“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
It has been almost five years since Dee and I first began researching Neo-Calvinism. Initially, we concentrated on the tenets of reformed theology; but as we have learned more about the Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR) movement, it seems that the revered leaders are obsessed with authoritarianism. We are so concerned about this aspect of the YRR movement that we will be doing a series of posts.
Much to our surprise, our blogging efforts have opened up lines of communication with people from around the world. We had no idea this would happen, and it has been extremely rewarding to establish these virtual friendships.
Nearly two years ago we began an online friendship with a pastor whose blog we had been following since 2009. His name is Wade Burleson. Dee and I had the pleasure of meeting Wade and his lovely wife Rachelle in December 2011 when we flew to Oklahoma. As many of our readers know, we feature Wade's sermons in our EChurch posts. We are so grateful to Pastor Burleson and Emmanuel Enid for allowing us to share these sermons every week.
What we have discovered about Wade is that while he embraces some of the tenets of reformed theology, he does not self-identify as 'reformed'. That really peaked our curiosity. After listening to his sermons week after week, we have come to understand that Wade is absolutely opposed to authoritarianism, as this recent blog post reveals.
Guest Post by Pastor Wade Burleson
The Truth Will Set You Free
I have many Arminian friends. Truth be known, I have more Arminian friends than Reformed friends. However, I read recently where Dr. Roger Olson, author of Against Calvinism, made a convincing argument that the word "Reformed" has been wrongly claimed by Calvinists. Dr. Olson, one of the leading evangelical Arminian scholars in America, believes the word "Reformed" does not historically define one's soteriology, since many Arminian churches and denominations have used the word Reformed in their names. After reflection, I agree with Dr. Olson. In my opinion, the word Reformed identifies a church with a particular view of ecclesiology. In simpler language, Reformed churches, whether they are Calvinistic or Arminian, seem to have specific beliefs about how a church should operate. For example, a Reformed church will usually have (1) A clear separation between clergy and laity; (2) A strong belief that the kingdom of God and the church are synonymous, and (3) Reformed churches will have leaders who emphasize their spiritual authority over God's people. In short, Reformed churches have much in common with Roman Catholic ecclesiology and little in common with Roman Catholic soteriology. That's an observation, not a criticism.
My Reformed friends dislike that I refuse to emphasize any law but Christ's Royal Law of love (see James 2:8) and that I resist any recognition of spiritual authority in the life of a believer other than Christ's authority. A few of my Reformed pastor friends seem to want to force service to God and the institutional church through exerting their perceived spiritual authority. As a result, you wind up with people who feel obligated to do what they do. I am not Reformed. I believe when the Holy Spirit motivates and empowers His people, Christians will serve freely, cheerfully, and generously with nothing expected in return from God. The Spirit doesn't need me to motivate God's people through guilt, and God's people will only truly be motivated by a comprehension of God's love, not fear. Christ does a good job of building His kingdom, and He came to set His people free from bondage. But it seems Christians finding freedom fosters fear in Reformed people like water fosters fear in cats.
The one thing all Reformed churches and people seem to have in common is an emphasis on law. Reformed leaders feel it necessary to keep their people obedient to a set of laws. Though the laws change from church to church, many Reformed leaders make the mistake of confusing their institutional desires with God's desires. Therefore, giving to the church becomes giving to God's kingdom; serving the church becomes serving God's kingdom; questioning the pastor becomes questioning God's king on earth, etc…
Why is there so much emphasis by Reformed people on the law? I believe one of the reasons is due to a longstanding misinterpretation of New Testament passages that seem to speak of God 'judging the works' of every individual, including Christians. For example, Romans 2:5-8 (NAS) says:
(5) Because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, (6) who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: (7) to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, (He will give) eternal life; (8) but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey righteousness, (He will give) wrath and indignation.
Most Reformed leaders (Arminian and Calvinistic) believe the above passage teaches:
(1). Every person, including Christians, will be judged for the deeds done in this life.
(2). Those who do good will be rewarded by God with honor, glory and eternal life.
(3). Those who have been selfish and disobedient will be given wrath and indignation.
(4). Therefore, it is important for those in spiritual authority to keep people obedient.
This interpretation of Romans 2:5-8 is full of error in my opinion, and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. For example, the great New Testament scholar Henry Alford (1810-1871) writes in his brilliant commentary on Romans that "the Apostle is speaking of the general system of God in governing the world–punishing the evil, rewarding the righteous—but no question at present arises as to how this righteousness is to be obtained."
I believe Romans 2 is addressing sinners in general. I don't for a moment believe that Romans 2 is referring to judgment for sinners who are in Christ by grace through faith. God deems those in Christ perfectly righteous (see II Corinthians 5:21).
In Romans 2 Paul is slowly and methodically building an argument that the good and loving Creator measures a human being's works in this life for the purpose of reward or just punishment. Even those without the Law of Moses know by nature that they are to love their Creator and other people and that they are to do good. God gives reward for persistent, continual good works that are done with right motives (life eternal), but He gives a holy sentence of impartial judgment for a life of selfish disobedience. The final judgment before God is a judgment of one's works in this life. In the very next chapter, Romans 3, Paul draws his argument to a conclusion:
There is no one who is righteous – See Romans 3:10
There is no one who is obedient – see Romans 3:11.
There is no one who is good – see Romans 3:12.
I often hear well-meaning Christians say that at the final judgment, God will judge whether or not people received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They are wrong. The final judgment is about one's works in this life. Does a person live persistently and continually in an unselfish manner and do good for others with the motive of bringing glory to God. If so, they are rewarded with eternal life. But who does that? Answer: Nobody. What are the consequences for not living this kind of good life? Everybody receives a righteous and impartial sentence of judgment from a Creator who purposed that the people He created were to live a life of goodness and love.
Every single person is without excuse.
I often hear well-meaning Christians say, "But what about that person who never hears about Jesus? How can God judge them? They didn't have a chance?"
When I hear Christians say the above, I immediately know they haven't spent a great deal of time thinking through biblically what it is that God judges in people. God is a good, kind, gracious and loving God. He treats people with kindness and love. He created us in His image. We are to be as unselfish, as loving, and as kind to other people as God is to us. Yet, everyone of us is selfish. Everyone of us is disobedient to God's royal law of love. Everyone of us violates our own conscience of what is right and we do the very thing we know to be wrong. We make excuses, but deep down we know we are guilty. It is our sin that God judges. It is our rebellion that God measures. Our sin and rebellion is not God's fault, it is our fault.
At the judgment, it will be proven there is no one good but God.
The good news is that the Creator God came to earth and lived life as one of us–and He lived His life the way life was supposed to be lived–but He died in darkness and isolation the death each rebel deserves to die because of his or her personal sin and selfishness. But, incredibly, after Jesus rose from the dead He promised broken and heavy-laden sinners some good news. I call it the Great Exchange. He said to broken sinners: I have taken your sins upon Me and I have given to you My perfect righteousness. You are delivered from judgment. You are free from the curse of sin. You are My people. Paul puts it like this:
"But now apart from law the righteousness of God has been manifested… even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:21-22). "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). And then he says, "For this reason righteousness is by faith, in order that righteousness may be in accordance with grace" (Romans 4:16), and "Therefore, being justified by grace through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).
This is the gospel. This is the good news.
You can read the rest of the post here.
While Dee and I may disagree with Wade on various parts of reformed soteriology, we rejoice in the fact that he is NOT an authoritarian, sin-sniffing pastor. On the contrary, we have found him to be one of the least coercive pastors we have ever known, and we believe it is because his love trumps his theology. If only more pastors would emulate that character trait.
The issue of authoritarianism has been of great concern to us for quite some time, and we plan to make it our focus in the coming week.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 4:18-5:27 Acts 15:1-35 Psalm 141:1-10 Proverbs 17:23
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The Romans 2 vs 8 quote in Wade’s post has a typo – should read “unrighteousness”.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
deb –
Thanks for printing this. He is very clear in this blog post. Also, I like the fact that he truly interacts with his commenters.
I’m glad you both will be dealing with authoritarianism. If there’s anything plaguing the church today (in this country, at least), it is this.
I wonder if you would elaborate on your statement that Wade’s love trumps his theology. What aspect of his theology constrains love, in your opinion?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB,
I want Deb and Dee to feel free to answer your question, but I thought I might answer the question “What aspect of his(Wade’s) theology constrains love?”
I will tell you of a conversation I had with Paul Young about this very issue. Paul, author of The Shack, has the most incredible, personal, relational, loving contact with people–even strangers–of anyone I’ve ever met. He looks people in the eye, is never rushed, takes time to answer questions, is completely selfless, and models for me incredible, unconditional love for others. I am not that way–yet. My theology constrains my love of other people in this manner.
Paul Young believes that God loves every individual sinner that has ever lived (or ever will live), and that Christ died for every sinner and atoned for every sin ever committed. Paul believes (like George McDonald) that “the fire” of God’s love will eventually win over every sinner–even those who are justly sentenced to hell–and after winning over every sinner, heaven will be populated with everyone. He is a hopeful universalist. This is why Paul can treat every sinner–regardless of their present attitude toward God and their individual sins–with unconditional love. In other words, it matters not to Paul if there is brokenness over sin and a softness toward God and a love for other people in the heart and life of the person with whom he is conversing–he loves that person (and shows his love) in an unconditional, personal and intimate manner–just like God loves Paul Young. I told Paul Young “I wish I could love every person like you love them.”
I don’t love bullies, I don’t love authoritarian leaders, I don’t love spiritual abusers, I don’t love people who run over other people, I don’t love selfish people–in essence, I don’t love unbroken sinners and those who are not following the Royal Commandment of Christ.
The reason? In my theology, the evidence that Christ died for someone is that the person for whom He died is broken of their sin, has begun the process of being emptied of selfishness, and finds themselves full of love for other people. This doesn’t mean we Christians are perfect! It just means that we Christians are easily broken and seek forgiveness of others when we are selfish, unloving, and mean.
My theology tells me that people who do not continually express brokenness over their sins and live lives continually violating the Royal Law of Christ(loving those who follow Him) need a proverbial “punch in the nose” to be broken. I hesitate to point out that Jesus took a whip to the Pharisees because I am not Jesus and I know that better than anyone–but the principle is still the same. Unbroken sinners, particularly those who bully others in terms of spiritual or physical abuse (the Pharisees) are treated differently by me. Some might argue that THIS IS LOVE for them–and that may be–but I’m being honest when I say I feel my theology constrains my love for them and promotes justice for them. I am not yet convinced Christ died for them, so I will not, as Scripture calls it, “cast my pearls before swine.”
Paul Young and others would be horribly offended that I would even dare compare another human being to “swine.” Here’s the problem. When a man or woman is so full of self and keeps the head down to the ground and their eyes away from God, then everything in this world revolves around them, just like animals. You don’t see animals with eyes toward the sky inquiring of God. They keep their heads down. That is not how human beings were created originally, and the fault of looking down is a fault we created — it is not God’s design — but it requires an act of God’s grace to turn the individual’s head up.
