called Restoration Movement. They believe, literally, that they have restored the “true church” after 1500 years of apostasy. This about being saved by ticking the right boxes instead of relying the grace of God (in the case of the CoC, it’s about no instrumental music, baptism by immersion, etc.). Same song, different tune.

    I became a Christian in the Church of Christ–I don’t know if you are familiar with the Crossroads Movement, but it was a Crossroads-type church I was baptized in. I now attend a progressive Church of Christ in the Atlanta area that is a nice change from the church I was baptized in.

  115. Anon 1 wrote:

    Guess what they did! they asked the women to give up their seats so the men could learn! yes, the women were asked to leave…go shopping I guess. And they did NOT refund the money…

    If I attended an event like that (and especially if I had paid for it), my rear end would have remained planted firmly on my chair.

  116. The CofC reasoning is that the New Testament commands us to sing, but it does not authorize instrumental music. Therefore, to do so would be "going beyond what is written". A close friend recently heard a conservative CofC preacher talk about, does the Church of Christ need to change, and he said, no, we don't need instruments, hand-clapping, etc. (some conservative elements believe rhythmic hand clapping is the same as instrumental music–they would have a fit if they came to my CofC, which hand claps regularly.) When I asked, what about buildings, sound systems, meeting on Wednesday evenings, etc., her answer was, he would say those are aids to worship, not additions. What I wanted to ask was, who decides what an "aid" to worship is and what an "addition" to worship is? Whenever I hear stuff like that, I feel like in order to stay a Christian, I have to walk the metaphorical tightrope over Niagara Falls–one slip, and I'm doomed!

  117. sad observer wrote:

    I don’t really ever hear pastors say it about middle-class white people.

    Some of these preachers think white middle class people need to be saved from materialism, having a nice house and a nice car and drinking Starbucks coffee, rather than being saved from Hell (see this) 

    Or, they view white middle class neighborhoods as church planting areas to get more tithes (money).  I guess to some extent I was pretty naive about this.  I used to believe that preachers who wanted to plant new churches (in the USA) were doing so out of a genuine concern for the people in the communities, but after having read exposes on various Christian sites, these preachers are looking to expand revenue.  They want more money.  I always knew greed was the main motivation behind 90% of the tele-evangelists, but didn't realize it was just as bad among "real life" preachers / churches.

     

  118. scotT wrote:

    and there’s absolutely nothing gained by an infatuation on the pain and torture of the cross. Christ rose. There’s new life.

    For all the criticism Gibon’s “The Passion of the Christ” film received, even his film, the very last part of it, showed a risen Christ walking out of the tomb.

    -I hope nobody considers that a “movie spoiler” 🙂

  119. Lori wrote:

    1) These are not the only two schools of thought or positions in Christianity. So we do not neatly split into two groups.
    2) I was neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist.

    I’ve mentioned that very point before. I never considered myself a Calvinist or Arminian (I think both groups are wrong), but a significant portion of Calvinists I’ve spoken with on the internet don’t understand.

    They can only conceive of two groups, Calvinism and Arminianism.

    When I tried to explain my views, one Calvinist guy had the tendency to slap an “Arminian” label on any of my positions that did not square up 100% with his views of Calvinism, even though my views were not Arminian or derived thereof.

  120. @ Tina:
    I am familiar with the Crossroads movement, but not firsthand. My understanding is that they are different from the mainstream CoC in that they emphasize a lot of the shepherding (some say, cultish) practices. Do they still do that? Was your experience primarily good or bad?

    My family is still mostly CoC. Although I think a lot of the CoC reasons for keeping apart from other Christians are divisive and legalistic, I do appreciate that they seem to be immune to a lot of this megapastor cult of personality stuff going on today. I was always taught “the preacher is just a man.”

    What is a progressive Atlanta Church of Christ like?

  121. @ Daisy:

    My mom actually found that Radicals article a few days ago, I think before anyone mentioned it on here. I haven’t read any the “Radical” books, but I really have a problem with them bashing so hard on the American Dream. I know many people pervert it into materialism, but that isn’t what it is at all. It also includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. – which ironically are the very things that allow these “Radicals” to preach against it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    Also it’s my understanding that the “American Dream” didn’t mean getting filthy rich until more around the time of the Gilded Age, when people were exposed to the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, etc. Around the time of the Civil War it was more along the lines of a “competency” (enough to live on comfortably). Heck, even in the early 20th century, owning your own home meant a 900-1000 sq. ft. bungalow, not modern day 2500-3500 sq. ft. McMansions.

    Sigh. I grew up in a 900 sq. ft. house built in the ’30s, I don’t live in “the ‘burbs” hanging off a major city, and my dad doesn’t have a white-collar job – so I guess I really can’t relate to these guys’ message at all. After reading the book Tinsel I started to realize that they maybe they had a bit of a point when it came to, say, the DFW suburbs or SoCal. But it’s just so foreign to me. And when misapplied to someone who is not filthy rich, I think it can be very harmful – for example, the one guy I knew who was really into David Platt could barely afford to repair his car.

  122. @ Anon 1:

    “Some young 20 something couples I knew, bought tickets to attend together, my niece and her husband among them. Problem was they oversold it and there were not enough seats. Guess what they did! they asked the women to give up their seats so the men could learn! yes, the women were asked to leave…go shopping I guess. And they did NOT refund the money…”

    Where’s Rosa Parks when you need her?

  123. Hester, I was just reading your comment on Platt. Today I was reading Matt Redmond’s blog and his Thursday’s Random Thoughts. #6 on his list was this:

    6) Today David Platt, famous for his book critiquing the American Dream, will be speaking at a conference. You can watch the Livestream of his talk. Online. In high definition. On your computer. Or iPad. You know, using wifi.
    http://mattbredmond.com/

    Now that’s funny. Matt should go into comedy.

  124. Hester wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    “Some young 20 something couples I knew, bought tickets to attend together, my niece and her husband among them. Problem was they oversold it and there were not enough seats. Guess what they did! they asked the women to give up their seats so the men could learn! yes, the women were asked to leave…go shopping I guess. And they did NOT refund the money…”
    Where’s Rosa Parks when you need her?

    Go to the most expensive stores in town and get them to send the bill to the conference hosts.

  125. Sopwith wrote:

    Would you trade the ‘King of the universe’, for a ‘cult manifestation’ that apparently worships the ‘writings’ of a dead holy man.

    …certainly the Lord knows who are His, don’t hinder the little children to come to me, Jesus said.

    He didn’t say anything about the writings of one John Calvin, good or bad.

    Jesus offers a guarantee, Who So Ever Believes (in Me) Shall Not P-e-r-i-s-h (to go to destruction) But Have Everlasting life…

    Hear the Master’s Voice!

    Don’t get no bedder, Kind Folks!

    Would these marching minuscule misguided zealots perish Jesus’ hard won gains?

    hmmm…

    Greater is He that is within us, than he that is in the calvinesta world.

    We might not agree on a whole lot Sopy, but I’m on board with ya on this one. How did the Good News of that beautiful supernatural rabbi from Nazareth get soooooo hijacked over the centuries?

  126. @ M. Joy:

    #1 goes with it.

    1) Just a reminder that you should not criticize the American Dream from an electronic device. You could break the Matrix. — Matt Redmond

  127. @ Muff Potter:

    Well — “some” men seem to think that mankind needs the “somes” to be the gobetween. The only thing the “somes” have managed to do is diminish the amazing Good News that Jesus gave to us.

  128. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie, I think I understand where you are coming from now. You said this:
    “As for holiness, fact is that the Holy Spirit produces sanctification. The Apostle Paul tells us that we change our minds through the reading and hearing of the Bible.”
    I do have a disagreement with this thinking as it tends to make a book a 4th person of the Trinity. A book translated by men.
    Jesus is the “Word” referred to in scripture. Hearing the “Word” is what can transform us. His truth.
    I was making the point that the early believers only had the scrolls of the OT. I took your meaning that reading or hearing words from those scrolls is what saved them. Did I hear you right? What do you do with the Gentiles? Must they have had the scrolls read to them or hear their words to be saved?

    The Bible is God’s ordained means to know Christ and believe. The hearing of the Words of scripture. Christ quoted scripture all the time as it is inspired and translated by men as they were told to write by the Holy Spirit(who is God.) The Bible is God’s words in written form. Inspired(which means God wrote them using men and inerrant aka no mistakes. I believe this. When the Bible says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”, it is speaking of the Bible. Christ cannot speak to us any clearer than through the Bible, whose written words give us the true Christ. The Christ of the Bible and the God of the Bible. The Holy Spirit miraculously interprets scripture so we can understand.The Bible says the words are foolishness to those without Christ aka the lost.

  129. @ Daisy:

    But if you think that praying will affect the future by getting God to actually do something different that his supposed predetermined placement of each and every electron, (BTW, Jesus taught that praying changes what God does!!!), then you will be called an “open theist”, which is, to the Calvinistas, a serious heresy. They make not only humans automata, but God a preprogrammed petulant punisher of innocents.

  130. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    The Bible is God’s ordained means to know Christ and believe. The hearing of the Words of scripture. Christ quoted scripture all the time as it is inspired and translated by men as they were told to write by the Holy Spirit(who is God.) The Bible is God’s words in written form. Inspired(which means God wrote them using men and inerrant aka no mistakes. I believe this. When the Bible says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”, it is speaking of the Bible. Christ cannot speak to us any clearer than through the Bible, whose written words give us the true Christ. The Christ of the Bible and the God of the Bible. The Holy Spirit miraculously interprets scripture so we can understand.The Bible says the words are foolishness to those without Christ aka the lost.

    Hmm… I was raised in a system that teaches this. Here’s where I have come to;

    1) When the Bible refers to Scripture, it is not refering to itself, it is referring to the Jewish Scriptures. When Paul referenced the usefulness of Scritures for teaching, etc. to Timothy, he was not talking about the Bible, he was talking about the Jewish Scriptures. He was definitelt not referring to the very letter he was writing….the Bible did not yet exist when Paul wrote that letter, so how could he have been referencing it?
    2) Nowhere have I found in the Bible where it difinitively refers to itself as The Word of God. That title only ever refers to Jesus.
    3) The Bible as we have it is fallable. The more translations I have studied, the more discepancies and errors (some inadvertant and some deliberate alterations by translators) I find.
    4) When I placed my faith in those written words, I was always disappointed.
    5) When I place my faith in the One who made me and the words He speaks directly to me, I am not disappointed.
    6) The Bible is a tool, not a part of God Himself.

    My two cents….

  131. @ Arce:

    Hmm, I did not know that was what Calvinists felt about Open Theism.

    From what I have read of Open Theism, I can’t say as though I agree with it (ie, they teach that God doesn’t know the future, is my understanding, and it appears to me from what I’ve read in the Bible that God does know future events).

    I do think the Bible teaches people, via prayer, can change God’s mind about stuff.

    Aren’t there some straight up passages in Scripture that say, “And when Joe prayed and asked God to do X, not Z, God relented and did X because Joe asked?”

    There was some Old Testament king who was supposed to die, but when he prayed to God and begged to be spared, God sent his prophet to the guy to say, “Okay, I’m tacking on another 15 years of life for you.”

  132. @ Jeannette Altes:

    I was trying to articulate my perspective on all this tonight to myself — i share your conclusions exactly.

    In fact, I’m realizing I reached this conclusion many years ago — i was just too woven into the institution to stop and acknowledge what I actually thought. Too busy being a church person to look cognitive dissonance straight in the eye.

    “In The Bible We Trust!”

    No. In God we trust.

    Such freedom. And peace. And I am more in tune with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than I ever have been.

  133. @ Debbie Kaufman:

    “When the Bible says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”, it is speaking of the Bible.”

    –Justify this please.

    “Christ cannot speak to us any clearer than through the Bible”

    –He doesn’t talk anymore?

  134. Debbie – the verse in Romans 10, to which I’m guessing you refer, says in the Greek:

    Therefore the faith through hearing, the and hearing through word Christ

    There are many shades of meaning even in that verse that cannot be directly represented in English. “Christ”, for instance, is “Christou”, not “Christos”, and means either “of Christ” or “concerning Christ”. Moreover, “word” is “rhematos”, not “logos” – the latter is the one most commonly used of scripture. “Rhematos” more accurately represents a specific or one-off statement. For instance; once the famous cockerel crowed three times, Peter (in Luke 22) remembered the word (rhematos) of the Lord, foretelling that very event. All of which points out the danger of replacing a living, speaking, feeling God with a written word or book – the question then becomes, which version of said book? There’s a good reason why Christians throughout church history have been unable to agree on who owns the One True Correct Interpretation of the bible, and it has nothing to do with the obvious fact that everyone who does not see the clear word of God as I do is blind, deceived or rebellious (to borrow Paul’s phrase: I speak as a fool…!).

    Anyway, enough of that. (I’m interested in languages, but that doesn’t mean I have any more love.) The point is that I, and others like me, do have clear reasons for rejecting the belief that reading/preaching the Bible is what brings people to faith, or mediates one’s relationship with God.

    I must also beg to differ over how often, and to what end, Jesus quoted scripture. The parables of the kingdom do not, for instance, reference any old testament scripture, not even does the huge phrase “Kingdom of God” which was a major – perhaps the major – theme in Jesus’ teaching. And when he did quote the OT, it was invariably not to expound it (unless he was pointing out its limitations – you have heard it was said, but I say…) but to point out that he himself was the fulfillment of it.

    Which brings me to how, if I understand him aright, Jesus actually did say we would know him. Namely, by personal and corporate ongoing encounter (in many and varied settings and through different experiences) with the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that He is God’s ordained way through which we know Jesus, and thence the Father himself.

    However, I think the Bible is the protestant churches’ ordained way of knowing Jesus.

  135. @ Daisy:

    I think the king you’re thinking of might be Hezekiah.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that God actually doesn’t know the future. I don’t necessarily think his plan involved micromanaging “every electron” as many Calvinists claim. But I’m also not convinced that the only alternative to that is saying he doesn’t know at all. I will admit, however, that I’ve done almost zero reading on open theism so the above is just my gut. Generally I chalk the relationship between prayer and the omniscience/sovereignty of God up to a mystery and stop there…which leaves me out of many of the heated discussions here about the philosophical implications of Calvinism/determinism.

  136. @ Nick:

    “There’s a good reason why Christians throughout church history have been unable to agree on who owns the One True Correct Interpretation of the bible, and it has nothing to do with the obvious fact that everyone who does not see the clear word of God as I do is blind, deceived or rebellious.”

    Which is a serious and necessary caveat to inerrancy. I believe in inerrancy, but all too often people try to pull the “inerrancy card” to validate their interpretation and make their opponent look like a heretic for disagreeing with their One True Correct Interpretation, rather than actually addressing their points. And I do agree that many English Bibles have translation errors in them.

  137. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    The Bible is God’s ordained means to know Christ and believe. The hearing of the Words of scripture. Christ quoted scripture all the time as it is inspired and translated by men as they were told to write by the Holy Spirit(who is God.) The Bible is God’s words in written form. Inspired(which means God wrote them using men and inerrant aka no mistakes. I believe this. When the Bible says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”, it is speaking of the Bible. Christ cannot speak to us any clearer than through the Bible, whose written words give us the true Christ. The Christ of the Bible and the God of the Bible. The Holy Spirit miraculously interprets scripture so we can understand.The Bible says the words are foolishness to those without Christ aka the lost.