I don’t believe God unconditionally, personally, and eternally loves with delivering love (as in “He shall deliver His people FROM their sins”) every sinner. I believe there are a few (notice the word “few”) that He leaves in their sins for the purpose of the praise of His holy justice. Notice I said “few.” My friends disagree with me and say “many” will be left in their sins, but I see all the imagery of Scripture to say “few” will be left in their sins–i.e. “heaven” is a vast sea, “hell” is a lake, “heaven” is a vast palace, “hell” is a small prison, etc…
However, because of this, my theology is backwards. I LOVE the people of God. I LOVE those for whom Christ died. I LOVE the church. I LOVE the Bride of Christ. The evidence that these people are His is that there is a softness in their hearts that leads to personal brokenness over their own sins and an incredible love of others who name the name of Christ. When these believers in Christ gather with me, I give them ONLY good news. When two or three gather with me I GIVE of myself without reservation. I don’t care what they’ve done, where they’ve gone, how they’ve handled themselves – I LOVE them the way Christ has loved me.
We modern evangelicals get this all screwed up. We take this incredible good news of Christ and what He promises to believers to a world that cares nothing about God and has never been broken of their bondage to sin by the Spirit. Then, when we get them to “join” our organizations by offering the best restaurants, the best comforts, the best schools, the best of everything AT OUR CHURCH BUILDINGS we have to hammer them with God’s law, God’s judgment, God’s anger, God’s justice, etc… in an attempt to keep our so-called converts in line.
We should be taking BAD NEWS to the world FIRST. That bad news is there is a day of accounting coming when everything you have ever done in this life — every idle or hurtful word, every unloving action, every selfish intention–will be made known and the Creator of the universe will judge you and find even those things you consider “good” to be “filthy” when measured by the standard of His character. This final judgment is a solemn, serious and perfectly holy and righteous event.
Long answer, JeffB, but I’m trying to be as transparent as possible. My theology constrains my love for people who defy God’s Royal Law of love, denigrates those who have trusted the only Savior ever given for sinners, and declares to the world that “I’m a self-made man.” I see that justice is coming for these sinners if they die in that attitude. Of course, there are people who have lived like this (including me) who have had a change of life (including me). When God begins to put a burden in my heart for someone whose heart is hard, I begin praying that God would save them.
Right now I have a burden for six people. I don’t have a burden for the whole world of lostness. In my theology, God is going to save an innumerable company of sinners from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue–many that I don’t know or will ever meet–but I know at least six people He is going to save (the burden in my heart for them is evidence of it) and I love them like Christ loves me. Other than ALL my brothers and sisters in Christ, these six unbroken sinners are the only ones (right now) that I can truly say I love without conditions. That is how my theology limits my love.
P.S. I am out of town for July 4th. I realize that many will object to and some might possibly be upset by my answer. I wish I could interact, but due to family obligations it will be tomorrow before I have a chance to respond.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade, thank you so much for doing the weekly eChurch. I haven’t listened to all of the messages, but I’ve liked what I heard. Your emphasis on the Royal Law in James is what all Christians should use to determine their treatment of others.
I come from a devout family with many generations of praying and fasting Christians, which is why I disagree with the 2nd to the last paragraph of your Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 08:04 AM comment. We’ve had several fantastic friends for whom we’ve had decades long prayer burdens still die atheists.
Anyway, have a wonderful weekend! You don’t need to reply. And know that it’s good to find any pastor who loves the Lord, His people, and allows the Spirit to guide them individually. Keep up the good work.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“I don’t believe God unconditionally, personally, and eternally loves with delivering love (as in “He shall deliver His people FROM their sins”) every sinner. I believe there are a few (notice the word “few”) that He leaves in their sins for the purpose of the praise of His holy justice”
So, it is not their choice but God chose this for them so His Justice would be praised?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Janey,
Thank you for your kind words. I haven’t left for the family event yet, so I’ll respond with an anecdote to your question “We’ve had several fantastic friends for whom we’ve had decades long prayer burdens still die atheists.”
Spurgeon was once encountered by an emotional widow who told him that she had been praying for years for the conversion of her atheist husband, and she had just received that week a telegram that her husband had died in the ocean on a transatlantic voyage to America. “How, Mr. Spurgeon, can you say if God burdens you for a lost person, that person will be saved? My husband died in unbelief!” Mr. Spurgeon responded, “Were you there? Do you now there was no faith in your husband? God never burdens his children to pray but that He is designing to answer that prayer. If the burden is not from Him, He will eventually remove it, but if it continues, it is because He will answer in the precise manner for which you have been praying. I say to you, mam, on the authority of the Word of God, that as your husband was drowning in that ocean, in need of a deliverer, the answer to your prayers was given, and your husband was saved by God.” So, Janey, I understand what you are saying, and have had many people respond in the same manner. I answer with Spurgeon. IF it was a true burden — not a “save the world” kind of prayer — and IF that burden was never removed from you but continued in the outgrowth of petition to God to save your friends, then who is to say that God did not save your friends? Look at the New Testament. Salvation is not walking an aisle, praying a sinner’s prayer, or going through some religious ritual. It is looking to Christ and being delivered. I’ve seen atheists look to God for deliverance in the last fleeting breath, and one thing I’ve learned about God’s grace is that you can’t measure it, you can’t control it, and you can’t always easily define it. I am confident in my response to you BECAUSE OF GOD’S LOVE FOR YOU. His kids get what they ask when what they ask is according to His heart, and either it was not His heart to save those folks or He saved them. I say He saved your atheist friends because when you ask Him He will do “immeasurably more than you could ever ask or think.” Again, I’m not trying to convince you, just giving you my thoughts to your objection.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1,
“So it is not their choice but God chose this for them so His Justice would be praised?”
I’m confused by your question. What is the “this” in “God chose THIS for them”?
Are you talking about “God chose their SINS for them?” God forbid. Truth is, if every person obeyed God as revealed in conscience and natural law–obeyed Him completely, consistently, and personally–by loving other people and Him (the Royal Law) and living a life of unselfishness and good works, then God would grant them life eternal (see Romans 2:7 which says, “To those who by persistence in doing good seek His glory, His honor and their immortality, He will give eternal life). That was the deal with Adam and it is the deal with us.
Of course, there is nobody who even does good, no not one.
So if by “THIS” you mean God chose us “to sin” I say with the New Testament authors, “God forbid. God is neither the author of sin or tempts anyone to sin.”
However, if by “THIS” you mean deliverance from their sins of selfishness, conceit, evil works and unloving behavior (as in “He SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS”) then the answer is “Yes.” No judge is obligated to deliver the criminal. In fact, were judges in the habit of delivering criminals from their crimes by paying their fines “without a change in character in the criminal” then those judges would be deemed unjust.
The question then becomes “If the judge has the power to change the heart of the criminal, but refused, would the judge not be unjust?”
Answer: The criminal is not a robot. The criminal is changed by the personal, persuasive, transcendent, unconditional, perpetual, eternal, powerful LOVE OF THE JUDGE. In short, the criminal CHANGES HIMSELF because the love of God is MAGNETIC (“It is the love of God that constrains us from evil” and “WE love Him because He FIRST loved us.”) The judge changes hearts by choosing to love the criminal and REVEAL THAT LOVE in dynamic and different ways.
So, if your question of “So it is not their choice but God chose this for them so His Justice would be praised?” is about DELIVERANCE BY DISTINGUISHING, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FROM GOD THAT CHANGES THE HEART OF THE SINNER…
Then the answer is “Yes. God sometimes bypasses the sinner in saving love for the praise of His justice.” You wouldn’t know what light was without darkness, deliverance without justice, grace without judgment.
Again, I’m not trying to convince you, just answering your question.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To all: Am walking out the door. Very much appreciate the dialogue and will do my best to answer any further questions tomorrow.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade, I find it very hard to talk with Calvinists because we are in such different paradigms.
You made this statement in your piece:
“I don’t believe God unconditionally, personally, and eternally loves with delivering love (as in “He shall deliver His people FROM their sins”) every sinner. I believe there are a few (notice the word “few”) that He leaves in their sins for the purpose of the praise of His holy justice””
That statement and the entire post is wrapped around the belief that God does the choosing and man has no volition in the matter. Man has no input. Man cannot choose God at all. Therefore, what you seem to be saying is that God chooses some for perdition in order to show His Justice so that it will be praised.
While I can see how you would view that as God NOT being the author of sin, it could be viewed as God predestinating/forcing someone to STAY in sin so He can be glorified by it as in your view of praising His justice.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
Thanks for allowing us to share your thoughts here. Have a wonderful 4th!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To our readers regarding our intent for this post:
1. Wade has a unique take on Reformed theology. He does not believe that he can call himself Reformed because of the emphasis, in much of Reformed theology, on the issue of authoritarianism. This is an issue that we want to explore in the coming weeks. We are hoping that some of the discussion will center around that particular theme. Does Reformed theology lend itself to authoritarian leadership?
2. Deb and I do not self identify as Reformed as described by some of the solas. Yet we love and respect Wade Burleson. He is one of the most loving pastors that we have ever met-hands down.
3.We believe that some people need to break down the barrier between those who adhere to Reformed/Arminian/whatever (Dee and Deb) theologies. We can debate until we are blue in the face. Yet, we have very few examples of how those with differing views can work together in love and respect. We believe that this is possible with Wade and others who visit this blog like Wendy Alsup, Jeff Crippen, Jeff S and others.
4. We will not solve the issue of election and particular atonement in this post. Everyone is welcome to discuss it but we are hoping that some might be willing to discuss the issue of authoritarianism which can arise out of Reformed theology.
5. I am even hoping that some might have insight into how authoritarianism can arise out of Arminian theology as well.
6. Deb and I are committed to building bridges between the Great Divide when possible. With Wade, that is possible. There are few pastors like him in this world.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
That’s for sure!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
Great points Dee! The final one is extremely important!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Wade,
Thanks for writing this. I find there are a number of things I’d like to ask you to comment on, if you don’t mind. You and I are in strong agreement on what the limits of the church’s authority over the believer are.
In simpler language, Reformed churches, whether they are Calvinistic or Arminian, seem to have specific beliefs about how a church should operate. For example, a Reformed church will usually have (1) A clear separation between clergy and laity; (2) A strong belief that the kingdom of God and the church are synonymous, and (3) Reformed churches will have leaders who emphasize their spiritual authority over God’s people. In short, Reformed churches have much in common with Roman Catholic ecclesiology and little in common with Roman Catholic soteriology.
Ah. Now I see what’s going on. I have never been Catholic and so have never been trained to recognize any church’s authority over me. This is perhaps why I find the Reformed understanding of polity so unpalatable.
It’s also kind of ironic that both you and the YRR group use the gospel as a reference point for your ecclesiology yet come to diametrically opposed conclusions on how that is lived out. I wonder if you can comment on the reason for this because I’m not sure why a law of law would necessitate them (according to their understanding) having to exert authority over others, per se. I do follow the logic of law of love freeing from such a constriction, but then I already agree with you on that anyway. But I don’t get what is is about a law of law that would require the expression of that to entail this kind of authoritarian structure? How is it that law per se implies submission to men? If you see what I mean.
I have seen from your writing that you disagree with the YRR, complementarian, CBMW, etc. groups on a whole lot of issues. They see the gospel in their version of gender roles and the marriage covenant, among other things. They organize the whole thing with an authoritarian structure where someone is always under someone else and this seems to show the gospel as they understand it. This applies to both men and women. They have men (and, of course, women) under the authority of the church leaders, the women and children under the authority of their husbands or some other man…the whole thing is based on some kind of submission to authority (which must of necessity be male) as this submission to men is the reflection of submission to God/Christ.
As for me, to a large degree I find this system can work the other way around where being under submission to men does not necessarily mean submission to Christ at all, but can be the opposite, putting a person in a position of being forced to serve two masters in actuality while all the while presenting as though it is all one Master. I see this especially in the situation of abusive churches and abusive marriages. This is particularly clear where the man in the marriage is the abuser as the man is the representation of Christ.
In fact, I was having this conversation just last night with a dear Christian lady who divorced her abusive husband. She said she saw how the marriage became a bondage to her in that it forced her into the position of serving two masters and it was literally impossible to please both because their interests were diametrically opposed. In fact, this man did persecute this lady on several occasions where she chose Christ over him. The CBMW group would say she should have submitted anyway, as unto Christ. She saw her experience as submission to the abusive man being opposed to submission to Christ. I think we can say the same thing about obedient (to Christ) rebellion against abusive authority in ecclesiastical settings too, such as we saw (or, rather read about 🙂 ) in the Reformation. Yet the CBMW/YRR Reformed crowd who would celebrate the obedient rebellion of men such as Luther, et al against the Roman abuses would apparently disallow such obedient rebellion against themselves in these authoritarian churches.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
Dee,
Surely we can all agree on chocolate. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
I believe if more chocolate was served, more barriers would be broken down. Who can get bent out shape while consuming fudge?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“5. I am even hoping that some might have insight into how authoritarianism can arise out of Arminian theology as well.”
Sorry to be so pedantic but are the choices Calvinist or Arminian? I am neither. Not sure what I am except perhaps free will. But that sounds so close to “Free Willy” that I need a new label. :o)
It would be interesting to look at someone like say, Greg Boyd, and try to identify any authoritarianism in his teaching/methods.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
We tried that once before and we came up with YES to chocolate!! But the specific type of chocolate was a problem 🙁
As you can see, it’s much like our commitment to Jesus and the Kingdom of God; many say YES!! But we don’t all agree on the flavor 😉 I, personally, find the authoritarian flavor (no matter what camp they venture from) repulsive and contrary to what I read in Scripture. It’s kinda like having oleander in my chocolate. And enjoy a great variety of chocolate 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
And “I” enjoy . . .
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I don’t really see the authoritarianism problem as unique to Calvinism. There is tons of it in the seeker mega world but it is not as easy to see unless you are behind stage and the cult of personality causes people to follow the leader anyway so he does not have to really declare his authority. What I fear with Calvinism is that the authoritarian focus is inherent to the doctrine which is why we see so much of it openly declared.
Even more mainstreamed Calvinist denominations have things like ecclesiastical courts and hierarchies which are foreign to someone like me raised Baptist with the priesthood of believer drilled into my head and all are the same at the foot of the Cross and before the empty tomb.
The Reformation took the focus off the sacraments front and center to a pulpit for preaching which obviously elevates a human as the giver of truth. That has caused a new set of problems.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
So then there would be chocolate denominations…:shock:
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Hey! How come my bug eyes didn’t work? 🙁
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
People in the YRR movement (as well as other groups) think they are profoundly counter-cultural but since I’ve been reading Christian blogs online, I’ve noticed how much they actually reflect (in the worst way) the struggles we are having in broader culture regarding authority, power, and the privileges/responsibilities of the individual.
They agree with opacity of governance. They cling to narrow extrapolations of scripture in ways similar to how gov’t officials cling to narrow legality for actions that the broad citizenry/membership believe contrary to Constitution or broad sweep of scripture. Far too many pastors think they can decide how to spend membership’s monies without either transparency or participation by membership as to those decisions. See also US gov’t.
Mega-churches have taken to themselves the authority to decide who will govern their churches, and wealthiness is priority similar to who gets to run for political office these days. For many churches, the trappings of membership participation regarding installing leadership is mere illusion.
Also similar is their punitive view of broad membership, with their volunteering requirements, harsh handling of discipline and onerous control of membership rolls. In the same way, our gov’t (and the corporations entwined with it) demand of citizens ever-increasing austerity even while we see huge expenditures in areas not of their own choosing or benefit. And people in leadership can do terrible wrongs and given a pass even while they micro-manage the rest of us.
They make everyone suspect (by depravity or by an ever-broadening terrorist definition) and require all to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt rather than prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are pastors who think it a great idea to decide for everyone what constitutes righteous language, film/book, business, way to vote, way to raise/educate children and to be married, and who check in with other pastors about our personal character/lives. How is this not reflected in the philosophy of TSA and NSA surveillance?
Wherever one stands in the political scene, it is apparent that fundamental issues in our supposedly secular and anti-christian culture have been swallowed whole-sale by many leaders inside the church.
It’s hugely disturbing. The real God is not in this, the God who counts the feathers falling from a sparrow, who remains with each of us, ever patient, ever loving, ever coaxing us towards deeper relationship with Him/Her. If such a greatness as the God-of-the Universe cares for such a tiny creature as me, then Christian governance will reflect that concern and respect.
The real God sets leadership, power and authority on their heads. He is an upside-down God. How it works is beautifully demonstrated in the life of Christ.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
I very much appreciate your “long answer,” your transparency, and the fact that you took the time to write such a thorough comment.
I truly understand when you say that it is, to say the least, very hard to love bullies. My emotions overwhelm my thoughts when I encounter or read about them, especially when they are professing believers. I’m not proud of this; it’s just a fact. Also, I believe enough basic psychology to know that there is probably a bully in me somewhere that I despise.
There is one other category of people that arouse a similar reaction: False teachers. I have not read The Shack, and have only seen Paul Young briefly on TV. Of course, I believe everything you say about his admirable temperament and character. With all due respect, though, I believe he is a false teacher if he espouses universalism. And if he is, then, for all his loving behavior, he is helping to lead people to eternal suffering by offering false comfort.
I can’t help but think that there is a strong, if hidden, arrogance in those who profess to believe Scripture (though maybe Young doesn’t profess this; I don’t know) and deny parts of it that couldn’t be more clear – and it’s very clear that it doesn’t teach universalism. I have heard from friends that Brian McLaren is the nicest guy you could ever meet; he also disbelieves so many major doctrines that he is, in my opinion, a disaster as a teacher. (I am only equating Young and McLaren in terms of their personalities – to show that there is more to being a believer than niceness.)
I fully realize that many Calvinists could use a high dose of niceness, and that arrogance is not exactly unknown to them. Also, I realize that some of you who know that I’m a (for want of a better word) Calvinist may be wondering how I can say that Paul Young “is helping to lead people to eternal suffering by offering false comfort,” when I believe that ultimately God chooses who will be saved. As dee has written, we will not solve the issue of election in this post. So my short answer is that Scripture teaches both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, and that people are responsible for their words and actions. No one knows exactly how those fit together.
Pastor Burleson, thanks again, and I hope to later get into some other issues you have mentioned.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
anonymous on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 10:55 AM said:
“Dee,
Surely we can all agree on chocolate.”
++++++++++++++++++++
…but can we agree on CHEESE???
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I wish everyone an enjoyable and pleasant Independence Day, whether from the US or not! I am grateful to have met you all and will tonight shoot off a couple of fireworks (with my nephews) in honor of the independent spirit and concern for healthy governance that you all represent on these pages! W00t
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I guess I can speak to my experience within the now 4 different “reformed” churches. Two were labeled as “Reformed Baptist” one was Sovereign Grace and the church I am in now, which does not put on the front post, “Reformed” yet the pastors and elders are.
The two “Reformed Baptist Churches” were part of the same association of churches. And the second of which my father-in-law was the pastor during my time there (he was run out in a matter of two years – the main issue was, and I quote, “you (he) belabor grace too much.” One elder said, “Just tell me what to do.” This was as he was going through a series he where he was constantly pointing out what it looks like for grace to rule in every aspect of life – especially church life. It was not received well.
What we noticed about those who were involved with the association was there was an elitist mindset. During the nation-wide conferences this really came out. There was also an atmosphere of legalism — the main issue being the “Christian Sabbath.”
Then of course there is the whole SGM debacle and what everyone knows there. And now my current church. As of now, I do not see an authoritarian structure. There is what I believe to be a healthy understanding of elders and the body..that is not to say I do not have concerns (but I must address those with them first).
I don’t think it is the theology that lends itself to an authoritarian structure. I do think that it is the pride people come to have in what they come to know (ie. knowledge puffs up but love builds up..) I know that was the case for me in how I have dealt with people in the past. For me it became pride in my knowledge of the doctrines of grace (go figure – something that if it had affected my heart would have had the opposite effect).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Maybe this is why
Type a space before and after your smiley text. That prevents the smiley being accidentally included in the text around it.
🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Oh my, I certainly hope so! I like cheese. Do you like cheese? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
OK. Let’s see if this works. 😯
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Thanks Bridget!
Now, how is it you do the eye roll guy?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Patrice wrote:
Amen Patrice. Imagine if the U.S. government had to hold bake sales to finance more drone strikes.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
“We can debate until we are blue in the face. Yet, we have very few examples of how those with differing views can work together in love and respect.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think a group tickle fight will do the trick.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
type “roll” between the colons
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
🙄
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Oh, excellent! Thanks Bridget!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
No, I can’t eat chocolate…sever allergy. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
severe*
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
I agree! But it’s hard to tickle without touching . . . a major no no for many.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
With or without feathers?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ K.D.:
White chocolate? Or allergic to one of the other ingredients?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
K.D. wrote:
Oh. 🙁 Well, this is a grace based chocolate cult so you must not be excluded. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
“…but we are hoping that some might be willing to discuss the issue of authoritarianism which can arise out of Reformed theology.”
++++++++++++++++++
Arminian… Calvinist….reformed… bahhh — grew up in church in a multi-generational Christian family & never in my whole life did these words reach me (until some college courses — although i was barely paying attention — just didn’t see much of the point).
so I understand a few saltine’s worth of the concepts.
but i understand “authoritarian” quite well. And certainly see the point in discussing that.
my regrettable 10 or so years being “governed” by Christian-control-freaks-given-power was in a church derived from the shepherding movement. I know there has been discussion on TWW about the connection between the 2 (shepherding/authoritarian). Perhaps the perspective of the leaders in this church fit the “reformed” description, but the label “reformed” was never presented.
What I DID hear quite a bit was how the pastor will be held accountable for all his members lives (their spiritual maturity, presumably life choices and heart choices, behavior, etc.). His and her method? The Nazi party reimagined, dressed up with sweet smiles (sometimes).
The pastor(s) took pride (& pleasure) in their “no compromise” approach (yeah, I understand Keith Green fit this control category quite well). They saw themselves as the elite amongst the other pastors in town because of this. Very thinly-veiled smug.
The approach to the bible tended toward the black & white. Nuance (that word du jour) of understanding was lacking. There seemed to be a need for rules — perhaps “nuance” was too amorphous. Safety in solid, hard lines.