    I am pro bible so I hesitate to even respond. But there is an illogic to some views concerning not only the bible but how people are saved because people have been saved throughout history from hearing the truth about Jesus Christ before it was written down. Some have even believed because of dreams.

    From what I can gather of your comments, especially about the OT, you seem to believe in a redemptive/historical hermeneutic for the OT. Which has it’s place in scholarship. It has big problems in overall application. It has become very popular in the YRR wing

    I suppose it would mean you think all different translations are “inerrent”. Which means words do not retain their meaning anymore. Scripture is Inspired, I agree but inerrant brings all sorts of problems.

    When Christ is quoting the scriptures he is quoting them to Israelites. Yet He came to redeem the whole world. Those scriptures would have meant little to Gentiles.

    As a Calvinist you would believe those who have been saved were chosen before the fall. Man has no volition in any of it anyway.

    I am concerned about this worship of a book. We cannot have a real relationship with a book although many do! It is about Jesus Christ and our relationship with him..God in the Flesh….who dwells in us as the Spirit of Truth.

  138. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The parables of the kingdom do not, for instance, reference any old testament scripture, not even does the huge phrase “Kingdom of God” which was a major – perhaps the major – theme in Jesus’ teaching. And when he did quote the OT, it was invariably not to expound it (unless he was pointing out its limitations – you have heard it was said, but I say…) but to point out that he himself was the fulfillment of it.

    Nick, Thanks for mentioning the Kingdom of God. I am shocked and saddened at how I missed that for so many years. Everything was about Evangelism yet we missed the MOST important thing for living right NOW. Yes, it was more of a theme than anything else in His teaching.

    One thing that has puzzled me is how often the OT is quoted in the NT but changed a bit. (That should tell us something) but you make the good point that it was to show fulfillment. Peter’s quoting the Joel prophecy was changed to show fulfillment.

  139. @ Debbie Kaufman:Bingo Debbie. I serve in the missions world, I know Tom and I know Zane. Even though one may be Arminian the other reformed, they work together great for the sake of the gospel.

  140. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    The Bible is God’s ordained means to know Christ and believe.

    What about the Holy Spirit?
    that statement above is what I meant about a book becoming the 4th part of the Trinity.

    It cannot replace a real live relationship.

  141. Nick anon1
    Jesus expounded the good news from the OT on the road to Emmaus. “Starting with Moses

    Philip likewise with the eunuch. And the disciples in their early missions see Eckhard Schnabel Early Christian Missions

  142. Anon1
    I think Debbie means thattheBible is Gods record to us about his plan of salvation not that theHoly Spiriithas been replaced or the Trinity added to.

    The Holy Spirit confirms and validates the word. Preaching is the main means of proclaiming the gospel inthe post apostolic age.

  143. @ M. Joy:

    I do agree that Platt needs to be careful. When the New Orleans church that he was working for was covered by the floods Hurricane Katrina, he made his way to Birmingham and became pastor of a very wealthy church. The church is not in downtown Birmingham but in the hills of Birmingham which is the money section of that city.

    His church has done much for the poor. He himself, from what I have been told, lives in a home in the middle of poverty. However, it was that very American Dream which fuels his ministry. If he had started his church in the middle of the very poor in Birmingham, I bet we would not heard of him in the same way because that Birmingham money has allowed his message to get beyond their enclave.

    There is a bit of dissonance when we claim to reject the American Dream but continue to take its profits. Don’t get me wrong. I like some of Platt’s stuff. I have been to a number of services at his church and respect what he has accomplished, especially his own sacrifice of a living situation. There are a few pastors who should follow his example. But there is tension between his message and the reality of the money that has fueled his church’s success.

  144. @ Jeannette Altes:
    Jeanette

    I believe that the Bible is authoritative. It is also infallible in its ability to accomplish its purpose which is to bring people to an understanding of who God is, how does man fit in and what is the basis of our creation, salvation and future.

    However, the Bible cannot, and should not, be taken literally. Virtually no one does if you question them carefully. For example, the bible refers to the four corners of the earth. The earth is round. But looking at both example, we can say the earth is vast yet finite.Th Bible also says the sun revolves around the earth. We now know that is not true. Yet, if we were take that literally, we would be laughed out of 1st grade science. Yet we can marvel at the universe which has things like black holes, etc that we cannot even begin to fully understand.

    The mustard seed is not the smallest seed on the earth. A lily seed in the Amazon is. However, for those people in that part of the world, it was the smallest seed. Jesus could have taken the time to explain about the lily in the Amazon yet he did not. The reason for His statement had to do with faith and for that reason the statement is infallible yet not literally true.

    Then, there is the woman who must be veiled in the New Testament. Of course, we are told that such a thing is cultural now. But, we have determined that such a thing is cultural but a woman speaking the Scripture out loud in church is a clear violation of Scripture. We sometimes take literally the things that back up our perceptions and preconceptions but sagely nod that the veiled woman is cultural obviously ignoring our ability to pick and choose.

    I have known many people who have come to faith by simply reading the Bible. But, I have also seen the development of over 5,000 denominations, all claiming to know the “correct” way to understand these words. If it was vital for us to understand these nuances, i believe that god would have made it perfectly clear. He did not. Therefore, I believe that we should not make primary the issues for which there is great division.

  145. @ Gavin White:
    Gavin
    If preaching is the main means of proclaiming the Gospel today, then those who claim that a woman cannot preach would lead me to wonder if women have the ability to proclaim that Gospel.

  146. Gavin White wrote:

    I think Debbie means thattheBible is Gods record to us about his plan of salvation not that theHoly Spiriithas been replaced or the Trinity added to.

    Thanks Gavin but that is not what she originally said but she seemed to soften her stance after a while. Her comments lead me to believe she translated “Word” as referring to the bible when it is referring to Christ.

    We have to remember, there were thousands of years most people could not read. IF the truth was only able to be communicated from the “written” word, then few would have access to truth except through a priest or church official who told them what it said AND meant.

  147. Folks
    Deb and I are going to meet one of our readers who resides most of the year at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica. We will be out of pocket until mid afternoon.

  148. Overcome’r: “Crimson blood flowed through His veins, sacrificed for our very souls? ”

    Hey,  ☺

    Muff: “How did the Good News of that beautiful supernatural rabbi from Nazareth get soooooo hijacked over the centuries?”
     @ Muff Potter

    hmmm…

    Sopy: “There’s a horrid calvnesta hoard  on the loose, it has the reformed church by da caboose, and it just stands there chomp’in…”

    (sadface)

    Sopy: “Many will come in Jesus’ name and mis-lead a whole ton of Kind Folk, but fear not, thou shalt overcome them (these mis-leading proverbial church bruising religious monsters) by the powerful light of the Internet, the re-kindling of true christian faith, by applying the healing salve (ointment) of the word of God, by looking to the clear water (illumination) of the Holy Spirit of God, and by dedicating their lives to the Christ who made eternal life possible to all that believe  –by His death and resurrection, in the first place. They loved not their lives only, but gave them in service to others in need of the kind words of Jesus.”

    Fear ye not…You too can overcome the calvinesta world…

    (To everything, Turn, Turn, Turn…)

    I ‘believe’ (wit Jesus’s help) itz not too late…

    S“㋡”py

  149. dee wrote:

    However, the Bible cannot, and should not, be taken literally. Virtually no one does if you question them carefully

    No where does this bother me more than Psalm (51) which is used to declare that we are born guilty of Adam’s sin. I just wish they would apply it “literally” everywhere since they are going there anyway with proof texts. But they don’t because it would be heinous and against the teaching of Christ. Psalms are poetry and man talking to God.

    So how literal are they willing take this in Psalm 137?

    Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
    on the day Jerusalem fell.
    “Tear it down,” they cried,
    “tear it down to its foundations!”
    8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
    9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

  150. Gavin and others, you might be interested in reading this transcript of a lecture given by N.T Wright titled “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” I’ve been working my way through it and have found it very helpful. It’s quite long, so I printed out a copy for myself so I can highlight, take notes, etc. Here’s the link: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

  151. @ Hester:
    The innerancy card being pulled sure cost a lot of people their careers and livelihoods during the Southern Baptist Takeover by the FUNDAMENTALISTS!

  152. @ Kolya:

    The apostles and disciples themselves preached with urgency and bore witness to the so great salvation and this in itself hints at the idea of a rescue from a terrible fate.

    Augustine, in his complete works (ch27), Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea, and Athanasius in his Letters, all speak of ‘rescue from sin And from devils’.

    Heidegger is the Swiss theologian you mentioned and he was carrying on an age old tradition in speaking of rescue, of salvation.

  153. @ dee:
    Dee
    Missionary work and preaching in the early church was multifaceted. There were meetings in private households where no doubt the wife would have a part to play. You have women holding prayer meetings, supporting church and synagogue. Then you have Andronicus and Junia, Aquila and Priscilla. So I think that the opportunity was there for both sexes.

  154. A Hung Bible: “The Four Corners Of The Earth, A Bogus Proposition ?”

    @ dee:

    Perhaps there is not a phrase in Scripture that has been considered so controversial as the phrase, “the four corners of the earth.” 

    hmmm…

    The word translated “corners,” as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, ‘kanaph’.

     ‘kanaph’ is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means ‘extremity’.

    It is translated “borders” in Numbers 15:38. 

    In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated “four corners” and again in Isaiah 11:12 “four corners.” Job 37:3 and 38:13 as “ends.”

    The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is ‘gonia’. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as ‘quadrants’. 

    ‘Gonia’ literally means ‘angles’, or ‘divisions’. 

    It is customary to divide a map into ‘quadrants’ as shown by ‘the four directions’.

    Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is ‘square’. 

    The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere, a big ball in space (Isaiah 40:22).

    Some have tried to say there are ‘four knobs’, or ‘peaks’ on ‘a round earth’. 

    Regardless of the various ways ‘kanaph’ is translated, it makes reference to ‘extremities’.

    There are many ways in which the Hebrew writer could have written ‘corner’; and any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

    ‘Pinoh’ is used in reference to ‘the cornerstone’.

    ‘Paioh’ means “a geometric corner”

    ‘Ziovyoh’ means “right angle” or “corner”

    ‘Krnouth’ refers to a projecting corner.

    ‘Paamout’h – If the Hebrew writer wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word ‘paamouth’ could have been used. ‘Paamouth’ means square.

    Instead, the Hebrew writer apparently moved by Holy Spirit selected the word ‘kanaph’, conveying the idea of ‘extremity’.

    It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of the word, ‘kanaph’. 

    For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times a day, and prayed the following prayer:

    “Sound the great trumpet for our freedom,
    Raise the banner for gathering our exiles,
    And gather us together from the four corners of the earth into our own land.”

    Furthermore, the Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from ‘the four corners of the earth’. They shall come from every ‘extremity’ to be gathered into Israel.

    “And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
    Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
    For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
    And His resting place shall be glorious.”
    It shall come to pass in that day
    That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time
    To recover the ‘remnant’ of His people who are left,
    From Assyria and Egypt,
    From Pathros and Cush,
    From Elam and Shinar,
    From Hamath and the islands of the sea.

    –He will set up a banner for the nations,
    And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
    And gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
    -Isaiah 11:10-12, NKJV

    Yehaaaaaaaa!

    Who sayz da Lord is ‘square’?

    (grin)

    hahahahaha

    Sopy
    ___
    P.S. […on a somber note:] Even now a great national opposition to the nation of Israel is rising up (and has been for some time) Will “Shalom” be taken from the earth, over the Lord’s gathering of the Jews in Jerusalem?  —> Is it later than we think?

    hmmm…

    (sadface)

  155. Gavin White wrote:

    Nick anon1
    Jesus expounded the good news from the OT on the road to Emmaus. “Starting with Moses
    Philip likewise with the eunuch.

    That’s fair; though I didn’t mean to say that Jesus never quoted the OT, just that he often taught without doing so.

    In the two events you’ve cited, a couple of things do strike me. One is that, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus went right through the OT explaining how it referred to himself, and in particular, how it predicted the suffering and death of the Messiah. Indeed, he kicked off that particular exposition with the reproving observation about how slow Cleopas and friend were to believe the scriptures they supposedly already knew. Similarly, the Ethiopian eunuch was already reading Isaiah, and asked Philip to explain it to him. Both sermons (to use a modern English term) were addressed, in other words, to people who already knew the scriptures but had not properly understood them. But it’s unlikely that either would have been much use to non-Jewish hearers (or hearers with no background knowledge of the OT).

  156. @ Sopwith:
    When Tyndale’s Introduction to Paul’S epistle to the Romans was published a certain Robert Ridley complained to the church authorities that it proved Tyndale was “a manifest Lutheran”! Not realising that much of it WAS a paraphrase of Luther’s introduction.

  157. @ Rafiki: The opening ‘graph of the press release on the conference sounds *very* Dominionist to me. (Last sentence especially.)

  158. @ dee:

    Yep. Some parts are to be taken literally, some are not. I would not say the Bible is not clear..”study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15. Not all these many denominations are correct, there is only one truth, but I also believe that we are a work in progress through the Holy Spirit and we should not divide on secondary issues.

    Anonymous: I never said that the Bible replaced the Trinity. The Bible is the means of knowing the Trinity. The Bible is the God ordained means of knowing Christ. It gives the plan of salvation and the truth of who God is, who Christ is, who the Holy Spirit is. I believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation reveals Christ.

  159. @ Hester: Not to mention the German chorales that are very much a part of Lutheran worship.

    Not to sound snobbish, but there really *is* a lot of great music from the Reformation era in Germany. I know that the church where I grew up had a great influence on forming my tastes, insofar as the fact that the majority of what was played and sung really was good music.

  160. Gavin White wrote:

    Anon1
    I think Debbie means thattheBible is Gods record to us about his plan of salvation not that theHoly Spiriithas been replaced or the Trinity added to.
    The Holy Spirit confirms and validates the word. Preaching is the main means of proclaiming the gospel inthe post apostolic age.

    Yes.

    We also live what we learn in scripture through the Holy Spirit has a witness to those without Christ that what the Bible says is true.

    When I broke the Ergun Caner story, I checked every fact and double checked. I used whatever sources I could find. If I wrote an erroneous statement I made that public with an apology. In this case a Muslim was telling the truth, Christians who should have been telling the truth were not. Be sure that when a statement is made, it is a truthful one. That is my point.

    The church has gotten corrupt over the years. That was a hard one for me to find out, but I didn’t want to become corrupt like the church by writing things that were not documented facts.It was the facts that proved Ergun a liar, not off the top of head, reactionary false statements.

  161. I think you have to define what “literally” means. It doesn’t mean “woodenly” (though many people apply many passages that way)- it means you understand it within the literary style that is written. So poetry must be read as poetry, historical accounts as historical accounts, lettes as letters, etc. Some of the types of literature found within scripture are very difficult to interpret correctly, especially removed from the culture and time in which it was written.

    And RC Sproul (Sr) points out that there are statements in scripture that are FALSE, but a literary understanding of the type of text shows us the greater truth these false statements point to (specifically in my mind here is portions of Ecclesiasties in which the author describes life as if there is no God).