Again, I think it came down to the pastor(s) believing they would be held accountable for all of us, and the daunting task required “legislation” to pull it off.
So, no reformed label required for “authoritarianism” to erupt like crab grass.
What’s the commonality, then? Fear?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
“I agree! But it’s hard to tickle without touching . . . a major no no for many.”
+++++++++++++++++++
all it will take is for you and me to get it started and then they won’t have a choice.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Since “untidy” is the point of the exercise, we could start with feathers but as hubbub critical mass begins to form, lose the feathers and let’s go for a free-for-all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
“Oh my, I certainly hope so! I like cheese. Do you like cheese?”
++++++++++++++
the stinkier the better.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
My puppy just nabbed my chocolate power bar off the table– I thought I had it inaccessible. She’s fanatically obsessed with chocolate, not understanding it’s bad for dogs…..
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff Potter wrote:
Yah, imagine if we could only send a soldier to war after we earned enough money for his wages/weapons/keep from pancake breakfasts and fish fries. Imagine if the construction of mega-church buildings were financed from proceeds of lemon-aide stands. Or if pastors’ wages were financed by second-hand stores.
Imagine if every time we killed a civilian in wars (declared or undeclared), we had to go on a 3-day fast. Imagine if our senate/legislature was required to work 10 hrs/wk in areas of poverty—assigned by a revolving citizen board. Imagine if officials were put in office by pulling a name from a hat of a thousand eligible citizens.
The authority of leadership would be dismantled and power returned to the citizens/membership.
If we ran the world lol
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
“5. I am even hoping that some might have insight into how authoritarianism can arise out of Arminian theology as well.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
perhaps it’s personality driven. Handicapped personality?
does it come down to an appeal to the human urge for “control”, and begins to run amok when embraced by people with an unhealthy need for control? (as they work out their own dysfunctional past)?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
elastigirl — In our company we do very expensive pre-hire testing, and one of the traits the test measures the candidate’s need to control. Candidates that are too low cannot overcome obstacles; those with scores too high get the job done but leave a trail of bodies in their wake. High control people are excellent in crisis, but need they cannot be allowed power much beyond that. I think that’s what we see in these authoritarian pastors. No supervision and near total power. A bad combination. Fortunately people can walk away. That’s why they are such bullies about church membership.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Janey:
VERY interesting.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
“If you fall away from being a sold- out disciple, which could happen at any time, and then should happen to die, which could happen at any time, it will be everlastingly too late to change your mind. Allow me to “disciple” you and you might not fall away…”
Or, there’s the Word O’ Faith authoritarianism– “Donate $52 toward my new helicopter blades, and you’ll get blessed in 52 days, or maybe 52 weeks”
http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/texas-new-light-christian-center-pastor-i-v-hilliard-asks-congregation-to-sow-52-favor-seeds-to-3335
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ K.D.: How do you feel about cotton candy?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dave A A:
““If you fall away from being a sold- out disciple, which could happen at any time, and then should happen to die, which could happen at any time, it will be everlastingly too late to change your mind. Allow me to “disciple” you and you might not fall away…”
++++++++++++
so fear-based. do we really think God operates with a clipboard in one hand & a pencil in the other, going through his checklist on each of us?
“GENEROSITY WITH $ — SOLD OUT” (checks the sold out box), “THOUGHT ABOUT SEX 1 TOO MANY TIMES — NOT SOLD OUT” (checks the not sold out box), “WAS 1ST TO SAY I’M SORRY — SOLD OUT” (checks the sold out box), “HAD A LESS THAN CHARITABLE THOUGHT ABOUT SOMEONE — NOT SOLD OUT” (checks the not sold out box), “FEELING TIRED OF GIVING OF ONESELF EMOTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, FINANCIALLY ALL THE TIME — NOT SOLD OUT” (checks the not sold out box)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The last church I attended was not reformed, but gradually embraced the Church Growth Movement or “became purpose-driven by stealth” as I heard someone say. The church became more and more authoritarian.
That “church growth” push requires a “strong visionary leader” who can force people to get in line with his “vision”.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
Blue or red? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
“With or without feathers?”
It depends on whether or not there is hope. (Obscure, show-offy, literary reference joke.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
unshaken wrote:
Great insight. The leader’s vision is to be obeyed. That means the average Joe exists to give money and obey. I wonder if they understand the whole New Testament is focused on the average Joe, not the leader?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dave A A:
Calvinists have TULIP. Arminians have Daisy: “He loves me, He loves me not…”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
“With or without feathers?”
It depends on whether or not there is hope. (Obscure, show-offy, literary reference joke.)
++++++++++++++++++++
‘splain
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
So very true. I’m in! Apple pie and ice cream when we’re done in.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Janey wrote:
It seems God doesn’t give us an easy out nor an easy answer when it comes to prayer burdens.
Hypothetically, let’s say my imaginary friend Fred had a burden for two men.
Man 1, a family member, was hard-working, decent, and well-respected.
Man 2, whom Fred never met, was a known pedophile.
Fred prayed and fasted regularly over several years for both men (and told neither about this).
Man 1 was saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Fred slacked off a bit praying for Man 2.
Man 2 finally committed worse atrocities than before, and promptly sent himself (Fred supposed) to hell.
Why the difference? There are so many possibilities Fred’s mind was boggled!
1: God doesn’t exist, doesn’t know, or doesn’t care.
2: There’s no hope for,pedophiles– don’t waste your time praying.
3: God chose to save Man 1 but not to save Man 2– don’t waste your time praying.
4: Man 1 freely chose God and Man 2 did not, and God doesn’t override choices—don’t waste your time praying.
5: Fred could influence Man 1 through his life and words, but could not do the same for Man 2.
6: Fred didn’t pray hard enough for Man 2.
7 Fred slacked off too soon on Man 2.
8: Fred was mistaken about his burden to pray for Man 2.
9. Some variation or combination of 3 through 8.
10: We don’t know, but Christ still commands us to pray, and not lose heart. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Could it be that some see God as “authoritarian” and others see God as “relational”?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Great check-list! I must admit I was thinking of the Sold Out Discipling Movement of Kip McKean, which likely bears little resemblance to classical Arminianism. @ unshaken:
One former pastor got so into church growth, he announced at a prayer meeting we’d be praying for the larger facility next door– despite our only filling 2/3 of the current one. Build it and they will come. Not one elder, deacon, trustee, or member needed to approve, since all we had was a mini-Moses. Inevitably, after we left, financial shenanigans followed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
Calvinist chocolate or Arminian chocolate?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
unshaken wrote:
Like Citizen Robespierre, Comrade Lenin, Comrade Stalin, Comrade Pol Pot, Comrade Kim Jong-Il? All forced their people to get in line with their Perfect Vision of the Perfect Future. Or be disposed of.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
Thank you for writing this about serving two masters. This is giving me something to really think about. Not just in abusive marriages, but the overemphasis on hierarchy in marriage and the church in general.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
This is my understanding as well. It seems very clear to me that both are taught in the Scriptures so both must be true. I have no idea how it works, but cannot deny either one based on a reading of the Scriptures.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Right now I have a burden for six people. I don’t have a burden for the whole world of lostness. In my theology, God is going to save an innumerable company of sinners from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue–many that I don’t know or will ever meet–but I know at least six people He is going to save (the burden in my heart for them is evidence of it) and I love them like Christ loves me. Other than ALL my brothers and sisters in Christ, these six unbroken sinners are the only ones (right now) that I can truly say I love without conditions. That is how my theology limits my love.
I have a question about this statement, or rather would like some clarification. Wade writes that he is assured of six specific unbelievers’ salvation, because his personal burden proves it. It appears to me that such beliefs reinforce modern western narcissitic attitudes. It seems impertinent to assume that a person can be sure that another will be saved (or desire salvation) based on his own desire to see such salvation.. I believe our hope is in Christ and praying for others is spoken of in the Bible. The point seems for us to be obedient to God (prayer), but the answer is up to God. Maybe I have misunderstood the statement and need further clarification. Thank you for such a wonderful post. Ann
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I think many misunderstand historic Calvinism. It is a belief in both God’s Sovereignty and man’s responsibility. They cannot be reconciled in our finite minds but the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism teach that while God is Sovereign in all that happens in His created Universe, we are also creatures who are responsible for our own actions. We may believe that God has elected some to everlasting life but as Charles Haddon Spurgeon said,’ He hasn’t put labels on them’ so all are to be urged to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I grew up in a very conservative Scottish Presbyterian Church. I understood that the minister and elders were to be male but I was encouraged to gain as much education as possible and never heard any of the strange teaching regarding gender roles that seems so common in North American churches. I knew that the elders cared about souls ‘as men that have to give account’ to God but any church discipline was handled with discretion and with a view to restoration.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
But then there would be schisms, like people who like plain milk chocolate vs people who like chocolate bars with almonds.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
Your emoticon face did not work because the colon was sitting right next to a period.
You have to make sure your emoticon/smiley face code has an empty space on either side, no punctuation or text.
With spaces:
Text with space after it 💡 Text with space before it (you should see a light bulb symbol)
Without spaces:
Text with no space:idea:Text with no space before it
(you probably will not see the light bulb symbol, or, see the text code, the word “idea” between colons)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
Only those with the dark chocolate have the true chocolate
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Patrice wrote:
I am reminded of something I read a few months ago. I wish I could remember where, as I would link to it. I think it was by a male author.
The page he wrote was about how a lot of gender complementarians think that traditional gender roles in contemporary America are “counter cultural,” but they really are not, if you examine them.
I cannot remember all the arguments the author used, but one of them was that if you look at other cultures in other nations (such as Islamic ones that support sharia), keeping women repressed and under male control is common.
Other than women getting the right to vote in the USA (which was I think in the 1920s), and ERA type stuff in the 1970s, even much of American culture has supported women being under the control of men and limiting their lives.
It’s not terribly counter-cultural for CBMW, John Piper, and these other guys to suggest that women need to have a “male covering” or to be limited in jobs and in churches.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Heh. I was going to suggest that too in my first post, that you have the milk choc vs dark (there’s also white).
I love all chocolate, expect for maybe chocolate- covered fruit.
But I dig dark chocolate, milk, white is okay, plain choc, choc with peanut butter, choc with… rice krispies, coffee, wafers, nugat, toffee – I’m pretty much a universalist when it comes to chocolate. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@Anon 1: And how very dark it is!
I should not be on this thread… Someone hold me back, hold me back!!!! It’ storming here – come on, God! Knock out my connection! Hurry!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
List of emoticons and how to use them, including eye roll face – it’s the word “roll” between colons
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy: And then the accursed white chocolate adherents. They refuse to admit that it is not a chocolate! Heretics.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ wrote:
I think this is an important observation and one that I hope to explore with you all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dave A A: Fascinating comment and thought-provoking.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
Funny!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Patrice wrote:
Comment of the day!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dave A A wrote:
Dave A A — Yes, that’s where I find myself too.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ann wrote:
Ann — I’m with you on this point. God is God. I am not. End of story. That’s good enough for me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Sallie:
“Thank you for writing this about serving two masters. This is giving me something to really think about. Not just in abusive marriages, but the overemphasis on hierarchy in marriage and the church in general.”
Well, Doug Phillips said (in so many words) that since a woman can only have one head, it’s wrong for her to work for another man (i.e., her boss) outside the home. This is sort of a variation on that…with Jesus missing completely, as usual. (It’s also completely destroyed by the verses about slaves and masters immediately following the verses about husbands and wives. Who does the married female slave submit to if she can only have one authority?)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
But almond joy’s got nuts.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
Ah! Thanks!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
When they hear the words Reformed or Calvinist, most people seem to think of the Calvinist view of salvation / soteriology (i.e., the TULIP). But there are many other aspects to Reformed theology and practice (such as the 3 characteristics Wade listed). There may be connections between Reformed ecclesiology and authoritarianism, but I see no connection between Reformed soteriology and an authoritarian mindset. Wade is a demonstration of this — while he holds to Calvinistic views regarding salvation, he also holds to the historical Baptist views (but becoming increasingly less common in modern Baptist life, especially in megachurches and Reformed Baptist churches) of priesthood of the believer and soul competency. Those doctrines run contrary to authoritarianism.
The YRR crowd is really a pretty small group in the larger evangelical world, and the vast majority of megachurches, where authoritarianism reigns supreme, are much more Arminian in soteriology, but they do often have a presbyterian (elder) or episcopalian (hierarchical) form of church government. Word-Faith (name it and claim it) and other charismatic churches are at the forefront of promoting the “touch not God’s anointed” teaching, and they are as non-Calvinistic or anti-Calvinistic as you can get. The authoritarian mindset is promoted at all six Southern Baptist seminaries, only 2 of which have significantly Calvinistic leanings, and in almost all Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible colleges, none of which embrace Reformed teachings. The authoritarian aspects of SGM came from their Shepherding background, which long preceded Mahaney’s embrace of Calvinism. Bill Gothard, who has probably done more to spread authoritarian teachings in this generation than any other individual, is non-Calvinistic.
So, whether the esteemed hostesses and readers of TWW agree or disagree with the Calvinistic view of salvation, I think it would be wise to keep in mind that, if there is any connection between the YRR crowd’s authoritarian views and their Reformed theology, it is more than likely due to aspects of Reformed theology other than their views regarding salvation.
Just my widow’s mite…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
5 Points of Chocolatism:
Totally Delicious
Unconditionally Edible
Limited Amount (the is the point people seem to have the most trouble accepting)
Irresistibly Good
Perseverance of the Sugar Rush
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
How bout Calminian chocolate?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“(3) Reformed churches will have leaders who emphasize their spiritual authority over God’s people. In short, Reformed churches have much in common with Roman Catholic ecclesiology and little in common with Roman Catholic soteriology. That’s an observation, not a criticism.”
It has been said that the Reformation changed the message, but not the method.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
That was Muff’s marvy comment of the day. I merely riffed. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Good point! Enforcing women’s submission to men is a human tradition, appearing in every faith and culture just like thievery, fraud, rape, murder. It is the essence of the secularist lifestyle.
John Piper is worldly” and “fleshly” and giving into his “natural man”. I recommend he repent because it’s tornado season. lol
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Steve Scott,
Pretty good observation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Flora,
Love your balance, historical perspective and theological acumen. Would love to have you as a leader at our fellowship.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Janey,
Well said. My comment on my prayers for my lost six friends might wrongly take the mystery out of God’s work, which your comment accurately describes. Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To Anonymous 10:54 AM July 4,
In fact, I was having this conversation just last night with a dear Christian lady who divorced her abusive husband… I am interested in your thoughts on this
Good for her. Any husband who abuses his wife is no better than any pastor who abuses people in his church. It’s crazy for members of the body of Christ to stay in a church where there is abuse from the pastor, and it is equally crazy to stay in a marriage where there is abuse from a husband. All kinds of justification for “not staying” in marriage when the husband has abandoned it (see I Corinthians 7). I’m amazed the number of Christians who think marriage is defined by a certificate from the state (as well as divorce) and can’t see that marriage is defined by God (as well as divorce) and abuse in marriage is a divorce of that marriage in the eyes of God (the abuser has abandoned the marriage) whether or not the state EVER recognizes a divorce.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To Anonymous, July 4, 9:48 a.m.
“While I can see how you would view that as God NOT being the author of sin, it could be viewed as God predestinating/forcing someone to STAY in sin so He can be glorified by it as in your view of praising His justice.”
I love the fact you are thinking.
The reason what you write is NOT a problem for me is because I at no time, for any reason, have EVER believed (as you write) God is “FORCING someone to STAY in sin” — ???? The use of the word “FORCE” and “SIN” in terms of God are foreign to my DNA. PEOPLE CHOOSE TO STAY IN THEIR SIN. PERIOD.
That means that if people were willing to get out of their sin, they could, but they are neither willing or capable because they are unwilling.
“In the day of His power His people are made willing” says the Psalmist.
If it is argued, “but they have a sin nature and they can’t HELP but will their sin” I respond – “God did not FORCE THEIR NATURES UPON THEM” – God did not force any man to sin – Adam, you, me – we freely, willingly, personally, and continually have chosen our path.
The only ones who end up “doing the very thing we don’t want” are those who have been graced by God. The good news for us is God never judges our works in terms of measuring our righteousness, but rather, our faith in Christ is “counted to us as righteousness.”
So…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Out of pocket for the rest of day. I tried to answer all the questions posed for me, if I missed yours, I apologize. I wish everyone a great day.
Let me encourage you, if possible, to watch E-Church on July 14, 2013.
I will be addressing the issue of authoritarianism in the church from Hebrews 13:7 where the King James Version WRONLY translates the verse “follow those who have rule over you.” There are three verses in Hebrews 13 that King James translators wrongly translate “rule over you” and I will show that many authoritarian pastors have never taken the time to search out Hebrews 13 for themselves.
In fact, if you ever see a church with the label (KJV ONLY), you can take it to the bank that it is a euphemism that the pastor is “ruling over” the people in that church – a position contrary to the teachings of Christ who said that “he who guides others in my kingdom will be the servant of all.”
Good stuff.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
Cannot wait!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I read a quote from Young, (don’t know how old it is, so possibly he doesn’t now believe this) but he almost exactly said that the god who would sacrifice his only son for the sins of humanity, doesn’t exist. I remember hearing the same message from cult members who claim to be Christian, but scoffed at the Cross, and said it was never meant to happen. That is the opposite of what I understand to be the beginning of the gospel. I like to say the beginning, because I don’t believe Jesus Christ would have gone through what He did, knowing He would rise again, if both His death and resurrection would not be effective enough to give those who put their hope and trust in His sacrifice as Lord, a new life also, a life of being transformed into His image.
I’m at disagreement with so much of the re-interpretation of Scripture I’ve started coming to recognize in the Platonian/Augustinian (Greek) love of allegorical thought. Sure, there is figurative language in the Bible, but God tells us where. So much false teaching for 1800? years, from Gnosticism to Universalism to.. There are beautiful truths in verses used by Catholics, Reformed and Arminians, I just don’t agree with how those verses have been interpreted in several areas.
I only see myself as a Christian at this point, the way it was when I first believed and received Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior by faith, before I ever started attending a church regularly. I also agree with above posts about niceness, or should I say, the appearance of it, not cutting it when all is said and done. I see too many verses in OT and NT where God calls all of the earth, all of humanity, so I believe all sins were paid for by Jesus, but only believers can be saved. Faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit, yet a gift is something which can be refused. Still, I think we’re all going to be greatly surprised to see how great, merciful and just God really is, someday.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
I look forward to that message, and also the one where you take up Hebrews 13:17.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I will just chime in and say that my current faith journey is wrapped up very much in this issue of authority, and really more personally, who I trust. One reason I stayed in my marriage for as long as I did and allowed myself to be damaged the way I was was due to my trust of the church and my believe that I need to do as they said, quieting my own conscience. I now realize how much that view of the church (the one promoted heavily in the evangelical church today) was damaging to me. It’s left me in a place of not really knowing how to trust anyone anymore, including myself. I don’t want to just “make it up as I go”, but neither do I want to turn myself over to a fallible human again.
I’ve felt frustrated with a lot of conversations regarding “Reformed Theology” because I’ve primarily viewed it in terms of Soteriology, not authority. I feel like I’ve seen the same push for authority in many types of churches, not just Reformed ones. And a good friend of mine who was run out of her church because she left her abusive husband was at an Arminian church (they put the fear of God into her that she would lose her salvation).
So this is an interesting thought Wade puts forth. I’m currently studying the WCF as part of a class I’m taking at my church, and so I’m paying attention to how much “authority” stuff is in there vs Calvinism and other things.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Patrice:
Oh yeah. In many cultures over much of history, men being in charge and women having little to no rights has been the norm.
So it’s funny for the gender complementarians to claim that men being in charge and women having little to no rights is “counter cultural.”
What they really want is a return to 1950s middle class American gender roles, where Mom stays at home all day vacuuming the house while wearing pearls, and Dad works at an office for eight hours a day.
So, asking women today to find fulfillment in a stay- at- home mom role (which is also unfair to never married women or infertile ones) and asking them to be under a spouse’s authority is just asking them to return to 1950s (and prior) American culture.
Traditional gender roles are not a break from culture (counter cultural), it’s a return to (secular) culture (ie, gender roles) from a specific time frame in America’s history.
(Some gender comps love the 1850s, so they’d prefer every one wearing hoop skirts and living in that era, but then there’s the less drastic types who seem to prefer the 1950s.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
With all respect, this is more reformed theology double speak. It is simply the ongoing attempt to reconcile ideas which cannot be reconciled. To preach contradiction as truth. Wade is saying on one hand that sin is our fault, but in the same breath declares that we can’t help it. (“Who does this (live “good”)? Nobody. We ALL violate our conscience, he says. To claim to know this for fact is profound conceit, I say..)
This is rooted in the same logical fallacy of total depravity. Man is always at the mercy of some sinful force that he cannot control; is beyond his volition. And yet, man is still somehow justly condemned. This is not Christ’s message, neither was it Paul’s. If man’s will is not absolute, there is no such thing as righteous condemnation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
Jeff S,
I understand. Having spent far too much time in an authoritarian environment myself, once out and detoxing I had to learn to trust myself as well.
This is how I see it: We are highly capable. We have moxie and smarts to make good decisions, or to learn how to make better & better decisions through trial & error.
God takes pleasure in observing us using our brains, wisdom, and moxie in making decisions (& joining in the process when invited). I don’t believe he says “ALRIGHT! Since you didn’t consult me and wait indefinitely while I take my own sweet time to give you my direction i’m sending failure, car problems, AND 3 cavities! Do it again and i’ll put the dental hygienist in a bad mood with that pokey thing.”
All decisions will have at least some mess. God isn’t afraid of mess. He can work with anything.
(I’m sure this is unsolicited advice, & I apologize if it is presumptuous)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
I have read and seen on cooking shows that technically white chocolate is not really chocolate. I think it tastes okay, but I prefer regular chocolate. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hester wrote:
I really don’t know what those kinds of guys are going to do if and when they ever wake up and realize a lot of Christian women are not marrying into their 30s and older, and they are not intentionally choosing to stay single that long (ie, they are not picking career over marriage etc), they are simply unable to find partners.