  162. Gavin White wrote:

    The Holy Spirit confirms and validates the word. Preaching is the main means of proclaiming the gospel in the post apostolic age.

    Gavin – sorry about the gap – just back from the school gate. Anyway, back at the ranch. Back in new testament times, of course, the means the Holy Spirit used to confirm and validate (a good phrase, I think) the good news was signs and wonders. Thereafter… I suppose it depends what you mean by “preaching” in this context. If you mean that non-believers, one way or another, must hear believers testifying about the Jesus they’ve encountered, then I agree that is eminently sensible.

    However, if you mean through the traditionally-understood delivery of a sermon, based on a portion of scripture, by a clergyman (of whatever flavour), in a church gathering, then it is unclear to me what the foundation for that is. Nor am I entirely sure what new means the Holy Spirit has to confirm the message, or when He contractually bound himself to desist from producing empirical evidence.

    There are many current stories of Muslims who have not heard the gospel being visited by God in dreams in which he shows them that Jesus is his son, and becoming Christians as a result. I can’t say for certain that this is true, but equally I’m reluctant to say that a legal technicality bans God from doing this. There, and elsewhere in many places, John Piper and I must agree to differ on the fundamental nature of God.

  163. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    However, I think the Bible is the protestant churches’ ordained way of knowing Jesus.

    This is where we would disagree Nick. Christ quoted scripture to show the authority of scripture. Scripture interprets scripture.This is how God has provided for unclear things to be more clear. The Bible is God’s ordained means of knowing Christ. Of knowing God. Of knowing our need for a Savior.

  164. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    “When the Bible says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”, it is speaking of the Bible.”
    –Justify this please.
    “Christ cannot speak to us any clearer than through the Bible”
    –He doesn’t talk anymore?

    The Bible itself justifies my statements. I believe Christ can speak, but it is rare apart from scripture, where He already speaks. I know of a man in Africa who claims he came to Christ because Christ himself appeared to him. I believe him. Muslims have come to Christ through Christ or angels appearing to them. I believe them. But preaching, teaching, reading the Bible is the primary means God has given to bring people to himself.

    “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16.

  165. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Hi Nick
    I think possibly we’re saying the same thing but looking at from different angles. I would need to look into things more but I would suggest that the open air face to face encounters between the apostles and the cross/authorities give a flavour of a’sermon’-like content with , as you say, signs and wonders following. Also in the synagogue I think Scripture was ‘explained’ after public reading?

    Btw, I’ve heard similar stories-many years ago- during the Indonesian revival.

  166. Amy wrote:

    @ Lynne T:
    I had the same question about why they need to send missionaries if they believe people are chosen by God to be saved. If God already chose them it will be done. I don’t get it either.

    Sorry, I cannot let this slide. That is a mischaracterization of reformed theology at best. We pray and preach because we believe that the glories of our God are worth proclaiming to the world whether anyone listens or not. The fact that we are predestined by God to salvation does not mean that we know who the elect are; nor does it mean we would cease to obey his commands to pray and preach.
    By all means dispute if you do not believe reformed exegesis is correct, but please actually try to characterize our position fairly rather than knocking down strawmen.

  167. @ theShield:

    You can’t let what slide? She isn’t mischaracterizing anything. She is saying that she doesn’t understand the reformed perspective on sending missionaries because the reformed perspective is that the elect were chosen beforehand (before now) and if they are already chosen/elect, then preaching won’t make a difference. They will be saved no matter what.

    So, from your statement, I gather that the only reason you pray and preach is to obey what the Bible says? Praying and preaching won’t make an actual difference in anyone’s life?

  168. Neo-Reformation: “The Hatching Of A Very ‘Bad Egg’ Perhaps?”

    @ Gavin White:

    hmmm…

    …a religious zealot’s mis-guided use of Erasmus’ Egg, and Gutenberg’s Press, perhaps? 

    What?

    I have seen nothing of these neo-reformed churches; yet at the very least that they contains nefarious individuals who will, I fear, overturn the whole reformed system, and drive devout pastors into using force to restrain good members and bad alike; the gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language.

    hmmm…

    Déjà vu?

    Sopy

  169. mot wrote:

    Does anyone else see one of the major characteristics of the YRR movement as arrogance?

    When you’re one of God’s Predestined Elect pets, with the only Perfectly Parsed Truly Reformed Theology, why would you not be arrogant?

  170. @ Debbie Kaufman:

    February 3 years ago on my then blog. You can use the wayback machine to find it as I had to delete my blog due to non-use of it. I haven’t written for 3 years and it was full of spam and advertisements. Bombed so to speak. The address to put in the wayback machine is debbiekaufman.wordpress.com. I saw videos by Mohammed Kahn, watched all of them, saw how Ergun dismissed them with cruelty along with Ergun’s followers, contacted Mohammed and worked closely with him along with others who read the story and had means to get even closer to the truth. I am sure you all have experienced the same thing here. I was one of the first women to blog on such matters along with other corruptions of the church. I featured a lot of Christa Brown’s material exposing pedophiles. I also worked a little with Tiffany Croft during the Darrell Gilyard fiasco.

  171. Tom Rich was also a valuable resource. I am proud to count these people as my friends.

  172. Hester wrote:

    Also it’s my understanding that the “American Dream” didn’t mean getting filthy rich until more around the time of the Gilded Age, when people were exposed to the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, etc.

    Well, they do call today “The Second Gilded Age”.

    Around the time of the Civil War it was more along the lines of a “competency” (enough to live on comfortably). Heck, even in the early 20th century, owning your own home meant a 900-1000 sq. ft. bungalow, not modern day 2500-3500 sq. ft. McMansions.

    Especially when I have found through experience that 1000 sq ft is around the maximum house I can keep maintained. These 3500 sq ft chipboard-and-styrofoam McMansions are built right up to the minimum setback lines on all sides, with a back yard maybe 10 ft deep. They were intended to last only long enough for the buyer to flip them to a bigger fool (“It’s YOUR problem now”).

  173. As someone involved in missions myself, I have been wondering when the Calvinistas would make a move to create their own distinct missions agency. It makes sense: they have such a narrow, specific view of “the gospel” – how can they trust non-Calvinists to share it with others?

    I was recently at a gathering of fellow missions workers from all over the world, and Acts29 came up in a few conversations. The general consensus was that Acts29 churches do not allow non-Acts29-affiliated speakers to speak in their churches. (For those who don’t know, many missionaries come home on furlough and conduct small “tours” where they speak in local churches to connect with existing supporters, and also to raise new supporters). Many missionaries at this gathering have attempted to connect with local Acts29 churches to ask for their support, or even just to raise awareness of their particular mission field, only to be rebuffed because they are not Acts29 members.

    A couple thoughts:

    – CrossCon’s language leaves me wondering who exactly does the “rescuing” – the Calvinistas themselves or the Lord?

    – I’m curious about their missions methodology. From what I know about the Calvinistas, they pay little attention to “classical” missions and instead use church planting as their means of “spreading the faith.”

  174. RE: Jeannette Altes on Fri Mar 22,2013 at 12:59 AM,

    Over the last decade or so, I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusions with the six points you’ve delineated.

  175. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nick
    Curiosity aroused I retreated to my study where I came across an old book on revivals.In the chapter on the ‘Success of the Gospel in America in the Seventeenth Century, the author quotes from Matthew’s Indian Converts ch.1. He recounts the tale of a Native American woman called Wuttunnunohkomkooh, in the area of Martha’s Vineyard, who having lost five children within ten days of their birth found herself pregnant once more.

    “Greatly distressed With fear that she should lose this child , As she had done the former, And utterly despairing of any help as had been formerly tried without any success, She took him up and went out into the field that she might there weep out her sorrow. But while she was there musing on the insufficiency of human help, She found it powerfully suggested to her mind that there is one Almighty God who is to be prayed to; that this God hath created all things that we see; and that the God who had given being to herself and all other people, And had given her child to her,was able to preserve and continue his life. On this she resolved that she would seek to God for that mercy, and did accordingly. His life was preserved and she dedicated his life to that God, whom she came to know as her Redeemer, a few years later when by preaching she was instructed in the way of salvation.”

    Is my hand shortened that it cannot save?

  176. “But preaching, teaching, reading the Bible is the primary means God has given to bring people to himself.” Debbie K.

    “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16.

    Timothy 3:16 does not say that “the Bible is the primary means by God has given to brings people to himself.”

    Can’t God use whatever means He wishes to bring people to himself? (He “can” use scripture as well.)

    The scripture says that the scripture will train us (by means of teaching, rebuking, correcting) in righteousness (sanctification), not make us righteous. We are made righteous at the point we believe in Christ. (I believe Dee was listening to Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise when she first believed.) 🙂

  177. theShield wrote:

    By all means dispute if you do not believe reformed exegesis is correct, but please actually try to characterize our position fairly rather than knocking down strawmen.

    I don’t interpret her comment as a strawman argument. She is expressing sincere confusion about a Reformed approach to the theology of missions. It’s a fair question, and one that comes up quite a bit when discussing the theology of missions. Historically, the magisterial reformers were generally not involved in the modern missions movement (which was fueled primarily by the Jesuits, pietists, and anabaptists), partly because of their Reformed understanding of the doctrines of election and predestination, partly because of their ethnocentric (and, by modern standards, racist) views (which, to be fair, were in line with most of Europe at that time), and partly because of their understanding of the relationship between church and state. Some Reformers even went so far as to say that the Great Commission applied only to the original twelve Apostles!

    I highly recommend Stephen Neill’s “A History of Christian Missions.” It’s pretty much the standard work on missions history. Chapter 7 discusses the origins of the modern European missions movement and the relationship between Roman Catholic, pietists, and Reformed missions endeavors (or the lack thereof).

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Especially when I have found through experience that 1000 sq ft is around the maximum house I can keep maintained. These 3500 sq ft chipboard-and-styrofoam McMansions are built right up to the minimum setback lines on all sides, with a back yard maybe 10 ft deep. They were intended to last only long enough for the buyer to flip them to a bigger fool (“It’s YOUR problem now”).

    I remember years back in my neck of the woods (Southern Cal) when the orange and lemon groves would every spring put forth a fragrance that can only be described as divine. They’re all gone now. Bulldozed, paved, parking-lotted, and turned into the McMansions you’ve described. Joni Mitchell was right, you don’t really miss it till it’s gone.

  179. @ Gavin White:
    Gav – I suspect you’re right in saying that we’re probably not separated by much more than choice of terminology!

    Would be nice to catch up at leisure over coffee / apple and vanilla sponge sometime if I correctly recall that you’re north of the only Border that counts?

  180. @ HUG:

    “They were intended to last only long enough for the buyer to flip them to a bigger fool (‘It’s YOUR problem now’).”

    This. So much this.

    Plus they’re ugly as sin to boot.

  181. Muff Potter wrote:

    Especially when I have found through experience that 1000 sq ft is around the maximum house I can keep maintained. These 3500 sq ft chipboard-and-styrofoam McMansions are built right up to the minimum setback lines on all sides, with a back yard maybe 10 ft deep. They were intended to last only long enough for the buyer to flip them to a bigger fool (“It’s YOUR problem now”).

    I can remember about 15 years ago listening to an economics prof and demographic researcher give a presentation using this as ONE example of some coming problems. He asked, who are going to buy all these McMansions in 20 years? The point was even before the housing bubble they were predicting they would not fetch what the sellers were hoping simply because of the glut of them and lack of peeps in the right demographic to buy them.

  182. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Anonymous: I never said that the Bible replaced the Trinity. The Bible is the means of knowing the Trinity. The Bible is the God ordained means of knowing Christ. It gives the plan of salvation and the truth of who God is, who Christ is, who the Holy Spirit is. I believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation reveals Christ.

    That sounds like pretty much the same thing. You are saying one cannot know the Triune God except through scripture. Unless that is not what you really mean? If it is, there are too many situations where there was no bible or there was illiteracy, where your claim would mean the Holy Spirit could not operate without the bible.

  183. Mr.H wrote:

    I don’t interpret her comment as a strawman argument. She is expressing sincere confusion about a Reformed approach to the theology of missions. It’s a fair question, and one that comes up quite a bit when discussing the theology of missions. Historically, the magisterial reformers were generally not involved in the modern missions movement (which was fueled primarily by the Jesuits, pietists, and anabaptists), partly because of their Reformed understanding of the doctrines of election and predestination, partly because of their ethnocentric (and, by modern standards, racist) views (which, to be fair, were in line with most of Europe at that time), and partly because of their understanding of the relationship between church and state. Some Reformers even went so far as to say that the Great Commission applied only to the original twelve Apostles!

    Exactly Mr H. Although I would say their idea of missions was more political in nature. The refugees from France to Geneva were fine as long as they dare not disagree with the state church and followed all the masses of micrmanaging rules for every day living there.

  184. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Christ quoted scripture to show the authority of scripture. Scripture interprets scripture.

    This is where I disagree. Christ quoted Scripture to authenticate who *He* was. That is why He could say things like “you have heard it said… but I say…” – He supersedes the written word. Scripture does not interpret Scripture; Jesus interprets and fulfills Scripture. Scripture is not in and of itself useful. If Jesus had never come, then those ancient books would be irrelevant, right? Scripture has value only because of who Jesus is: the Word made flesh.

  185. @ theShield:
    I am still trying to sort this stuff out. The purpose of preaching is to proclaim the glories of God and, in so doing, will fulfill His plan to call those elect to himself. Supposing one was disobedient and went through a 5 year phase of not preaching the word of God. Does it really matter to the object of that preaching? Yes, said person is disobedient to God’s will the other person, if elect, will still become a Christian.

    Also, why does God tarry in calling His elect to HImself? I admired the prison work of Karla Faye Tucker before her execution. By waiting to call Karla, God allowed Karla to brutally murder some people. Yet, she was one of the elect when she did these acts.

  186. @ Debbie Kaufman:
    But we do divide all the time. Some believe in infant baptism, others do not. RC Sproul Sr reportedly said that those who are not Reformed are Christians, but barely.How does one worship with a man who thinks so little of those who do not buy his package? The arrogance is breathtaking.

    The Calvinists pounce on those who are not reformed as Scriptural illiterates and Semi-Pelagians. The other side decry the formulaic view of Scripture by Calvinists. Each side is absolutely convinced that the other is just plumb wrong. One of the great divides in the Caner situation was that it involved Calvinists versus non-Calvinists in spite of the apparent lies of Caner.

    I think we divide all the time over secondary issues that each one of us define to be a really, really, really important secondary and almost primary issue.

    I have come to the conclusions that, if brighter men and women than myself, disagree then I am not going to be the one to jump to the conclusion that I have the definitive answer. That is why I prefer to say that I see weaknesses in both approaches and, instead, think that we may find , in heaven, it was neither. In this world we are binary (either/or) since we only see things bounded by this dimension. In heaven, we will be freed of this and we may be surprised by realms of possibilities.

    That is why I prefer to say the Bible is infallible in that it leads to salvation but that it is not a text book for fully comprehending God and his infinite creation. We can say we understand the Trinity yet we do not fully since we cannot see how such a thing is possible as bounded by our dimension. Can you imagine what will happen when we see God in all of His glory, outside the constraints of this dimension? There are many dimensions and He is in all and outside of all as well.

    I think we are all in for quite a ride when we see Him face to face.

  187. Dee wrote:

    I admired the prison work of Karla Faye Tucker before her execution. By waiting to call Karla, God allowed Karla to brutally murder some people. Yet, she was one of the elect when she did these acts.

    Oh my. That is a very interesting example.

  188. @ Anon 1:
    The OT quoted in the NT is usually the Septuagint, rather that the old Hebrew Bible. It was put together by 70 scholars and was a translation itself.

  189. Arce, that is so interesting to me. The Greek OT was quoted by Jesus. A translation for the disaspora.

  190. Actually, the scripters of the NT, remembering Jesus words and writing principally Greek, used the Greek translation available to them, rather than doing the translation themselves. Much easier and use of a good source.

  191. Dee wrote:

    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    But we do divide all the time. Some believe in infant baptism, others do not. RC Sproul Sr reportedly said that those who are not Reformed are Christians, but barely.How does one worship with a man who thinks so little of those who do not buy his package? The arrogance is breathtaking.
    The Calvinists pounce on those who are not reformed as Scriptural illiterates and Semi-Pelagians. The other side decry the formulaic view of Scripture by Calvinists. Each side is absolutely convinced that the other is just plumb wrong. One of the great divides in the Caner situation was that it involved Calvinists versus non-Calvinists in spite of the apparent lies of Caner.
    I think we divide all the time over secondary issues that each one of us define to be a really, really, really important secondary and almost primary issue.
    I have come to the conclusions that, if brighter men and women than myself, disagree then I am not going to be the one to jump to the conclusion that I have the definitive answer. That is why I prefer to say that I see weaknesses in both approaches and, instead, think that we may find , in heaven, it was neither. In this world we are binary (either/or) since we only see things bounded by this dimension. In heaven, we will be freed of this and we may be surprised by realms of possibilities.
    That is why I prefer to say the Bible is infallible in that it leads to salvation but that it is not a text book for fully comprehending God and his infinite creation. We can say we understand the Trinity yet we do not fully since we cannot see how such a thing is possible as bounded by our dimension. Can you imagine what will happen when we see God in all of His glory, outside the constraints of this dimension? There are many dimensions and He is in all and outside of all as well.
    I think we are all in for quite a ride when we see Him face to face.

    Whoa Dee. Whoa. The Caner situation was brought about because of the lies Caner told. Yes he is pretty militant which I am totally against, but to say it was a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist ordeal is simply untrue. It was Calvinists that brought it to light-so what?It was true and it needed to be dealt with. There were other instances. I would say that your plight is to destroy Calvinists. But there is so much truth in what you revealed that things need to change. That was the reason for exposing Caner, things need to change in the church and lying about something you were not, telling lies about Muslims to make a buck wasn’t an option.

    We as Christians should stand against untruth in doctrine, but not at the expense of alienation. We have to teach as the Bible teaches. It’s not that hard. Not really.

    To say that infant baptism is Biblically correct would be wrong. Yes, I would divide over that. There are absolute truths beyond salvation in scripture and they are pretty clear if one reads and studies scripture.

  192. @ Debbie Kaufman:

    I should add there were many non-Calvinists involved as well. Tom Rich is just one example. It’s how we began to develop a friendship via phone.

  193. I do believe in letting people work out their doctrine. That does take time and isn’t certainly something that happens overnight. I have always advocated people being like the Bereans of scripture. Get the Bible out and check any message or teaching next to scripture. Scripture is the final authority on anything.

  194. Debbie

    You misunderstand me. I said that the Caner situation was used by both sides of the argument to obfuscate obvious lies. Some attempted to make it about that issue although it was not.

    And you have just made my point by this statement.

    To say that infant baptism is Biblically correct would be wrong. Yes, I would divide over that. There are absolute truths beyond salvation in scripture and they are pretty clear if one reads and studies scripture.

    There are secondary issues that some raise to primary issues. I would not divide over this and attended a church that allowed for both.

  195. As I read the info about Crosscon my first thought was that these men just cannot resist creating reasons to astound audiences and each other with their gospelly, cross centered holiness and wisdom. Come hear us speak for we are your leaders and masters of the theological universe! They just love the sounds of their own voices but to me their words are like nails on a chalkboard. Such arrogance! The following link really sheds light on theological debates and how we view the Bible. It’s from Shane Willard’s “How to Read the Bible like a Hebrew” series and in just the first 4 minutes or so he addresses this notion of mastering theological debate and being theologically right. Dee wrote in an earlier post that the Bible is not a text book. Amen to that! We need to approach this message to us from God with awe, reverence, humility and without arrogant familiarity.
    Enjoy …
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fULdXoK3OiY

  196. @Debbie, I don’t think that it is “simple” if only we would all spend time studying the Bible. For one thing, we read and study with our cultural lenses firmly in place, and most of the time we either are too blind or too stubborn to admit that. To take your example of infant baptism. There have been centuries of Christ-followers who through their study of scripture accepted and practiced infant baptism. And those who would divide from these Christians for the most part don’t acknowledge that there is a valid point even as they disagree. (This is a terrible sentence but I am not sure how to fix it at the moment!) I can say this as someone who has lived on three continents, and who has worked on the church staffs of Baptist, Lutheran, and Anglican churches.

    This is what is happening with the Calvinistas; they have an idealized 1950s America that overlays their studying and reading, and informs what “absolute truths” they come up with. The problem is that they are willing to dismiss thousands of Christians and hundreds of years over their interpretation. What is so hard about saying, as Dee stated, that we do not fully understand, and that there is a possibility of both/and rather than either/or in God’s economy?

  197. dee wrote:

    Debbie
    You misunderstand me. I said that the Caner situation was used by both sides of the argument to obfuscate obvious lies. Some attempted to make it about that issue although it was not.
    And you have just made my point by this statement.
    To say that infant baptism is Biblically correct would be wrong. Yes, I would divide over that. There are absolute truths beyond salvation in scripture and they are pretty clear if one reads and studies scripture.
    There are secondary issues that some raise to primary issues. I would not divide over this and attended a church that allowed for both.

    Oops Dee. I deeply apologize for the misunderstanding. It’s what I get when I read too fast. Yes, looking back you are right. It was made the issue to cloud over the real issue.

    As for infant Baptism. I do not believe that to be a secondary issue. I know that does not set well with most here, but I am being honest. It would be a theological division where I could not cooperate in a church setting. I believe it to be a first rung doctrine as Baptism is so important as taught in scripture, which is the Baptism of one who has already come to Christ, although that would be another discussion.

    For me secondary issues would include most things, but examples would be women in ministry(I think they should be there, but don’t divide over it), Calvinism, non-Calvinism, Rebaptism( I don’t believe in it except in the case of infant Baptism), mission techniques, the sacraments, and a whole list of others. My division in theological list is really quite small but I do have one that is bigger than just dividing over salvic issues.

    I think doctrine is very important. One must know what he/she believes to a huge extent although as I said, there are so many things that one must wrestle through and takes years to come to a definite conclusion. But I do subscribe to what I believe determines how I live. I do not try to persuade anyone to agree with me, but I do believe in teaching and discussing what I believe.

    I don’t think Calvinists are arrogant, but they do know what they believe and why using scripture. I think they are misunderstood in that they are not emotional. That may or may not be a good thing. They do love the Lord God with all their heart, soul and mind. That is emotion, but they tend to come across as arrogant, but it’s more comfortable and sure of what they believe. That is not a bad thing.

  198. I disagree with RC about Arminians being Christian. I was raised in such a household and my dad loves Christ with a fervent passion although we disagree theologically, I could not deny his salvation.

  199. @ Anon 1:
    I have far more questions about this stuff than answers. I am always surprised by the absolute certainty of theologians of all stripes.

  200. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    The Caner situation was brought about because of the lies Caner told. Yes he is pretty militant which I am totally against, but to say it was a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist ordeal is simply untrue. It was Calvinists that brought it to light-so what?It was true and it needed to be dealt with.

    The problem with this is that Calvinists are NOT talking about the Mahaney SGM scandal NOW. In fact, they are actively promoting Mahaney as if nothing has happened. That is also about lies and even blackmail but more importantly about child molestation being covered over. Very serious so why are they now mum? Nor did they talk about all the problems with Driscoll including ignoring the Joyful Exiles site of the fired elder. Nor the sodomy teaching. They swept it under the rug.

    Where I first heard of the Caner lies was from James White. I did not know much about Caner so I did a bit of background– listening to him teach, preach, etc. And surprise! He was very anti Calvinist. Extremely so. And they did a good job of using Caner’s own lies to get rid of him and rightly so. But now they are silent on SGM. Not only silent but making points to speak at his church (Piper/Bridges) and invite him to conferences to speak. They are affirming him.

    So where are the Calvinist blogs speaking out about Mahaney? Why is that situation not serious enough for you to take on, too, now with a blog? Why was Caner worse to you?

  201. Dee, based on what I’ve heard Sr say in the past, I’m not so sure he really believes Arminians are “barely” Christians. HIS quote (not Jr’s) is confusing enough to lead me to be cautious in assigning that interpretation. Perhaps I am overly optimistic.

    But he does characterize it as an “intramural debate” between Christians, meaning he believes Arminians are, in fact, Christian. I think what he may be more meaning by “barely saved” means not “barely Christian”, but that they have (what he views as) a dangerously deficient understanding of how atonement works. And I think he believes that an Arminian is in danger of being overcome by his need for works to prove himself- I say that because of how I’ve heard him talk about Luther and his depression before he came to a graced-base view of atonement. I’ve heard Sr talk many times about how the non-reformed are always risking this danger of becoming depressed by the burden of having to earn their salvation- so that’s what I think he means by Arminian’s not being “safe”. I also have noted that Sr has tended to mock the term “saved” before, so when he says Arminians are “barely saved”, I again hesitate to think he’s pouring as much damnation into that statement as it sounds like.

    Now Jr is certainly taking his father’s teaching to mean that Arminians are “barely Christian”- so maybe I give Sr too much credit. It just doesn’t fit the pattern I’ve understood of his overall engagement over these matters in the past. Over and over again I’ve heard Sr fiercely defend his position while being fair minded to those who oppose him. This is one quality that I respect in him (and seems different from most “Calvinistas”). Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I don’t think Sr is as damning of Arminians as his son makes him out to be.

  202. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    I don’t think Calvinists are arrogant, but they do know what they believe and why using scripture. I think they are misunderstood in that they are not emotional. That may or may not be a good thing. They do love the Lord God with all their heart, soul and mind. That is emotion, but they tend to come across as arrogant, but it’s more comfortable and sure of what they believe. That is not a bad thing.

    Debbie, You go to Wade’s church, I think I heard it mentioned here before so as a Baptist do you think Al Mohler saying that “if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ, New Calvinism is the only place you can go”….was not arrogant? You call that confidence?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T6lRMMvNCn8

  203. @ Debbie:

    “I believe it to be a first rung doctrine as Baptism is so important as taught in scripture, which is the Baptism of one who has already come to Christ, although that would be another discussion.”

    “First rung” meaning “salvation”? Also baptism of any kind is a sacrament so I find it interesting that sacraments are on your secondary list but baptism is not. Not trying to be obnoxious, just wanting clarification.

  204. @ Jeff:

    “Now Jr is certainly taking his father’s teaching to mean that Arminians are ‘barely Christian’ – so maybe I give Sr too much credit.”

    I think there a lot of people that Jr. considers “barely Christian”…those who don’t believe in FIC churches might be an example. : )

  205. Dee wrote:

    I think we are all in for quite a ride when we see Him face to face.

    Respectfully Dee, I have no desire for a thrill ride when I meet my maker. All I’ve ever wanted to do is enjoy some fresh caught fish over charcoal with him.

  206. Muff Potter wrote:

    Respectfully Dee, I have no desire for a thrill ride when I meet my maker. All I’ve ever wanted to do is enjoy some fresh caught fish over charcoal with him.

    Muff, You can find me in the question room. :o)

  207. Through a glass darkly wrote:

    Scripture is not in and of itself useful. If Jesus had never come, then those ancient books would be irrelevant, right?

    I wouldn’t go so far as either point.

    The main thrust of the written word was to point to Christ, true, but the Scriptures also reveal who God is, discusses humanity’s origins, and moral principles God wants humanity to live by, and tells us that the world system as we know it will end one day (I am not a full preterist).

    The Bereans were commended by Paul for searching out the written word (Old Testament) to verify his teachings and not just taking his word for things.

    2 Timothy 3:16
    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

    Rev 22: 19
    And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

  208. Muff Potter wrote:

    Respectfully Dee, I have no desire for a thrill ride when I meet my maker. All I’ve ever wanted to do is enjoy some fresh caught fish over charcoal with him.

    Muff, Glad to know where you will be. You will find me in the question room. :o)

  209. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    I don’t think Calvinists are arrogant, but they do know what they believe and why using scripture. I think they are misunderstood in that they are not emotional.

    Some are like robots and don’t have much emotion, true, but some of them are very arrogant. There is a lot of intellectual hubris and snobbery among them.

    A lot of them puff up in pride over how many college degrees they have, that they can read koine Greek, etc. The average, every day Joes Calvinists on the web act condescending when debating other “average Joe’s” online.

    Many Calvinists I’ve come across are very dismissive towards Christians who they perceive not to be as logical, brainy, and as well-read as they. I’ve seen it time and again (back when I used to debate religious issues a lot, or lurk on such forums).

  210. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    I do believe in letting people work out their doctrine. That does take time and isn’t certainly something that happens overnight. I have always advocated people being like the Bereans of scripture. Get the Bible out and check any message or teaching next to scripture. Scripture is the final authority on anything.

    I’m not sure you recognize the arrogance in this statement. Maybe I am misreading you, but it sounds like you are saying that if someone spends a lot of time and effort studying, they will come to the same conclusions as Calvinists. It was my years of study and prayer that led me to the place of taking the Bible of the ‘divine’ pedastal I had been ttaught it belonged on.

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    As for infant Baptism. I do not believe that to be a secondary issue. I know that does not set well with most here, but I am being honest. It would be a theological division where I could not cooperate in a church setting. I believe it to be a first rung doctrine as Baptism is so important as taught in scripture, which is the Baptism of one who has already come to Christ, although that would be another discussion.

    I used to believe this, too…ubtil I got into a discussion with a very dear friend of mine who was raised Lutheran. What I came to realize is that infant baptism is very similar to baby dedication…which is a good thing. I understand there are those who believe that it ‘saves’ the infant…but I do not think it is an issue to fight over. Here is a main reason why. I no longer belive that Bible teaches that baptism is even necessay for salvation. If it is, Jesus lied to the thief on the cross…..and anyone who come to belive on their deathbed would be SOL. And thatis not the God I know.

  211. @ Daisy:
    I stand by what I wrote, and I think we are probably in agreement in principle if not in wording. The Scriptures are useful for all the reasons you mention, because Jesus came and fulfilled the written prophecies. Had he not come, the books of the OT would be interesting in the same way as any ancient writings, and the NT would not be in existence. I came across as having a disrespectful attitude towards the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I do not raise it above the Trinity.