I sure as heck did not intend on staying single into my 40s, but it happened.
I’ve heard preachers on TV preach that a woman’s “covering” and “protector” is her spouse, with single me sitting there thinking, “Hmm. So according to this guy I am cover-less and unprotected.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
I’ve seen the same sort of “bondage-theology” all over the place in Christianity, not just in regards to domestic abuse/violence, though of course it happens there.
If you are a Christian who suffers from depression (or bipolar disorder, or anxiety, etc), you will be told by a lot of Christians or preachers to submit to that suffering, that the cause of your illness must be all sin.
And/or you will be discouraged from seeking help outside the Bible/church for relief and healing (e.g., psychiatry, medications).
It’s as though some Christians would prefer you to stay in bondage to mental illness, or barely limp along in life, using only the Bible/ prayer/ good deeds as a crutch, then actually use treatments that would work.
As a single person, I (like many Christian singles) have been told that using dating sites or church singles functions to meet other singles is wrong or worldly.
The thinking is, if God doesn’t just plop a spouse in your lap, God must have destined you to stay single forever.
So just pray for a spouse, passively wait, and hope God sends you someone, and “be content” in your singleness while you are single.
I think these people would rather an unmarried who desires marriage to stay lonely and single until they die than actually use some effort or a dating site to get a date/marriage. They want single people to remain in bondage than to get free.
You’re supposed to stay in a church that is spiritually abusive than seek freedom from it.
I see this sort of “just put up with the suffering and don’t do anything pro active to stop it” thinking all over Christianity. I don’t know why some Christians are so keen to keep others in bondage.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
You are strong, beautiful, smart, tough, wise, full of ability and know-how. Wear it with pride. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
It’s a reference to a poem by Emily Dickinson:
“‘Hope’ Is The Thing With Feathers”
“Hope” is the thing with feathers –
That perches in the soul –
And sings the tune without the words –
And never stops – at all –
And sweetest – in the Gale – is heard –
And sore must be the storm –
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm –
I’ve heard it in the chillest land –
And on the strangest Sea –
Yet – never – in Extremity,
It asked a crumb – of me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
lovely
and a propos in a very funny sort of way
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
I was told point blank that suffering in my marriage was analogous to missionaries who put their lives on the line.
So yes, people ARE happier for others to suffer in order to keep all of their theological ducks in a row.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Patrice:
“It’s hugely disturbing. The real God is not in this, the God who counts the feathers falling from a sparrow, who remains with each of us, ever patient, ever loving, ever coaxing us towards deeper relationship with Him/Her. If such a greatness as the God-of-the Universe cares for such a tiny creature as me, then Christian governance will reflect that concern and respect.”
Very good. You’re right about the parallels between the secular and (supposed to be) sacred in this country, and the authoritarianism common to both.
In addition to authoritarianism, there is such a dearth of discernment today. I wonder if there has been another time in US history in which discernment was so lacking, in both the sacred and secular spheres. So many people, for instance, who simply swallow whatever a person in authority says. In the last year or so, I detect a slight upswing in discernment. If I’m right, I hope it continues. The Internet, I think, aids discernment more than harms it, though this may be wishful thinking.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
Think also: If the Almighty made the Sabbath for the needs of real humans and not for his own basking, how much more did he also make marriage for the humans and not to satisfy abstract and the ethereal needs?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Not exactly the kind of god (note the small “g” here) I’d want to be around…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
The idea that has stuck with me is that people are willing to sacrifice others for their theology. I think this explains a lot of the bad teaching by well meaning people (I put John Piper in that category, FWIW). One time on ACFJ a commenter wrote the phrase “No more sacrifices” and I knew I had to write a song based on that. So here are the lyrics for that song (the album is coming out August 11th I think!)
No More Sacrifices
So many people with big ideas who have it all figured out
Every puzzle piece in its perfect place, no room for any doubt
But it doesn’t quite fit they way they think and there’s cracks that they don’t see
And those who have been left behind when they’ve fallen in between
Hear the cry for justice, and the call to endure
Hear the cry for justice, to lift our voices until we’re heard
No more sacrifices
We’re not leaving you behind
No more faithful hearts
Missing from the bottom line
We’ll work the fields of the Shepherd
Who keeps every lamb in sight
No more sacrifices
This is our bottom line
On the altar of the simple road is the blood of the messy grey
Those who fell outside the box and had to be pushed away
If the answer sometimes doesn’t work then we’ve got more work to do
Because truth that doesn’t work when you’re in the grey isn’t really truth
Hear the cry for justice, and the call to endure
Hear the cry for justice, to lift our voices until we’re heard
No more sacrifices
We’re not leaving you behind
No more faithful hearts
Missing from the bottom line
We’ll work the fields of the Shepherd
Who keeps every lamb in sight
No more sacrifices
This is our bottom line
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Thanks Wade! That sermon might get to more of what I was interested in because it’s really the whole gospel/hierarchy/authority thing I want to get to the bottom of, so I’m looking forward to it. 🙂
However, I like how succinctly you put this:
marriage is defined by God (as well as divorce) and abuse in marriage is a divorce of that marriage in the eyes of God (the abuser has abandoned the marriage) whether or not the state EVER recognizes a divorce.
I might have to steal it. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
I hear you (same; in my 50s).
A *lot* of things in life “just happen,” in the sense that many events are unforeseen and beyond our ability to comprehend, let alone control. (I do not believe – in any way, shape or form – that I experience chronic pain because God somehow decreed that I should!!! Just one example of many I could cite from my own life as well as the lives of others I know/have known.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy: I no longer think it tastes “okay.” I liked it when I was younger, but now – oof!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Junkster:
Very informative, thanks.
@ Flora:
Good to hear a testimony about a non-abusive Calvinist-leaning church.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Non-Ca;vinist Authoritarian…..the first thing that comes to mind is New Apostolic Reformation. Their ideas are infesting the pentecostal circles I know and it is not pretty. Ugh!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Thank you elastigirl 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
See, this here is what I mean about this whole gospel thing, as it pertains to women and their “gospel” roles. The matter has been talked about a good deal on TWW but this linked site is dealing with what looks like a new study by Kassian and DeMoss who say some pretty jaw dropping things. The blog author here (who I know nothing of besides this series of posts on this Kassian/DeMoss study) is taking K/DM to task.
http://www.carisadel.com/2242/true-womanhood-5/
Here are some Kassian/DeMoss quotes this author cites in the order in which they appear in the linked article:
You can call yourself a Christian, you can be active in ministry, but if you do not exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, if you use your tongue to slander others, if you are self-indulgent, have an addictive lifestyle, if you don’t love your husband and children…if you’re not managing your home well…if you’re not submissive to your own husband, then profess what you want about being a Christian, something is wrong with that picture. So many, many professing believers today have this huge gap, this fundamental disconnect between what they say they believe, and the way they live. And according to scripture, no such separation is legitimate.
You cannot claim to be a saved woman and not live like a saved woman. Your lifestyle either proves….or disproves your claim to be a child of God.
There seems to be an assumption made by the apostle Paul that young women will be wives and mothers. This is God’s norm….it’s part of God’s plan and his story….[singles] are the exceptions, not the rule. And so we see that our homes are the first and primary sphere where we as women live out the gospel.
You see this list of how a Christian woman is to reflect or illustrate the gospel.
You do not realize the impact that your life has on an unbelieving world, and others around us. As we make the gospel believable, or not, by the extent to which our lives reflect sound doctrine and the gospel of Christ.
You know, I just don’t even know what to say to this.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
The “list of how a Christian woman is to reflect…the gospel” was from Titus 2.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
They sure are, and I think it’s absolutely twisted.
It’s very easy for “person A,” whose life is going peachy at the moment, to lecture “person B” to keep putting up with whatever pain or suffering he/she is in if they are not under going the same stress/problem.
I have several pet peeves about Christianity, one of which is people who spiritualize suffering, who make it all out to be “character building,” or suffering is great because it ‘supposedly makes one more like Christ,’ so hey, just sit back and accept what lot you have in life!
I told the story on her a few posts ago about Paul Coughlin, who used to be codependent.
Coughlin wrote in one blog or book that he was being harassed by coworkers at one of his old jobs. He went to an older Christian businessman at his church for advice.
The Church Guy advised Coughlin not to resist or fight back, but to submit to the suffering, to turn the other cheek, yada yada, because that is what good Christians do.
Turns out, Church guy did not practice what he was preaching at Coughlin to do.
A few months later, Church guy had to work at Coughlin’s office for a limited time. Church guy did not tolerate rudeness or abuse from any one at Coughlin’s workplace, but stood up to people who mistreated him strongly.
Coughlin said he couldn’t believe it – this was the same guy who told him to put up with abusive treatment, and all in the name of Christianity.
I have seen that pattern time and again as I’ve gotten older: Christians will advise hurting Christians to just put up with abuse or mistreatment, but they themselves will not, if they are in the same (or similar) situation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
I agree. And thank you for sharing the lyrics, I agree with those too.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
numo wrote:
Preach it sister! It’s just a big-mean-nasty-roulette-wheel that was set into motion at the fall. It has huge inertia and is no respecter of persons. The good, the bad, and the ugly are all subject to it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Interesting exercise: find a place in scripture where someone calls another person to suffer (other than in the general “you shall suffer for my name” kind of way). Perhaps maybe you can stretch Jesus calling the disciples to leave everything and come follow him, letting the dead bury the dead? That’s about as close as I can get.
Paul does rebuke people telling him to escape suffering when he was certain it was his calling, but that is a far different thing. There are numerous examples of Paul escaping suffering too.
You know, I absolutely believe that there are cases where abuse victims have stayed in relationships and God has used that. I believe this is a sacrifice God can demand of a believer, just like he has called people to be martyred for the faith (but doesn’t call all people to). But this expectation that we can tell others this is what God wants from them- that is above our pay grade.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
A lot of people, Christian and Non Christian, sure feel the need to explain why some people never get married, if they take note of such singles at all (usually, nobody notices us).
When it is discussed, the person usually likes to blame the single for his/her singleness.
I just saw a page recently that explained this. I’ll see if I can find it again.
The single life: Some people never find the love of their lives. And live to tell about it.
It’s an article about a lady (Braitman and later DePaulo, and a guy in his 40s) who never married and is in her late 50s.
Here was the part that grabbed my attention:
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
As to the original post’s topic. I don’t know if authoritarianism is more inherent in churches with Reformed theology or not, but I’ve seen it with other churches that follow other theology.
Independent Fundamentalist Baptists seem to be pretty bad when it comes to authoritarianism, and I would assume they are either Arminian, or would not classify themselves as either Calvinists/Reformed or as Arminian.
IFBs sure do tend to be legalistic and controlling though, from what I have read on blogs and forums by ex IFBs, and from talking to current IFB members online.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous:
And notice how THEY and only THEY have the monopoly on Paul’s “inspired” meaning behind women being “wives and mothers”. You see, it couldn’t possibly be interpreted in the context of the culture which existed 2000 years ago because that would contradict THEIR super special divine opinion. Notice how they are the only ones who get to decide HOW to apply that scripture. You cannot possibly have a different opinion on it because you aren’t specially dispensed to know.
And even with this profound presumptuous conceit they still have the gall to use the word “seems”. Well, “seeming” to be something does not make it so. So, accordingly, we must concede that Paul may NOT have actually assumed what they are interpreting. But notice how this use of “seems” is not designed to mitigate the idea that women need to be wives and mothers in order to be saved (and this is EXACTLY what they think). It is designed to make them appear soft and reasonable, when they are anything but. They are rigid demagogues who feel it is their divine mandate to force you into your proper “role”. They are wolves who devour. And they walk a very dangerous road before God.
You who depose humanity, God does not affirm you.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
With all due respect, Wade, I don’t need to be punched in the nose to be broken. I’m perfectly capable of breaking myself. When I ended up in the psych hospital for major depression and suicidal ideation, it was because I had messed up a tax payment at my job and it had been hanging over my head for eight months. Eight months of worry, overwhelming sleepless nights and concern I was going to lose my job. All for a tax payment of a couple hundred dollars.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
“For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Matthew 23:4
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
Singles (including never-married Christian women over 30) are becoming the norm in America, however, because we are becoming so common.
People are not marrying right out of high school or college as they used to 40 or 50 years ago.
As the article above (“The single life: Some people never find the love of their lives. And live to tell about it.”) says,
While it’s tacky and unbiblical (IMO) that the author is apparently linking how a woman upholds or lives out gender complementarian views of what a woman acts like to proof of her salvation, it’s funny that (based on the excerpt you provided, any how) that the gender comp author does not provide the “exceptions” (that is, the single women) with models of how they can demonstrate their godliness, or salvation or whatever.
The author says a woman can prove she is godly and saved by how much she submits to her husband – okay, I don’t have a husband; how does an unmarried woman demonstrate she is godly and saved?
I guess singles don’t matter in the world of gender comps. Just say, “they are not the norm” and shove them aside.
I don’t see where the Bible says that marriage is the norm. If anything, Jesus Christ and Paul tore down the view that “marriage is the norm.”
In their day and time (2,000 years ago), a woman had to be married to receive financial support and stability. Also it seems that not having a child back then (which you could only do in marriage) was viewed as a disgrace, or a curse by God.
Christ’s message (and Paul’s) that a person can remain un-married and not have kids, that either one was okay, was revolutionary for the culture and time. Singleness was taught as being on equal footing in God’s sight to being married.
Culture (including American) may view getting married as being a “norm,” but God does not.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Crud I hate phones. My point is that you assume, Wade, that the average human being is able to take getting punched in the nose (figuratively) and NO we can’t. In fact I don’t need someone to tell me what all my sins are, I am perfectly capable of making myself mentally sick without the need for a preacher to do it for me. If being a Christian means I have to obsess about my and others’ sins, forget it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeannette Altes: Their history goes back pretty far… the discipleship/shepherding movement is part of it; ditto for Latter Rain (which keeps popping up in various forms and is *definitely* part of the whole NAR thing).
I went through various iterations of the discipleship movement – definitely non-Calvinist, definitely NOT pretty.
I personally think that any system – religious, bureaucratic, political – can not only be abused but actively used to control others. The common denominator is human nature… though some belief systems (not just religious) might be inherently authoritarian and/or lend themselves more easily to authoritarianism, I have seen supposedly xtian *and* supposedly “secular” systems used for control and gain.
Which means, I think, that we always need to be looking for checks and balances. Where there are few or none, things start skewing off in bad directions pretty quickly.
(and yeah, the NAR is scary.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ anonymous: Hey there, you’ve been making some great comments – how about choosing a screen name so we can tell you apart from the others who post as “anonymous”? A few threads back, I got very confused trying to follow posts by more than one person using “anonymous” as a screen name – couldn’t really tell who had posted what, which made it pretty hard to follow the discussion… but that’s just me. Others’ mileage may vary. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter: Including what are now called “weather events.”
My dad went to sea for a living, and I simply cannot imagine what that must have been like – encountering severe storms in both the North Atlantic and in various parts of the Pacific.
But it also applies to all those who went through the Dust Bowl (in which we had a hand, after all)….
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy: “Because there was no reason – because it could happen to any of us…” Is exactly why people come up with specious reasons. The same is true of accidental death and similar tragedies. It *could* happen to any of us, if we happened to be in there (where the accident/bombing/earthquake/fire/take your pick) occurred.
It’s easier to rationalize about such things than to accept that it could have been me (or you).
Something I’ve noticed: a lot of 19th c. English novels seem to feature middle-aged and elderly characters who never married (for whatever reasons) who are nice, normal people and respected by other characters. Which makes me wonder *why* people *might* have thought differently at that time, and later (well into the 20th century).
In the state where I grew up, women who taught school were required to be single for decades upon decades, because it was assumed that someone who married was going to have kids and not be able to work full-time. If you chose to marry, you had to quit teaching. In consequence, there were a LOT of older women who had taught school for their entire adult lives who had never married – and even though I used to hear the term “old maid” thrown around behind their backs (at times), they were very much respected, and always referred to as “Miss [insert name].” (Ditto for unmarried men who taught.)
It seems like people looked up to those who were single – and in certain professions – far more than they do now.
Food for thought…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy, couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, there’s the verse where Paul suggests that an unmarried believer might actually be better off. The references to the 1950s and antebellum stereotypes as being somehow more noble or womanly have always bothered me. What about those Yankee Abolitionist women? They were every bit as feminine and godly, (more so, imo, for being a voice for the voiceless) what about the Madame Curies and Amelia Earharts of the 30s? What was so bad about them that they would be tossed aside in favor of insipid, powerless caricatures?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
I wonder if attitudes about singleness have shifted because popular culture (music, movies, TV shows) have romanticized marriage? Or, maybe entertainment is reflecting a shift in how people think.
I’ve seen it mentioned in many articles about the topic that up until – I don’t know exactly when, 1900? 1950? – that Americans weren’t as sentimental about marriage.
Marriage was more a business partnership type deal, or you didn’t feel you had to be head over heels in love with the guy, that you understood you married someone decent who you kind of loved, and that you grew to be “head over heels” in love with the person.
But eventually American views changed to you absolutely have to have a soul mate to share life with, and if you do not you are lacking and incomplete.
You said,
Very true. I’ve seen the same thing for other issues in life… if you’re a woman who is raped, people used to say stuff like, “you asked for it because you were wearing a short skirt” and so on.
I was harassed at one job by a boss. I read lots of books about workplace abuse, and it’s the same thing – when you tell people you’re being bullied by a boss, some of them will say “you must have done something to deserve it/ provoke her” when in fact you did nothing.
People love to blame the victim (or blame the single for not being able to marry) because it’s easier and more comforting than accepting the reality that terrible, bad, random stuff can happen to anyone at any point in life.
RB, I read your post and agree. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ RB:
so, what is feminine?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
I’ve been thinking about that. I guess I probably should. :/
(Needless to say, I haven’t done it yet…)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
OK. It is now official. I am no longer anonymous. I am now formerly anonymous. 😀
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
For those who linked to the bizarre comments from Nancy Leigh Demoss keep in mind she grew up rich, is still rich and NEVER married. Not sure she makes a good authority on the subject anyway you slice it. My guess is plenty of people “submit” to her. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl: I’ll second elastigirl’s request here… (Along with noting that many of Amelia Earhart’s contemporaries seemed to view her as unfeminine, because of what she did and what she wore while doing it – there wasn’t any ultra-tailored pink flying gear back then, and I hope there isn’t any now!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
This is part of what I meant when I said the Reformed God is inherently authoritarian because it teaches man has no real volition. The entire TULIP requires an authoritarian God. Not a relational One.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy: I think that a lot of post-WW II social changes have contributed to this… think about all the women who went to work during the war and were expected to just meekly quit and give their jobs to men once the war was over, for example.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Just a disclaimer, there was plenty of authoritarianism in the mega seeker world. It was just hidden better and it had to be because the doctrine they espoused in most cases was not authoritarian but free will along side cheap grace
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ formerly anonymous:
Love it!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Southwestern Discomfort,
“My point is that you assume, Wade, that the average human being is able to take getting punched in the nose (figuratively) and NO we can’t.”
I think maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. The figurative punch in the nose was not for “average human beings,” it was for abusers (think child abusers), abusive authoritative leaders (think spiritually abusive pastors) and others who use position or power to dominate, harm (physically, spiritually and emotionally), and denigrate. I personally don’t believe the average person does this type of thing.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think you are ascribing something to me that has not been said.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
You wrote, “Wade is saying on one hand that sin is our fault, but in the same breath declares that we can’t help it.”
I politely disagree. I am saying we CAN help it, but we don’t. We freely choose our sin – nobody makes us, we do it ourselves.
You do correctly say that I believe “There is no one who does good” (This is the PRECISE wording of Romans 3:12 and it is a quote from Psalm 14:1 – “There is no one who does good”). You then correctly record what I write, “ALL violate our conscience.”
But then you write of my belief that no one does good and everyone violates their own conscience the following words: “To claim to know this for fact is profound conceit, I say...
I am unsure it is profound conceit, because it is exactly what Scripture says–word for word–in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
So, just wanted to gently correct an error in ascribing something to me that is not true (“we can’t help it” when my point is from the beginning we CAN help it and don’t), and then simply point out that I am quoting two passages of Scripture verbatim when I say “No one does good.”
Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
One of the neat things I’ve learned is that not all Christians, not even all in the Reformed camp, see everything as having to be done for God’s glory.
Some start with and end with God’s love. In the middle, yes, there is a lot of growing up in Christ for us to do and sometimes that means God allows us to suffer, or sends us suffering as a parent might send some suffering to a rebelling child.
Note the word rebelling. They see a vast difference between rebelling and simply messing up due to humanness. Hence a vast difference in God’s response.
And they tell you that the scripture clearly states that it is God’s will for ALL to come to repentance, that NONE be lost, that Christ is the Savior of the WHOLE world but ESPECIALLY of those that believe, and that some day every knee WILL bow and every tongue WILL proclaim Jesus is Lord. It also tells us that ALL who call upon the name of the Lord WILL be saved.
So hmmm–maybe those pesky universalists are not the heretics?
Gotta wonder, though, how much refining fire it will take to burn off the dross of authoritarianism trying to play God? They may be saved as by fire, but what of their works? Are they setting themselves up for a rather purgatorial experience down the line?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade, the problem I have with the Cal/Reformed interpretation of Paul quoting the Psalms in Romans is that Paul is quoting “man talking to God” in Hebrew poetry. If that is to be taken literally instead of metaphorically then what about the pleas to God in the Psalms that his enemies be wiped out…even dashing babies heads against rocks? This interpretation would appear to also take imprecatory prayers literally as a good thing?
And we know that man CAN do good which is not the same as saying all they do is good. We see this fact all throughout scripture. So, on one hand you are affirming total depravity (total inability) but then at the same time saying we choose to sin.