  212. @ Lori:

    Thank you for linking the Shane Willard youtube! I’ve listened to half of it and it sooooo resonates with me and what God has been showing me lately. It is beautiful and freeing.

  213. Jeff S

    You said he may believe this. 

    “I’ve heard Sr talk many times about how the non-reformed are always risking this danger of becoming depressed by the burden of having to earn their salvation- so that’s what I think he means by Arminian’s not being “safe”.

    I am deeply saddened if that is the case. I am not reformed and have never once felt the burden of having to earn my salvation since that salvation was given to me by Christ. How could such a smart man believe such a thing?

  214. @ Jeannette Altes: I’ve never seen any baptismal service – for an infant – that was half so elaborate as the numerous baby dedications I couldn’t help attending (since they were part of the regular Sunday services at That Church).

    People who dismiss some rituals tend to go on to create their own, as with this.

  215. Anon 1 wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    Respectfully Dee, I have no desire for a thrill ride when I meet my maker. All I’ve ever wanted to do is enjoy some fresh caught fish over charcoal with him.

    Muff, Glad to know where you will be. You will find me in the question room. )

    We can all sit at his feet, listening to what he says — “choosing the better part.”

    And no pressure about helping out in the kitchen!

  216. Dee, I adore Cash’s work too, and I thought Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of him in the film Walk the Line was awesome.

  217. @ dee:

    How could such a smart man attribute that concept to Arminians, or is it attributed to anyone not reformed?

    Are all non-reformed people considered Arminians by the Reformed?

  218. @ Jeanette:

    “I used to believe this, too…until I got into a discussion with a very dear friend of mine who was raised Lutheran. What I came to realize is that infant baptism is very similar to baby dedication…which is a good thing.”

    Exactly! Dedication is almost a Lutheran infant baptism sans water. I once explained this to my Baptist friend (in a casino, of all places…). A huge part of a Lutheran infant baptism is the parents promising to teach their child the Christian faith and the congregation promising to help them do so.

  219. dee wrote:

    Jeff S
    You said he may believe this. 
    “I’ve heard Sr talk many times about how the non-reformed are always risking this danger of becoming depressed by the burden of having to earn their salvation- so that’s what I think he means by Arminian’s not being “safe”.
    I am deeply saddened if that is the case. I am not reformed and have never once felt the burden of having to earn my salvation since that salvation was given to me by Christ. How could such a smart man believe such a thing?

    Well, Sproul sees the Reformed view as the only true “no works for salvation view”. I know you’d dispute that, but that’s what he thinks, true or not. So given that it’s pretty easy to see why he’d think everyone else is in danger of falling into a “have I done enough?” depression.

    Anyway, I dont really want to speak for Sproul so I probably should stop. My main point was, I don’t think he sees non-reformed folks as non-Christian (or close to it), but as living less than the full Christian life.

  220. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    I don’t think Calvinists are arrogant, but they do know what they believe and why using scripture. I think they are misunderstood in that they are not emotional. That may or may not be a good thing. They do love the Lord God with all their heart, soul and mind. That is emotion, but they tend to come across as arrogant, but it’s more comfortable and sure of what they believe. That is not a bad thing.
    Debbie, You go to Wade’s church, I think I heard it mentioned here before so as a Baptist do you think Al Mohler saying that “if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ, New Calvinism is the only place you can go”….was not arrogant? You call that confidence?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T6lRMMvNCn8

    I agree with you. That is arrogance. 🙂

  221. dee wrote:

    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    So, you would not fellowship in a church setting with RC Sproul and Ligon Duncan?

    I could very easily, until the Baptism and other issues I would have surface. Then no I couldn’t.

  222. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    The Caner situation was brought about because of the lies Caner told. Yes he is pretty militant which I am totally against, but to say it was a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist ordeal is simply untrue. It was Calvinists that brought it to light-so what?It was true and it needed to be dealt with.
    The problem with this is that Calvinists are NOT talking about the Mahaney SGM scandal NOW. In fact, they are actively promoting Mahaney as if nothing has happened. That is also about lies and even blackmail but more importantly about child molestation being covered over. Very serious so why are they now mum? Nor did they talk about all the problems with Driscoll including ignoring the Joyful Exiles site of the fired elder. Nor the sodomy teaching. They swept it under the rug.
    Where I first heard of the Caner lies was from James White. I did not know much about Caner so I did a bit of background– listening to him teach, preach, etc. And surprise! He was very anti Calvinist. Extremely so. And they did a good job of using Caner’s own lies to get rid of him and rightly so. But now they are silent on SGM. Not only silent but making points to speak at his church (Piper/Bridges) and invite him to conferences to speak. They are affirming him.
    So where are the Calvinist blogs speaking out about Mahaney? Why is that situation not serious enough for you to take on, too, now with a blog? Why was Caner worse to you?

    I talk about it every chance I can without getting deleted. No one was talking about Ergun’s lies either until I wrote my first post. And it began small, slowly spreading. They are aware. The SBC leaders never said one word about Ergun(and I would include Emir as well, although he was not quite as flamboyant.) But they knew and things were done. The SBC reformed and the Reformed community in general know. They read, they get the grape vine. It’s slow in coming and some dont’ want to believe what they are finding out. Keep doing what you all are doing. It took 6 months for me to see any result then it took off like wildfire. It should not be that way in the Christian community, but what has been said about celebrity idols is true. It has been true for 50 plus years and longer. It needs to end.

  223. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    The Caner situation was brought about because of the lies Caner told. Yes he is pretty militant which I am totally against, but to say it was a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist ordeal is simply untrue. It was Calvinists that brought it to light-so what?It was true and it needed to be dealt with.
    The problem with this is that Calvinists are NOT talking about the Mahaney SGM scandal NOW. In fact, they are actively promoting Mahaney as if nothing has happened. That is also about lies and even blackmail but more importantly about child molestation being covered over. Very serious so why are they now mum? Nor did they talk about all the problems with Driscoll including ignoring the Joyful Exiles site of the fired elder. Nor the sodomy teaching. They swept it under the rug.
    Where I first heard of the Caner lies was from James White. I did not know much about Caner so I did a bit of background– listening to him teach, preach, etc. And surprise! He was very anti Calvinist. Extremely so. And they did a good job of using Caner’s own lies to get rid of him and rightly so. But now they are silent on SGM. Not only silent but making points to speak at his church (Piper/Bridges) and invite him to conferences to speak. They are affirming him.
    So where are the Calvinist blogs speaking out about Mahaney? Why is that situation not serious enough for you to take on, too, now with a blog? Why was Caner worse to you?

    James White was interesting. He kind of spoke about Ergun in the beginning, he’s how I traced the videos to Mohammed in London. Turitanfan began asking questions(skeptical questions which were good cause I had the answers) and then James took off with it. He was a huge help with his radio program. I wish he would do the same with SGM, but I don’t see that happening. I do have many problems with the silence, but I also am used to it. It happened for a long time with the Caner story. But it didn’t last for ever. Too much documented videos and sermons to be able to deny it. As I said, keep doing what you are doing. It’s working even though you may not realize it and it is slow. God hates this type of thing in his church. I don’t see it contiuing on. SGM is not the only abusive church. As you have found it, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist are full of them. It almost threw me into a tail spin when I discovered all the corruption and abuse 6 years ago and again 3 years ago.

  224. “They read, they get the grape vine. It’s slow in coming and some dont’ want to believe what they are finding out. Keep doing what you all are doing. It took 6 months for me to see any result then it took off like wildfire”

    Debbie, there is nothing similar about it. They have gone out of their way to PROTECT him. They are aware of all of it. Wikileaks. There is a public lawsuit. A 5 year suvivors blog. Child molestation being covered up. Blackmail covered up.

    And they are not only protecting him but opening arms wide from Dever to Mohler. Did you know some of Mahaney’s family have JOBS at SBTS? Kauflin is writing about providing interns to SBTS? I mean this is about as deep as it can get. The SBC has guilt on it’s hands. He is still being actively promoted by the T4G crowd. And Piper.

    There is NO excuse for this. they could say, step away from all this until the lawsuit is over but instead they are actively promoting him. They are stubbornly doing it on purpose. It is a huge red flag. It should be proof of their hard hearts and love for authoritarianism. I think you are woefully naive. Caner was not covering over molestations or forcing 3 year olds to forgive her molester. If he had, we would know about it!

    If anything this treatment of Mahaney (and Driscoll previously) by the Reformed big dogs only shows how corrupt that movement really is. That people mean very little. Their doctrine and powere is everything.

  225. Anonymous: Sorry, I forgot to answer other questions. I don’t have a blog anymore. I quit writing after the Caner ordeal. It drained me to my very core. I couldn’t write. I still don’t write. I am back to being just anonymous me again. Being known is not something I relish.

  226. Anon 1 wrote:

    “They read, they get the grape vine. It’s slow in coming and some dont’ want to believe what they are finding out. Keep doing what you all are doing. It took 6 months for me to see any result then it took off like wildfire”
    Debbie, there is nothing similar about it. They have gone out of their way to PROTECT him. They are aware of all of it. Wikileaks. There is a public lawsuit. A 5 year suvivors blog. Child molestation being covered up. Blackmail covered up.
    And they are not only protecting him but opening arms wide from Dever to Mohler. Did you know some of Mahaney’s family have JOBS at SBTS? Kauflin is writing about providing interns to SBTS? I mean this is about as deep as it can get. The SBC has guilt on it’s hands. He is still being actively promoted by the T4G crowd. And Piper.
    There is NO excuse for this. they could say, step away from all this until the lawsuit is over but instead they are actively promoting him. They are stubbornly doing it on purpose. It is a huge red flag. It should be proof of their hard hearts and love for authoritarianism. I think you are woefully naive. Caner was not covering over molestations or forcing 3 year olds to forgive her molester. If he had, we would know about it!
    If anything this treatment of Mahaney (and Driscoll previously) by the Reformed big dogs only shows how corrupt that movement really is. That people mean very little. Their doctrine and powere is everything.

    Anonymous: Caner was protected too. Things disappeared from the internet. He wrote a “apolgy” that was not even close to an apology while he was still President of Liberty and that “disappeared.” I was threatened with beatings and other threats. It was bad. Yet, we persevered. It is the same. He spoke, all the things that are happening with Mahaney happened with Caner. Caner is still speaking. He’s still preaching. Just not in the same high profile as before. But he’s still out there doing his thing. He’s now President of a lesser Fundamentalist college. But……people know and have access to the truth. Patience is key. I know….but it is key. Perseverance is key.

  227. @ Debbie Kaufman:
    And again, nothing may be done. Nothing may change. That is the reality. God has a lot of heart changing to do in the SBC. But anonymous, this story is just as important, more important than the Caner story. People have been abused terribly and hurt. That makes it more important. I’m just not the one to write a blog about it. Trust me on this.

  228. “God has a lot of heart changing to do in the SBC.”

    And there is the difference between us. I happen to believe Mohler is responsible for what he says and does. God is not forcing him.

  229. Through a glass darkly wrote:

    Had he not come, the books of the OT would be interesting in the same way as any ancient writings

    I’m not sure I can agree with that completely.

    Even though Jesus was not widely recognized as the Messiah while on earth, he still treated the OT as though it was important, e.g., quoting it to Satan and at other times to the Pharisees to bolster his points. God still revealed himself in the OT.

    Prior to Jesus, and other than the living appointed prophets, all the Jews had was the OT, especially when their was a what 400 year gap between the last OT book and the birth of Christ?

  230. Anon 1 wrote:

    “God has a lot of heart changing to do in the SBC.”
    And there is the difference between us. I happen to believe Mohler is responsible for what he says and does. God is not forcing him.

    And this is where there is always a problem. Neither do I. I believe Mohler is responsible for his statements. That is not what my statement meant. It seems I am not communicating clearly or you are filtering my statements through what you think the Reformed believe. But only God can change a heart. He does it using us. We have the privileged of being used. It’s the great thing about being a child of God. We can be used by Him. That’s pretty amazing to me, because God certainly doesn’t need to use us. But he does. For a number of reasons.

  231. Anon 1 wrote:

    The media is now writing about it. It is way past the bloggers outing anything.

    Yes. And that is good. The more people that know the better. It will have an affect. But the media would not have told this story if not for all of you putting yourselves out there. That is the hard part, but you all did it. Pretty amazing.

  232. Daisy wrote:

    Even though Jesus was not widely recognized as the Messiah while on earth, he still treated the OT as though it was important, e.g., quoting it to Satan and at other times to the Pharisees to bolster his points. God still revealed himself in the OT.

    Speaking only for myself, what I am hearing Through A Glass Darkly say (and I agree with what I think is being said) is that if Jesus never came, the OT would be meaningless. Yes, Jesus quoted it to illistrate that it pointed to him. But he had come, so it was relevant. But if he never came, it would be just another ancient religious manuscript with prophecies that did not come to pass. Jesus coming is what made the OT different from all the other ancient texts. Without Jesus, the OT has no meaning.

  233. @ Dee:

    “There are secondary issues that some raise to primary issues. I would not divide over this and attended a church that allowed for both.”

    I don’t know of any paedobaptist church that does not also practice believer’s baptism. To not do that would require denying baptism to a sincere adult and that would just be crazy. We don’t deny believer’s baptism, we just think it’s not the only acceptable form.

  234. Jeff S wrote:

    I don’t think he sees non-reformed folks as non-Christian (or close to it), but as living less than the full Christian life.

    This sort of thing makes me so sad. You see, the other side could say the same thing about Calvinists who don’t know for sure if they are one of the elect. Sometimes, pity is a way to condescend to another. It puts the pitier in a superior position. “Poor dears, how sad it must be to live in such a way. I am glad I am not like them.”

    What does a “full” Christian life consist of? I would be happy to open my life up for scrutiny and see how mine differs from the average “full life” Sproul person. Could you define what those differences might be?

    No wonder the faith is in the state that it is. It is this sort of thing that causes me to write. I am secure in my salvation but many others are deeply hurt when snotty, self-proclaimed, egotistical leaders say such things. This is why I write.

    And as for the “less than full Christian life”, Ligonier ministries has had some questions raised about their business practices.

  235. @ Hester:
    I have no problem with either so I guess in that way, I fit with the church you attend. However, I have a friend who was baptized as an infant by non-believing parents and became a Christian in her 30s. She tired to get baptized in her Presbyterian church and they refused, saying she had already been baptized.

    They told her the Baptist church down the street would be happy to baptize her and then she could continue at the Presbyterian church. However, they had a rule in that church that twice baptized people could not serve in leadership.

    I imagine this varies from church to church.

  236. @ Muff Potter:
    I loved that movie. Some days, when I am in a bit of a funk, I play some of his stuff and it uplifts me. His voice was unique, his life had its ups and downs and he wore it all with dignity. His wife, June, was a rock!

  237. @ Bridget:
    So many people are binary in this world. Many are also terribly insecure and they beat the people over the head with their individual viewpoint. If you do not agree with the full package, you are considered “inferior,” “unregenerate,” “pitiable,””suspicious” etc.

    I have listened to all of these folks, I have read their books, and I have even tried to believe according to their precise formulas.I just can’t get there. I am saved, without a doubt.

    But, neither side fully answers my questions. When someone says this, it is threatening because the system has been set up like a Chinese takeout. You choose column “A” or “B”. But, really great Chinese takeouts have another menu that is given to people who want more authentic recipes that actually combine stuff from both columns. I think that I am in the Column C of faith.

    I would be happy to put up my reading and listening to the average Calvinist or non-Calvinist. i have tried to fit into one category. But, I still have so many questions and neither side fully answers them.

  238. @ Jeannette Altes:
    I agree with you. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. I believe that only the Church of Christ teaches the salvific value of baptism or am I wrong? It is an act of obedience which is an outward expression of the inner change.

  239. @ Bridget:
    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    However, when yo began your blog, it took about 6 months. SGM Survivors has been writing for years. The claims are far worse than pretending to be a jihadist. Far worse. Yet, there is silence. There is no question in my mind that it is because they are part of the good old boy Neo Calvinist network and they protect their own.

  240. @ dee:
    Dee: I will be very honest I tire real quick like of the endless debating between those that claim to be Calvinist and those that do not. IMO neither side moves the other side to their position.

  241. @ Debbie Kaufman:
    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    Would you say that, if Al Mohler is not speaking, that God is not using him? Or is God using him but Mohler is blocking it? Does man have the ability to block God’s work in his heart? if so, then does this mean God is ineffectual or does it mean that man still has free will?

  242. @ mot:
    You speak truth. This is why i pound home the point that smarter people than me, on both sides of the issue, have read, studied and debated and still stand firm in their views.
    If God wanted this to be clear, He would have made it so just like He made the Cross and Resurrection saliently clear.

    That is why I also believe that it is probably not either side in total. There is far more going on here that we, in our limited world, can begin to comprehend. Things are complex. The moment I contemplate the universe, I begin to understand how small and limited I am. I believe in the Lord and trust Him to sort this out just as He has created all around me.

    I am firmly in the camp of “something else” when ti comes to predetermination and salvation.

  243. lilyrosemary wrote:

    @ Tina:
    I am familiar with the Crossroads movement, but not firsthand. My understanding is that they are different from the mainstream CoC in that they emphasize a lot of the shepherding (some say, cultish) practices. Do they still do that? Was your experience primarily good or bad?
    My family is still mostly CoC. Although I think a lot of the CoC reasons for keeping apart from other Christians are divisive and legalistic, I do appreciate that they seem to be immune to a lot of this megapastor cult of personality stuff going on today. I was always taught “the preacher is just a man.”
    What is a progressive Atlanta Church of Christ like?

    Progressives are more open to non CofCer’s being Christians. They also are more open to using praise teams and/or instrumental music in worship. I just happen to attend one in Atlanta.

  244. lilyrosemary wrote:

    @ Tina:
    I am familiar with the Crossroads movement, but not firsthand. My understanding is that they are different from the mainstream CoC in that they emphasize a lot of the shepherding (some say, cultish) practices. Do they still do that? Was your experience primarily good or bad?

    I wrote a post about my experiences in the old Crossroads Movement here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/

    I am “Faith”. Dee and Deb were kind enough to give me a pseudonym.

    There has been much turmoil in the last ten years, especially. But from what I hear, they still practice a lot of the “shepherding” stuff, although it doesn’t seem to be as rigid as in times past.

    Kip McKean resigned his position as “world evangelist” and has since started his own movement, the International Christian Churches. He has not learned his lesson.

  245. mot wrote:

    Dee: I will be very honest I tire real quick like of the endless debating between those that claim to be Calvinist and those that do not. IMO neither side moves the other side to their position.

    I feel the same way but cannot tell you how many people who have listened to one or read one have come away with a much better understanding of the problems with Calvinism and the determinist god paradigm. This is because Calvinism is circular and depends totally on you accepting it as contradictory and illogical because the leader and Calvin decide what is truth. It depends on you accepting different definitions for familiar words. Everything you thought you understood is now redefined including the word Love. If you can accept that as of God…. then no problem. Most folks cannot because it always ends up at the dead end of making God into a moral monster if they think it through which Calvinists do not want you to do. That is why they always end up making you into a heretic or telling you that you cannot understand it and are misrepresenting them. I have yet to see a convo with a Calvinist that did not end up there. Just read scripture they say. But they do not even read John 3:16 the same way we do! So see what I mean? That is a waste of time.

    Calvinism does well when it is not challenged. When it has power and authority to not be questioned closely it does well. It is finally getting a very good public debate for the first time outside of the academy. Thanks to social media.

    In the end, God gave us brains and the power to think and reason. The Calvinists want you to think that God favored them with special understanding you cannot have unless you agree with them.

    So, yes get tired of it but I am afraid it works better than each side throwing proof texts at each other. That does not work because of the Augustinian filter and the fact we do not even agree on how John 3:16 is read. The best thing we can do is keep our young away from the determinist god paradigm because their brains are not fully developed. If they want to be Calvinists as adults, then fine. But I am very worried about where this movement is going in terms of fall out and it’s lack of real true love for people. It is based upon the cult tactic of “Doctrine over people”. And our young have fallen for it.

  246. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    And this is where there is always a problem. Neither do I. I believe Mohler is responsible for his statements. That is not what my statement meant. It seems I am not communicating clearly or you are filtering my statements through what you think the Reformed believe. But only God can change a heart. He does it using us. We have the privileged of being used. It’s the great thing about being a child of God. We can be used by Him. That’s pretty amazing to me, because God certainly doesn’t need to use us. But he does. For a number of reasons

    No, this is where many in Reformed talk out of both sides of the mouth when asked pointed questions. Either Mohler is responsible for his actions/words or we must wait for God to change his heart so his actions line up with right/wrong.

    So basically, in your explanation, we must conclude that Mohler does not really know right from wrong (which would mean he is not qualified for his position) and we must wait for God to force that his heart. How long do we wait? Is Mohler special enough we wait a long time and send a strange message to young men at SBTS?

    Can you see the implications of such thinking?

    What moral chaos Calvinism brings us.

  247. @ Anon 1:
    Can we as Christians both Calvinists and non-Calvinists work together or must we part company? Does it become like the 2000 BF&M that if you do not sign off on every point you will not be allowed a leadership position in the SBC?

    The implications are very serious!!

  248. @ Anon 1:
    Anon1
    I believe that one Reformed person explained it to me like this. I am not saying this is the Reformed view, merely how one person responded to my question.

    He said that election is the predetermined part of the faith. Once regenerated, the person has free will to follow or not follow the dictates of the Spirit.

  249. @ mot:
    I believe that we all make secondary issues a hill to die on. I see it in the YEC camp, the eschatology camp, the worldwide flood camp, the baptism camp, etc. We are the ones separating from one another.

    This is contrary to my experience in Boston. Back then, evangelicals were far and few between. We were just glad to find someone else was Christian. You have no idea how lonely the faith can be up there. I am sure things have changed.

    I always fellowshipped with people with a wide range of personal beliefs on such matters but they were just interesting side notes. In all those years, I never heard one argument about “musts” in terms of the secondary issues. It was fun to learn and then we would move on to reaching out others and supporting one another in the faith. It is amazing how, when we focus on the essentials, unity can be achieved.

    Off to buy a dishwasher and refrigerator. Both of those things are going down the tubes at my house.

  250. dee wrote:

    I believe that one Reformed person explained it to me like this. I am not saying this is the Reformed view, merely how one person responded to my question.
    He said that election is the predetermined part of the faith. Once regenerated, the person has free will to follow or not follow the dictates of the Spirit.

    Here is how it was explained to me by a Reformed YRR pastor: you are born already guilty of Adam’s sin. BEFORE you are chosen for regeneration you are only acting your natural evil self. When you are regenerated and the jutification starts (because you are saved every day over and over again), Jesus has imputed HIS righteousness to you from the Cross. You are still depraved but now are seen as righteous. You cannot ‘do’ anything (even with help of the Holy Spirit) to become more Holy as in sactification. that has been done FOR you.

    This seems to be the popular version around my parts with several tweaks here and there.

    It makes no sense and allows for lots of moral chaos since man has no volition. But it explains why CJ Mahaney is no big deal Mohler, Piper,Dever, etc and how a 3 year old is just as big of a sinner as the young man molester.

    Their leadership and position because they have truth is more important than little children. Moral chaos.

  251. mot wrote:

    Can we as Christians both Calvinists and non-Calvinists work together or must we part company? Does it become like the 2000 BF&M that if you do not sign off on every point you will not be allowed a leadership position in the SBC?
    The implications are very serious!!

    What do you think when we consider how different our views of God are? Are you willing to fund the “Good News” of a Savior who predestines billions to damnation to Glorify Himself? A Savior who weeps over Jerusalem knowing most are already predesinted for hell? Or a Savior who looks at the rich young ruler, LOVES HIM, then does not give him the ability to repent and believe predestining him to hell?

    I am not willing to support making converts to Calvin. And I think it is wrong for me to think a Calvinist should support missionaries who is not teaching Calvinism. That is their right, too.

    I think a split needs to come. Problem is, Mohler will get the goodies in the Divorce as he already has his people in most of the entities. So, the non Cals forMohler and Calvinists to have the ability take over. Ironic, huh?

  252. Hester wrote:

    @ Debbie:
    Did you see my request for clarification above? Do you think infant baptism is a salvation issue?

    No, I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. No baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is only faith through Jesus Christ that brings salvation. Baptism is a public testimony that we have faith in Jesus Christ. Hester wrote:

    @ Debbie:
    Did you see my request for clarification above? Do you think infant baptism is a salvation issue?

  253. dee wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    However, when yo began your blog, it took about 6 months. SGM Survivors has been writing for years. The claims are far worse than pretending to be a jihadist. Far worse. Yet, there is silence. There is no question in my mind that it is because they are part of the good old boy Neo Calvinist network and they protect their own.

    The claims of being jihadist were being made by someone who had no idea what a jihadist did. Spoke gibberish claiming it to be the language of the Muslims, spoke to our troops who were getting ready to fight in the Middle East, giving them bogus information. That was the scariest part. But most importantly it was treating the Muslims in this country badly. He was a racist. That was a big deal. Muslims in the Southern Baptist world(which is large) were being treated with fear and disdain over lies told by the Caner brothers. In the years that Caner was most active, that was dangerous considering the mindset of 9/11. It was an elaborate and well staged charade that also affected thousands of people’s mind set toward a people who in this country are predominately a peaceful people. They needed Christ, not the hatred shown them, which was very, very bad. Caner also spoke about women and blacks with the same lies and disdain. So I don’t know that it is worse, but the SGM is very, very important due to people who had something inside of them die because of abuse. It’s not the theology that caused this however, it is the view that ministers are an office that is wrong. An office of control. It is not.

    There is silence,but Peter Lumpkins is writing on it pretty extensively. Peter and I are not in agreement on most things, but he is a strong voice and in this instance, a strong ally. A few others have mentioned it. I noticed that letters were sent to a long list of important leaders.Yet there is silence.

    But…the silence is not from ignorance of the situation. I believe things will change, even though there is silence. I think changes are already being made that we don’t even know about. Silence does not mean nothing is being done. It just seems that way from the outside. I say this from experience in the Caner ordeal. That is why I say, keep doing what you are doing. The internet spreads things like wildfire. There is a lot of information on the SGM, if there are no changes made, the leaders are going to be in sin, and that is not going to go unnoticed. It will affect their ministry as people turn away. That will get their attention eventually.

  254. Anon 1 wrote:

    mot wrote:
    Can we as Christians both Calvinists and non-Calvinists work together or must we part company? Does it become like the 2000 BF&M that if you do not sign off on every point you will not be allowed a leadership position in the SBC?
    The implications are very serious!!
    What do you think when we consider how different our views of God are? Are you willing to fund the “Good News” of a Savior who predestines billions to damnation to Glorify Himself? A Savior who weeps over Jerusalem knowing most are already predesinted for hell? Or a Savior who looks at the rich young ruler, LOVES HIM, then does not give him the ability to repent and believe predestining him to hell?
    I am not willing to support making converts to Calvin. And I think it is wrong for me to think a Calvinist should support missionaries who is not teaching Calvinism. That is their right, too.
    I think a split needs to come. Problem is, Mohler will get the goodies in the Divorce as he already has his people in most of the entities. So, the non Cals forMohler and Calvinists to have the ability take over. Ironic, huh?

    Most fully reformed believe the Law is something one follows but we are also justified through faith. I believe we are justified through faith, period, and born again Christians are also being sanctified(He who began a good work in you is faithful to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ..Phil. 1:6). We still sin, but the difference before receiving Christ and after is that we are now sorrowful for our sin, we have sinned against the One we love which is Christ. We long to be Holy, but when God looks at us He now sees Christ. (“For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ” Galatians 3:26-27 and “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” 2 Corinthians 5:17).

    So we are being made Holy through the power of the Holy Spirit, but we are also far from perfect and must confess our sins(1 John 1:9). So both are true according to the Bible.

  255. Anon 1 wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    And this is where there is always a problem. Neither do I. I believe Mohler is responsible for his statements. That is not what my statement meant. It seems I am not communicating clearly or you are filtering my statements through what you think the Reformed believe. But only God can change a heart. He does it using us. We have the privileged of being used. It’s the great thing about being a child of God. We can be used by Him. That’s pretty amazing to me, because God certainly doesn’t need to use us. But he does. For a number of reasons
    No, this is where many in Reformed talk out of both sides of the mouth when asked pointed questions. Either Mohler is responsible for his actions/words or we must wait for God to change his heart so his actions line up with right/wrong.
    So basically, in your explanation, we must conclude that Mohler does not really know right from wrong (which would mean he is not qualified for his position) and we must wait for God to force that his heart. How long do we wait? Is Mohler special enough we wait a long time and send a strange message to young men at SBTS?
    Can you see the implications of such thinking?
    What moral chaos Calvinism brings us.

    Mohler is responsible. Period. But…he believes he is right. That is in need of a heart change that neither I nor you can facilitate. I do believe God is in control of everything, even this. I do believe in prayer from Christians, and that God can change things I nor you can’t change. I also believe in God’s leading and timing. The Bible is full of such teachings. Calvinism is not the enemy, certain leaders who happen to be Calvinist are.

  256. dee wrote:

    I agree with you. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. I believe that only the Church of Christ teaches the salvific value of baptism or am I wrong?

    I think that must be true because that’s how (many in the) CoC define themselves as being the one true church — by interpreting Acts 2:38 correctly. I was taught at my CoC college that salvation hinged on the word “for” in that verse; you had to be baptized FOR the remission of sins, meaning “so that” your sins would be forgiven. So, according to that view, if you are baptized “because” your sins are forgiven, you’re not saved. Even believer’s baptism by immersion was not enough. You must be thinking the right thought in your head as it’s happening.

    The Bible can be used to come up with all sorts of rules, but as someone said earlier, you can always find yourself on the wrong end of someone else’s rules. What is very clear and obvious and unambiguous to one person will not be so clear to someone who comes out of a different religious tradition or who has a different cultural background or who has sincere questions and doubts.

    Making secondary (and tertiary, and completely nonessential) issues primary is par for the course in many churches — I’ve seen it all in the CoC and I recognize the same tendencies in the evangelical world with YEC, comp vs. egal, Reformed vs. non-Reformed, etc. I understand sincerely struggling with these issues, but we must be careful about making them the very core of our faith. Before we know it, we can find ourselves straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

  257. dee wrote:

    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    @ Debbie Kaufman:
    Would you say that, if Al Mohler is not speaking, that God is not using him? Or is God using him but Mohler is blocking it? Does man have the ability to block God’s work in his heart? if so, then does this mean God is ineffectual or does it mean that man still has free will?

    To the first part of your question, I do not know the answer.I don’t know if God is using Al Mohler or not. I do know that Al Mohler is responsible for the words out of his mouth and his actions. If anything, it shows the wrong being done by some Calvinists in the SBC, just as we saw and see wrong being done by Fundamentalists. It’s out there for the world to see. I don’t see this as a bad thing. I also see you highlighting it. That’s also a good thing. We need to see where the problems are as they have been hidden behind closed doors for too long. This is all being brought out to see the light of day. The more that is said, the more comes to light. That is God working. Purging.

    If God does a work, it can’t be stopped. From a human standpoint, it may look as though it is, but that can be done for just awhile. It can’t be forever. I just don’t do what only God can do. He uses people in his workings, which is a privilege, he certainly doesn’t have to. But God is God.

  258. @ Dee:

    “I believe that only the Church of Christ teaches the salvific value of baptism or am I wrong?”

    Lutherans make it sound like you’re saved by your baptism but we (at least I) don’t really think that. Luther’s verbiage on the sacraments is very confusing. Short version: sacraments are useless without faith. If you were baptized as an infant but go on to reject Christ, you just got your head wet and it won’t do you any good whatsoever.

  259. @ Anon 1:

    “When you are regenerated and the jutification starts (because you are saved every day over and over again)”

    Please tell me he didn’t actually say in no uncertain terms that you’re resaved every day. Please.

  260. Hester wrote:

    “When you are regenerated and the jutification starts (because you are saved every day over and over again)”
    Please tell me he didn’t actually say in no uncertain terms that you’re resaved every day. Please

    No Hester, He did not say that. I was going for the result of what he was teaching. He said “we must preach the Gospel to ourselves every day”. (basically when we are not being exhorted the Gospel from the pulpit we must preach it to ourselves constantly)

    This leads me to believe they really do not understand the “Good News”. He was basically parroting Piper and others and who think this preaching the Gospel to ourselves every day is piety. If you listen closely to them, analyze what they teach and what they LEAVE OUT, you are stuck at the cross with a sort of progressive justification being saved over and over because you really never are until Glorification. They won’t admit this but it is where their doctrine/thinking takes us.

    What average person in the pew is going to have a problem with focusing on the Gospel every day? Sounds good, does it not? The devil is in the details of what it really means and where it leads people.

    One of the things about Calvinism that really bothers me is that you are not allowed to take the teaching to its logical conclusions and that is because logic/reason are considered wrong because you are totally depraved and your heart is perpetually wicked so you cannot possibly reason anything out.

    (I cannot tell you how many YRR have asked me if I realize how wicked my heart is. There is a sort of pride in having a wicked heart that blows my mind but the truth is, if they are proclaiming to be saved AND continue to have wicked hearts, why should I listen to them?)

    Calvinism almost always leaves out the Resurrection (until you mention it and then they say it is included even though they were focusing on the cross) and what that means for a Justified believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

    If people figured it out they would not need the Calvinist guru and would not stay at the cross going deep with their sin where they cannot go on to spiritual meat and to “win the prize”, as Paul describes it. They should be going on about Kingdom business walking in the light with the help of the Spirit of Truth. Which is not the same as sinless perfection at all even though you are accused of believing that, too, if you dare say such a thing.

    It is all semantics/definitions. It is how they control people.

  261. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    God does a work, it can’t be stopped. From a human standpoint, it may look as though it is, but that can be done for just awhile. It can’t be forever. I just don’t do what only God can do. He uses people in his workings, which is a privilege, he certainly doesn’t have to. But God is God.

    So you don’t believe people had any volition in bringing SGM evil to light? They were forced by God to tell the stories?

    here is the problem, evil DOES continue and it continues IN the Name of God. SGM used God to do evil. They claimed it was good. Mohler affirms that. That makes the idea that God is controlling every molecule and man has no volition very problematic.

    But you conceeded earlier that Mohler does have volition and at the same time later you claim God is controlling every thing. But that we must wait for God to change Al Mohler’s heart. That is the cognative dissonance of Calvinistic thought.

  262. Anon 1 wrote:

    So you don’t believe people had any volition in bringing SGM evil to light?

    On the contrary, I believe God has used you all in mighty ways to bring this to light. It should be brought to light. And yes, I do believe both are true. God is in control and Al Mohler is responsible for his attitude and words. If you look on Alexis, his blog is 2 or 3rd so it is widely read. He is absolutely responsible.

    “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say to you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matthew 12:35-37)

    “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:12-13).

    “O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me” (Psa. 139:1-6).

  263. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    On the contrary, I believe God has used you all in mighty ways to bring this to light. It should be brought to light. And yes, I do believe both are true. God is in control and Al Mohler is responsible for his attitude and words. If you look on Alexis, his blog is 2 or 3rd so it is widely read. He is absolutely responsible.

    So God is using or is not using Al Mohler in this? God is using us but not Al Mohler right now? Is God using CJ Mahaney? We must wait for God to change Al Mohler’s heart?

    If his heart changes, how will we know it wasn’t all the public pressure that really “changed” his heart? Why doesn’t God change his heart right now for the sake of the victims and for the sake of Christendom? Why should all these young men be led astray by Mohler/Dever/Piper in propping up the wolf, Mahaney and SGM? We have Mohler’s own words concerning CJ he gave to a reporter.

    So Mohler IS personally responsible for his actions/words but we must wait for God to change his heart. Again, we are back to the same problem

    Quoting scripture won’t work with me because I do not use the Calvin filter for it. And besides, Mohler is a scholar on scripture, right?

  264. Track n’ Field: “Bum Steer, Or Guiding Star?”

    huh?

    …By the decree of God?

    …For the manifestation of His glory?”

    Some men and angels are pre-destined (fore-ordinated) to eternal life?

    —-> Through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His ‘glorious grace’?

    Yet, others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the ‘praise of His glorious justice’.” *

    Yet, the Neo-Calvinists really believe this.

    What?

    Q: Do all ‘SBC’ Calvinists believe this?

    Q: Do ‘all’ Calvinists believe this?

    Q: Doesn’t the bible say that ‘God desires all men ta be saved and ta come to the knowledge of the truth’? ☺

    http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-4.htm

    Q: Is “Free Will”, the stated “traditional” Southern Baptist position on the theology of salvation?(Baptist soteriology)

    Q: Are the SBC Neo-Calvinists attempting to replace the stated 2012 “Free Will” (i.e. Folks have a God given choice) SBC position (note 1) with the “Predestination”; ‘God chooses’ position; making it the predominate position within the SBC?

    Q: Why all the fuss (confusion)?

    Q: Is this ‘now’ the key theological proverbial bone of contention, di-vis-ion within the country’s largest Protestant denomination?

    Screeeeeeeeeeeech!

    —-> From ‘altar call’ ta proverbial ‘roll call’?

    Hmmm…

    This would certainly cut down on the altar call church service time, huh? 

    (sadface)

    “And the Neo-Calvinists cried out, saying, What business do we have with each other, –have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”
     -Snarkspeare 

    (grin)

    Sopy
    ___
    * –1785, the new Elkhorn Baptist Association of Kentucky adoption of the Philadelphia Confession.

    (note 1) The 2012 SBC statement defended man’s ‘free will’ in accepting Christ’s offer of salvation:

    “We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved. We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.” (Note A)

    http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/06/is-salvation-available-to-every-sinner-who-hears-the-gospel/

    —-> What about these wordz (scriptures below) , Kind Folks?  Just dang blast’d proverbial window dressin?  hmmm…

    *Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? ☺

    * Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! ☺

    * Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ ☺

    * John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ☺

    * Romans 11:14 …in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. ☺

    * 1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. ☺

    * Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ☺

    * 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. ☺

    *NIV

    * (Note A) Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

  265. Anon 1 wrote:

    So Mohler IS personally responsible for his actions/words but we must wait for God to change his heart. Again, we are back to the same problem

    Yes. That is what I am saying. What problem? I will continue to quote scripture because it’s what I base my answers and thoughts on. It isn’t meant to “work on you.” It is meant to see where I am coming from. The passages are not seen through a Calvinist filter, actually I think they are pretty clear.

  266. Sopwith wrote:

    Track n’ Field: “Bum Steer, Or Guiding Star?”
    huh?
    …By the decree of God?
    …For the manifestation of His glory?”
    Some men and angels are pre-destined (fore-ordinated) to eternal life?
    —-> Through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His ‘glorious grace’?
    Yet, others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the ‘praise of His glorious justice’.” *
    Yet, the Neo-Calvinists really believe this.
    What?
    Q: Do all ‘SBC’ Calvinists believe this?
    Q: Do ‘all’ Calvinists believe this?
    Q: Doesn’t the bible say that ‘God desires all men ta be saved and ta come to the knowledge of the truth’? ☺
    http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-4.htm
    Q: Is “Free Will”, the stated “traditional” Southern Baptist position on the theology of salvation?(Baptist soteriology)
    Q: Are the SBC Neo-Calvinists attempting to replace the stated 2012 “Free Will” (i.e. Folks have a God given choice) SBC position (note 1) with the “Predestination”; ‘God chooses’ position; making it the predominate position within the SBC?
    Q: Why all the fuss (confusion)?
    Q: Is this ‘now’ the key theological proverbial bone of contention, di-vis-ion within the country’s largest Protestant denomination?
    Screeeeeeeeeeeech!
    —-> From ‘altar call’ ta proverbial ‘roll call’?
    Hmmm…
    This would certainly cut down on the altar call church service time, huh? 
    (sadface)
    “And the Neo-Calvinists cried out, saying, What business do we have with each other, –have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”
     -Snarkspeare 
    (grin)
    Sopy
    ___
    * –1785, the new Elkhorn Baptist Association of Kentucky adoption of the Philadelphia Confession.
    (note 1) The 2012 SBC statement defended man’s ‘free will’ in accepting Christ’s offer of salvation:
    “We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved. We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.” (Note A)
    http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/06/is-salvation-available-to-every-sinner-who-hears-the-gospel/
    —-> What about these wordz (scriptures below) , Kind Folks?  Just dang blast’d proverbial window dressin?  hmmm…
    *Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? ☺
    * Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! ☺
    * Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ ☺
    * John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ☺
    * Romans 11:14 …in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. ☺
    * 1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. ☺
    * Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ☺
    * 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. ☺
    *NIV
    * (Note A) Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

    I affirm and believe all of this too.

  267. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/06/is-salvation-available-to-every-sinner-who-hears-the-gospel/
    —-> What about these wordz (scriptures below) , Kind Folks?  Just dang blast’d proverbial window dressin?  hmmm…
    *Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? ☺
    * Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! ☺
    * Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ ☺
    * John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ☺
    * Romans 11:14 …in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. ☺
    * 1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. ☺
    * Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ☺
    * 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. ☺
    *NIV
    * (Note A) Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

    That should be I affirm and believe all of this too.

  268. dee wrote:

    This is contrary to my experience in Boston. Back then, evangelicals were far and few between. We were just glad to find someone else was Christian. You have no idea how lonely the faith can be up there. I am sure things have changed.

    Ironic, is it not Dee? When one considers that the doctrines of grace and reformed theology were first planted in New England. And now with the exception of the YRR resurgence it’s virtually extinct. Count me a staunch evolutionist when it comes to religion and its drivers over time. Natural selection and common ancestry to indeed come into play.

  269. @ Tina:
    Oh! Thank you for sharing your story. I’m glad you’ve now found a church that is better than what you experienced in the past.

    I became a complete skeptic after leaving the CoC. I believed that I had been misled about there being One True Interpretation of the Bible, and my worldview was shattered when that turned out to be a house of cards. It was only recently that I started to realize that my excessive skepticism wasn’t particularly healthy either. I’ve started putting my faith back together, piece by piece.

    But my experiences with the CoC has made me somewhat gun-shy. I know what I was taught about everyone else going to hell, and I know there are many who still believe this. I attend a conservative nondenominational church but it’s a big deal to some that it’s not CoC. It’s good to hear that there are at least some CoC congregations who are moving away from that.

  270. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    So Mohler IS personally responsible for his actions/words but we must wait for God to change his heart. Again, we are back to the same problem
    Yes. That is what I am saying. What problem? I will continue to quote scripture because it’s what I base my answers and thoughts on. It isn’t meant to “work on you.” It is meant to see where I am coming from. The passages are not seen through a Calvinist filter, actually I think they are pretty clear.

    Thanks Debbie, I will let it go cos we are going in circles as is usually where this ends up. What I gather from you is: When affirming/supporting evil, one is responsible and knows what they are doing and has the power of choice in the matter (volition). But we must wait for God to change their heart because they have no volition to do the converse which would be the right thing. Even if long time professing believers.

    I do find this view very convenient for those types to believe and promote but not very sane.

    Thanks for the exchange

  271. @ Debbie Kaufman:
    Here are two quotes and the links to them. This is why we have a serious problem.
    RC Sproul

    R.C. Sproul: I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.

    John Piper
    Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

    http://wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com/2009/07/fun-calvinist-quotes-on-arminian.html

  272. @ dee:
    What is unclear by that quote is what RC really thinks that means. Clearly he believes that people can believe something that isn’t true (as he sees it) and still be Christians- what isn’t clear is how he thinks this affects their ability to live out the Christian life fruitfully. Piper is a little more clear in his view- it means you can’t do anything actually important. It’s unclear if RC would be onboard with going that far, and I do seem to recall him talking positively of Wesley’s ministry, who was Arminian, right?

  273. @ Jeff S:
    It is easy to view a person in retrospect and Wesley demands respect. However, this statement is referring to people that he does not know and it is an uncharitable statement towards brothers and sisters in the faith. He is arrogant in his condescension and it is quite clear to me what he means.

    If I said the same thing about you, I would assume it would rub you the wrong way. In fact, I am now looking for similar statements by Arminians which I will publish and condemn as well. Sproul is no different that Ken Ham who makes similar allusions of those who do not believe in a 6000 year old earth.

    Piper is routinely arrogant so it is no surprise. I am deeply saddened that such views are tolerated by Christians. No wonder people outside thee faith view us with suspicion.

  274. Dee, If Piper believe what he says in that quote why are we listening to him? Why would he expect so many young men to believe what he teaches?

  275. More confusion….. If God wills and determines everything….. Would that not mean he determined Arminians? 🙂

  276. dee wrote:

    this statement is referring to people that he does not know and it is an uncharitable statement towards brothers and sisters in the faith. He is arrogant in his condescension and it is quite clear to me what he means.

    I would agree with what you have said above Dee. RC Sproul was not always reformed. He became reformed in a college class where the professor was reformed, so he does know both sides of the theology debate well, which is what puzzles me on his statement. It’s a belief in Christ that saves, not belief in Christ plus.

  277. Anon 1 wrote:

    More confusion….. If God wills and determines everything….. Would that not mean he determined Arminians?

    Yes. He did. How’s that for a solid answer. God is not dormant in anything. He is quite active in everything, even this.

  278. @ Anon 1:
    I have no idea why people listen to Piper’s nonsense. He has disqualified himself as a Christian role model by his lack of loving discourse in matters such as this.This is a man who purports to know why a tornado touched down or why a bridge collapsed. Hr has developed hubris that is embarrassing and the men who prop him up are equally to blame. Have none of them said “Pipe down?”

    As for the young men who listen to him, it has to do with the fact they are young. Give it a few years and a number of conversations with their wives who will eventually try to figure out why they can’t have muscles or read Scripture out loud from the pulpit.

  279. @ Debbie Kaufman:
    Debbie
    A young man in college who believes in free will is not at the same level of thinking as an older man. He probably was Arminian by default and never truly understood the arguments. He surely does not understand them even now or he wouldn’t say these things. Perhaps he is getting on in age and is a bit dotty. That, at least, is more charitable than thinking that he is a cruel, condescending old man.

  280. @ Dee:
    Well, this “barely” Christian….whoops, perhaps not even barely since I do not subscribe fully to either side, needs to respond to the call of the predestined trio of pugs who need to heed the call of nature and go to bed.

  281. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Yes. He did. How’s that for a solid answer. God is not dormant in anything. He is quite active in everything, even this.

    I think people feel pious saying such things but then they backtrack when we talk about child rape. All of a sudden God is not “active” in that. Just like God is not active with Mohler protecting and promoting Mahaney as we discussed above. But have to wait for God to change his heart. But then I guess we just don’t have the ability to understand how it works like you do. :o)

  282. dee wrote:

    Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated.

    Piper said this above. But Piper himself is responsible for shaping the thoughts of others about God. It is his job. His business. He is now going to do it in a Global scale as a 21st Century John Calvin.

    His own quote negates what he teaches and does for a living. The irony is delicious. But this is so typical of Calvinism. It is just that people do not take it’s teachings to it’s end result. But it works well from a stage when folks are not allowed to ask questions.

  283. I am not an Arminian but here is an interesting story written by Calvin and told by Olson:

    “Calvin himself spilled much ink discussing this very strong, high view of God’s providential sovereignty—even over evil. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin used the illustration of a merchant who foolishly wanders away from his companions on a trip through a forest. He is set upon by thieves and murdered. Calvin asks how a Christian should regard this event—an all others like it. First, he admits, most Christians will think of it as accidental—not planned but fortuitous—bad luck. Second, however, he says that for the Christian nothing is ever merely accidental. The merchant’s death was not only foreseen by God, he says, but planned and rendered certain by God. Even the reprobate, sinners, he says, are compelled by God’s power to obey his plans.

    What does this mean? Few consistent Calvinists hesitate to admit that they believe even the fall of Adam and Eve and all its consequences, all the sin, evil and agony of the world, are decreed and rendered certain by God. Otherwise, they argue, there would be powers and forces in control of God; God would not be omnipotent and sovereign.

    I call the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty “divine determinism.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/

  284. @ Anon 1:
    This is a very tricky concept.If Arminianism is a disregard for God-ordained order then Arminianism is outside the will of God and is therefore evil. Is God allowing this evil thinking to occur to lead those who love Him astray?

    That is precisely the point Piper is making. Arminianism is so bad that they should not be tolerated in any sort of responsible role in the church.. They can be the pitiable idiots, lost in their own delusions.

    Now,logically, if God ordains everything, then child rape is as determined as Arminianism. However, most Calvinists would agree that God is not the author of evil, nor causes evil. But, if Arminianism is so bad then it must be evil. Or are there different categories: kinda bad, sorta bad, really bad, evil?

  285. Hey readers

    i am looking for some quotes by well known Arminians who unfairly accuse Calvinists of being “barely” Christians and seek to limit their ability to lead in churches. I want to do a post on quotes from both sides. I have got a lot on Calvinists already but am having trouble on the Arminian side.

  286. I agree that Sproul’s statement is no Charitable, and I also agree that he should know better. I think perhaps he is forgetting there are actual people on the other end of his words. And again, he generally does display a fair amount of charity, so this is distressing to me. The same goes for his view on Catholoics, which I also think is uncharitable. I’ve always thought that when it comes to Rome he has a kind of blindspot created by his love for all things Reformed. It seems this can also be extended to Arminians (and by “blindspot”, I don’t mean to soften his error- I mean an inconsitency in the way he talks about things).

  287. Jeff, I hear the same sentiment communicated from most of the YRR I come across whether on blogs or in person. It is every day thinking from the New Calvinists in my neck of the woods.

    Do you know who I don’t hear it from? The PCAUSA folks whose headquarters are here.

  288. Some view Christian truth as a zero-sum game, as if the more wrong they believe Catholics to be, the more right that makes their Protestantism; or the more wrong they believe Arminians to be, the more right that makes their Calvinism.

    That is not a healthy way to view Christian truth. At all.

  289. @ Anon 1:
    I don’t doubt it. Thought the PC(USA) is a completely different kind of church. I know- my sister is an elder in one and I wonder how much of Reformed doctrine she’d agree with.

    My experiene with the PCA has been limited to a few churches in the Atlanta area, and it has been that they really don’t talk much about Reformed theology explicitly (though it clearly influences the preaching and I can hear how it does, which I like). I know of prominent memebers in the church who are not Reformend and no one hassles them about it. And once the leader of my small group (one of the pastors) told me about a recent convert to Christianity who moved away and found his way into an Arminian church. Apparently the preacher of the new church railed against Cavlinists pretty hard and my pastor found this humerous rather than threatening. He was just happy the guy was still going to a church.

  290. @ dee: I don’t have quotes, but… keep in mind that there’s more to this than Arminianism. (Even though it seems that all of the hyper-Calvinist/YRR crowd view everyone who’s not in their camp as Arminian.)

  291. pcapastor wrote:

    Some view Christian truth as a zero-sum game, as if the more wrong they believe Catholics to be, the more right that makes their Protestantism; or the more wrong they believe Arminians to be, the more right that makes their Calvinism.
    That is not a healthy way to view Christian truth. At all.

    This is so common! So many define their beliefs against others’ beliefs in a way that leads to excess and error. Sometimes when I notice that a particular belief system seems sort of wacky, I’ll try to trace how those beliefs grew out of fervent opposition to some other belief system. People who are always reacting to the beliefs of others can end up with far more extreme beliefs than if they just sat down and thought, “Well, based on my experience thus far and my sense of what seems reasonable, what should I believe?”

  292. @Bridget:
    God uses means. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)

    @Mr. H:
    Quotations? Sources? Scripture?

    @Dee:
    “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:14-18)

  293. theShield wrote:

    “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:14-18)

    You are proof texting and using the Augustinian filter for Romans.

  294. dee wrote:

    i am looking for some quotes by well known Arminians who unfairly accuse Calvinists of being “barely” Christians and seek to limit their ability to lead in churches. I want to do a post on quotes from both sides. I have got a lot on Calvinists already but am having trouble on the Arminian side.

    This does not fit your criteria exactly but is interesting from Greg Boyd’s Renew blog:

    http://reknew.org/2013/03/from-the-heart-where-forgiveness-crosses-a-line/

    The reason this blog post resonated with me is because I know some folks who used to be in a Muslim (With a minority of Buddhaism) country as missionaries. They were Calvinists. When their child was killed in freak accident everything changed. The determinist God who is active in everything, controlling everything became unknowable to one in the couple and this person could not find his/her way back from it. They left the mission field. I lost track of them a few years ago as they simply dropped out of sight.

  295. theShield wrote:

    I’m glad you approve.
    Seriously, though, how have I ignored the context of that passage?

    I can tell by your first line you are not really interested in another view so why get on the Merry go round? Go read Gordon Fee (on Pauline Christology) or NT Wright if you are seriously interested in other views. They line up more with what I think Paul is communicating in Romans within the pericope.

    http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Everyone-Romans-Part-One/dp/0664227996

    Unless you are not allowed to since Piper has tried to position the NT Scholar Wright as a heretic. :o)

  296. Anon 1 wrote:

    theShield wrote:
    I’m glad you approve.
    Seriously, though, how have I ignored the context of that passage?
    I can tell by your first line you are not really interested in another view so why get on the Merry go round? Go read Gordon Fee (on Pauline Christology) or NT Wright if you are seriously interested in other views. They line up more with what I think Paul is communicating in Romans within the pericope.
    http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Everyone-Romans-Part-One/dp/0664227996
    Unless you are not allowed to since Piper has tried to position the NT Scholar Wright as a heretic. )

    That’s a bit unfair, don’t you think? Pointing to NT Wright is helpful if one has read Wright, but you made a public forum accusation of prooftexting, and I would still like to hear just exactly how you think I have done so with that passage.

  297. @ Bridget:
    @ theShield:

    theShield –

    Quoting a scripture does not a conversation make. You ignored my question to you about your comment to someone about mischaracterizing reformed theology, which she didn’t do. Now your response is a text proof scripture. I could proof text a scripture that says you should cut off your hand if it causes you to stumble, but I will not. If you want to be part of a conversation it is best to communicate and not recite scripture.

    I’ll await the answer to the question.

  298. theShield wrote:

    That’s a bit unfair, don’t you think? Pointing to NT Wright is helpful if one has read Wright, but you made a public forum accusation of prooftexting, and I would still like to hear just exactly how you think I have done so with that passage.

    Perhaps it is but I have had these convo’s for so long now, I simply do not wish to waste anymore of my life on the Merry go round of Reformed proof texting when I do not use the same Augustinian filter you do. I agree with Bridget that quoting proof texts does not help since we are reading with different filters. I do not read with the determinist filter that Augustine introduced into Christianity 300 years after Christ walked this earth from his Neo Platonic beliefs.

    I believe “election” refers to those who have responded to the Good News and have been convicted by the Holy Spirit of their need for repentance and have faith. I do not believe it refers to those “God chose before the foundation of the world” to be saved with no volition of their own. I do not read Psalms the same way Calvinists do, either. Otherwise I would want my enemies to have their babies dashed against rocks. (Ps 51)

    You are free to read Wright if you are interested. While I do not agree with everything he teaches, I do agree with his view of Justification/Sanctification and really agree with him that we have missed very important parts such as what “Kingdom of God/heaven” means for RIGHT NOW as believers. I also strongly agree with him about a “Syllabus Jesus” that is so popular in Creeds and ST.

  299. Why restrict things to Calvinists/Arminians? Have a laugh at everyone courtesy of the watchmanscry blog

    How many Charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
    One – since his or her hands are in the air anyway.

    How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
    None. God has predestined when the lights will be on..

    How many Baptists?
    CHANGE?? But we have NEVER done it that way before!

    How many Neo-evangelicals?
    No one knows. They cannot tell the difference between light and darkness.

    How many Pentecostals?
    Ten. One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness…

    How many TV evangelists?
    One. But for the message of light to continue, send in your donation…

    How many Fundamentalists?
    ONLY ONE because any more would be compromise and ecumenical… (standards of light would slip.)

    How many Charismatics?
    None – unless the Lord leads.

    How many Dispensationalists?
    Two – one to change the bulb and one to keep the promises to the old bulb.

    How many Promise Keepers?
    None – unless Coach McCartney says it’s manly to do so.

    How many Calvinists?
    Every Calvinist knows only God can change a lightbulb.

    How many Episcopalians?
    None, they assume darkness is the nature of the bulb and it would be harmful and disrespecful to violate personality of the bulb.

    How many Charismatics?
    Two – one to change the bulb, the other to have a breakthrough.

    How many Quakers?
    Someone will, but there is no one officially called to be a bulb changer.

    How many Arminians?
    Only one, but first the bulb must want to be changed.

    How many Charismatics?
    None – unless the Spirit witnesses to their spirit man that it should be done.

    How many Baptists?
    Two, one to change the bulb, the other to preach on tithing in order to pay for the new bulb.

    How many Premillennialists?
    While knowing where the lightbulbs are, they are persuaded to wait for the official lightbulb changer but no one knows when he will arrive.

    How many Arminians?
    Since the bulb has free will – it must make the decision.

    How many Amillennialists?
    Two, one to change the bulb, the other to remind others not to fear the
    old darkness or trust the new light–both are only symbolic.

    How many Postmillennialists?
    One, but now he has to rethink his eschatology….

    How Many Liberal Christians?
    None – they don’t think it needs to be changed.

    How many Evolutionists?
    None – it will change itself – it will just take billions and billions of years.

    How many Lutherans?
    17 – 5 to form a commitee to find and nominate 9 people to a committee which shall then discuss the issues of light bulb changing, from which that commitee shall appoint three other people to carry out the final resolution of the second committee – which is that one person shall supervise while one changes the bulb and one will follow up in one month’s time to investigate the performance of the bulb.

    How many Modern Evangelicals?
    It doesn’t matter as long as we love each other.

    How many Seventh Day Adventists?
    Just one – as long as it isn’t Saturday.

    How many Charismatics?
    30 – 1 to change the bulb and 29 to laugh about it!

    How many Mormons?
    None – it’s beneath the character of a god to stoop and change a light bulb.

    How many Atheists?
    1 – but they are still in darkness.

    How many Independent Baptists?
    Only one, anymore than that would be considered ecumenical.

  300. Bridget wrote:

    Quoting a scripture does not a conversation make. You ignored my question to you about your comment to someone about mischaracterizing reformed theology, which she didn’t do. Now your response is a text proof scripture.

    The Moonies call this a “Thoughtstopper”.

    In 1984, George Orwell called it “duckspeak” — reciting The Party Line (“goodthink”) without engaging any neuron above the brainstem.

  301. I just discovered this site as I was reading about upcoming The Cross Conference. Thanks for bring this information to light.

    It is interesting to me how many of the speakers at this conference have little or no actual cross cultural experience. Certainly, most are well traveled and have taught their brand of Christianity in many places world wide, but not as many have actually moved overseas with their families and lived the life of a cross cultural missionary. Seems sad to not value this type of experience.

    From their bios, this is the list of pastor/author/speaker type folks with little actual missions experience….

    DA Carson, Matt Chandler, Kevin DeYoung, John Piper, David Platt, Mark Deven, Ligon Duncan, Carl Ellis, Greg Gilbert, CJ Mahaney, Albert Mohler, Kathleen Nielson, Juan Sanchez…and I think some others really have only “executive” missions experience.

    This lack of boots on the ground experience does not disqualify someone from speaking biblical truth about God’s desire to reach the Nations, but it does not seem very balanced for a missions conference like this…

    Unfortunately, I think this conference (and others in the future) will be well attended. This group is very, very capable of putting on conferences that appeal to the neo-calvinist faithful, young and old. I am sure that the next step will be Calvinist/Complementarian mission agencies springing up, sending out Calvinist/Complementarian missionaries who will plant Calvinist/Complementarian churches….sad day for the unity of the Gospel.

    I was at Urbana 81. I will never forget Dr. Helen Roseveare. Her words were used by God to further move my heart towards the Nations, eventually leading our family to an unreached, Muslim, people group in Africa. I am sorry that she would not be welcome to speak from the platform at this conference. Leaving out over one half of the missions wisdom and experience does not seem very helpful…