Can we also choose Christ?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl and numo, maybe I should ask what each of you define as feminine? Part of what I was hoping to show is that I believe we are individuals, first, last and always, regardless of race, age or gender, which is part of why I have such a difficult time with Patriarchy and hyper-authoritarians. Pretty sure almost everything I’ve ever commented on here has reflected that. Peace.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 at 4:46
“So, on one hand you are affirming total depravity (total inability) but then at the same time saying we choose to sin.”
I am not affirming total inability and never have. My belief is that if someone is UNABLE (like and infant who dies in infancy or the mentally handicapped) they are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ and sanctified by the Spirit.
I believe that ability goes with responsibility and every man is responsible to God and is able to obey Him but does not – nobody. Of course, some would complain and object that indeed, all men do AT TIMES obey God and their conscience. I would agree! However, obedience to God is to be perpetual, continual, with the right motive, and for the sake of God’s honor and glory. Nobody does this (see Romans 2:7).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I think it’s easy to see why the YRR tends towards authoritarianism: it promotes very strong power structures at the same time as being extremely immature. That’s a terrible Lord of The Flies-esque mix. I feel that the men in this movement (as in many others that promote strong gender roles) focus on being served rather than serving – they redefine serving as ruling, & there seems to be very little obvious self-repudiation, putting the last first, washing others feet…All of this is redefined in ways that need no putting aside of power, glory, self & so on…more doublespeak.
Putting this together with having the ‘duty’ & ‘responsibility’ to put a divine stamp on all this & order everything for Jesus & it just ratchets up the pressure. I see it as a massive mix of selfishness & fear.
Wade: I know you are the kindly face of reformed theology but I still find it immensely hard to read any expression of election & limited atonement. I can find no peace or confidence in it whatsoever – why would I believe God loves me, if he doesn’t love everyone? Nothing in my recent experience gives me any reassurance that this is so, rather the opposite. I’m getting to the point where I feel that laying my whole trust in Christ, ordering my whole life around him (as I did profoundly, until the experiences I had with trying to trust God as my Mother was dying), is psychologically dangerous, because there is this seam of utter uncertainty about God’s character, his love & his desire for me to know him. That seed of doubt is utterly contra to heartfelt trust, & no amount of praying is touching this. I must do, to follow God, something I can’t do, because of doctrines about God…I begin to wonder if I’m chosen for something less than salvation.
If anyone needs me I’ll be under the bed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade,
With all due respect, my friend, I think you need to trace forward your assumptions to their logical conclusions. You cannot have your existential/metaphysical cake and eat it too.
To claim that ducks can sing opera, but then declare that there has never actually existed a duck which sang opera, is a rational contradiction. And it is intellectually dishonest. What you are trying to do is proclaim that man has freely decided he is unable to do good. That his NEVER doing good is a direct function of his utterly free ability to choose to do good.
He could do good, but never does. Okay. Why not? Answer me that? Why doesn’t he?
I don’t see how you can arrive at this conclusion without a bit of existential gymnastics. What this logically means is that there is something BEYOND man’s will which compels him to never act upon his free will ability to do good. And what this is, is conveniently never discussed because what it really does is affirm the true reformed opinion which they do not want to say out loud: that, no, man CANNOT in fact DO good. He may “want” to, but man’s will, like everything else is subservient to some other external force…sin nature or what have you. Man’s will becomes moot, and thus, man’s will is really not free at all.
Wade, this is the same old Calvinist argument which says, “Oh sure, men CAN do good…they just never will.” The rational larceny of this argument is evident.
You proclaim that man can in fact do good, but then in the same breath proclaim that this has never actually happened…with the insinuation of course that it CANNOT happen, based on your scripture references. And if it never has actually happened, what evidence do you provide to support your claim that man can actually do good? And further, you cannot rely upon the Pauline argument that people will good, but don’t do it. For the same will that moves someone to make a cognitive choice is the EXACT same will that moves someone to action. If someone can WANT to do good, then they must be able to actually do good. It is irrational to say someone can want something, but can never actually act upon that want…as if there are somehow two separate wills involved. And further, if good is at its root a matter of the heart, then “wanting” good is as righteous as doing it, no?
And it is indeed profound conceit to declare that ALL have sinned, for neither you nor the authors of scripture could not possibly know this rationally. If we declare that because scripture says this, so it must be true (and I do not accept that the authors of scripture were speaking in such broad terms), what we are really conceding is gnosticsm 101: that there are certain men–author’s of scripture, and those whose interpretations are “orthodox”–who have some specially dispensed knowledge that can exist outside of all rational, observable, and quantifiable evidence.
You see, since it is impossible to prove that ALL men have sinned, then it MUST mean that he who declares this is staking a claim to some kind of divine insight that lay beyond man’s physical reality and reason. And if this is true, then no one can know truth by definition. And if know one can no truth, no one can know the difference between good and evil. And if no one can know evil, then it is functionally irrelevant. And so is good.
And if this is true, you know what else is irrelevant?
Jesus Christ.
Wade, I implore you, as a preacher and a shepherd of souls, please re-evaluate your assumptions.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And yes, I do mean good PERPETUALLY. Everyday in and out.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“they redefine serving as ruling,”
Bingo, Beaker! Money quote. Also, they redefine love as lording it over.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon1,
This is PRECISELY the the reformed assumption. I just wrote about this in my last comment. Sure, men CAN do good, but never will/do. Er…okay? I mean, this argument just sounds wrong from the start. Here’s why.
Well, the next logical question is: Okay, WHY do men NEVER do perpetual good? The answer circles squarely back to reformed metaphysical assumptions. There MUST be something else which trumps man’s will. There must be some other force beyond man’s will which compels him to NEVER choose to do that which apparently–and despite having no evidence for this if you accept the reformed positions–everyone can freely do.
So you are exactly right. That something else is man’s total depravity. That is what trumps man’s will. And since man’s will is always subservient to his depraved “sin nature”, man’s will cannot be free by definition, and he can never do good.
Good post!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ RB:
Hi, RB.
I’m sorry if my question came across as a challenge — I didn’t mean it to. Your view that we are individuals regardless of gender, etc. came through clearly in your comment.
I was asking part honestly (to see what responses might come from whoever, to explore the topic) and part rhetorically, knowing that the answer to “what is feminine?” is as varied in time and place and person as is the answer you would get if you asked all members of my family “what is good cheese?” (no soft cheese only hard cheese, all soft cheese except white ones, all cheese that exists on the moon & earth, cheddar only but not melted, parmesan but only in the can, velveeta please, no velveeta yuck, just the cheese powder from the macaroni & cheese box, cheddar and Monterey jack are boring so give it to me stinky, etc.).
But at the same time, it seems the popular understanding of “what is feminine” is very specific — always soft spoken, softly colored, soft textures, graceful, gentle, sweet, unassuming, yielding, helpful… does this derive solely from biblical, religious ideas? Furthered and embellished upon by puritan ideas, & then Victorian morays? Now i’m off exploring…. (by the way, I hate all these “feminine” stereotypes)
I bet numo has some good thoughts here, with her art history degree.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade, if I misunderstood you, I apologize.
The following is not directed at Wade.
I’m also reminded that none of this stuff was ever discussed by Jesus, which to me makes it about as useful as determining how many angels dance on the head of a pin. The entire library of theological mishmash, all the vocabulary learned about in the high and mighty (and not so high and mighty) institutes of theology, well, Jesus said none of that. It all comes from his followers, centuries later, trying to draw lines and keep people out.
Jesus did say some hard things that so many of his followers have a problem following. You know, like “love your neighbor as yourself.” Or “bless them that curse you” or “pray for those that hate you and despitefully use you.” And so on and so forth. But instead it’s easier to yell at people about their sins and talk loudly about some really evil sins (you know, like being gay, which Jesus had nothing to say about), instead of well, going out and hanging with the prostitutes and notorious sinners, like Jesus did.
It’s my personal opinion that Jesus would rather preachers, theologians and so on spend their time doing what he said to do and following his example, instead of coming up with even more lines to draw, more people to put in the Outside The Saved zone, etc. etc.
Me, I’m Outside The Saved Zone because inside it was a mentally scary place. It wasn’t healthy at all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
Argo, I am confused as to how we can choose to sin but we cannot choose Christ. Seems rather one sided and non relational to me. God allows us to choose sin but not to choose Him. Would this make God authoritarian and non relational?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
Peter Lumpkins has an interesting post about pink formerly being a “masculine” color for men/boys and blue for girls. And about little boys being dressed up in dresses around the turn of the century being the norm. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
perhaps the answer to “what is feminine” simply describes the value and role a society imposes on women.
And perhaps as a society becomes more & more of a melting pot of different traditions and values and styles in which to do life, “what is feminine” becomes less and less important. (is there truth to that? not sure)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Anon1,
Your confusion is a good thing. It is a sign you have not surrendered your rational faculties to mystic despots. A sign that you refuse to concede that truth is beyond you.
And yes…your observation of the rational larceny is astute. You can choose evil freely, but you cannot choose Christ. This only makes sense in reformation disputations. A place where no reason has gone before.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Please note, I am not insinuating that Wade is a despot. I apologize if my post to Anon1 seemed to imply.
I think Wade is devoted to some very unsound reformed assumptions that are used with impunity to oppress and exploit people. But I do not think HE is doing this.
I think he is a good man who needs to think out his beliefs to their physical application. To see the direct line between the ideas he accepts and the historical destructive outcomes.
Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
to expand on that last thought, melting pot = so much variation, so the commonality becomes “human”, therefore masculine and feminine aren’t nearly as relevant as “human”…..
cultural variety is a fact of life on earth. the less insular one is, the more aware one is of variations and variety in culture and style and values and ways and methods. insular can be a physical thing, but also a state of mind. so even if one lives in a homogeneous community, one can still be aware of people from here, there, & everywhere. in which case, the commonality again becomes “human”. “Masculine” and “feminine” cease to be all that relevant compared to “human.
NOW,… will cultural variety continue? is the western world still encroaching on the farthest corners of the earth (like it was when I visited the end of the world in India but found I couldn’t escape my culture — so disheartening)? Seems like we’re headed ultimately toward a uniculture… then what? if no cultural variation, then are we back to stewing over what is masculine and what is feminine?
I’m sure I’m taking this too far…..
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
For me, Messiah is not irrelevant. I am like a man in the process of surviving a tsunami. Jesus’ cloak and his strong arms provide me with an air pocket to breathe and an indestructible barrier that keeps the heavy debris from grinding me to carrion. I have no iron-clad Euclidean proof for this, it’s what I choose to believe.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
Argo, Apologies because I haven’t read your subsequent comments yet. I’m trying to put my finger on something here. These quotes from Kassian/DeMoss are admittedly out of context.
“So many, many professing believers today have this huge gap, this fundamental disconnect between what they say they believe, and the way they live. And according to scripture, no such separation is legitimate.”
“Does your life cause your husband, your kids, or others, to disrespect or doubt God’s word?”
“You cannot claim to be a saved woman and not live like a saved woman. Your lifestyle either proves….or disproves your claim to be a child of God.”
If I didn’t know they self-identify as Reformed, and had only these quotes, I’d have to guess they were…WHAT?
I imagine thousands of their readers, who may or may not have faith in Jesus, trying oh-so-hard, with all their depraved might, to “prove” by their lifestyles that they’re children of God. But all the “proving” in the world, if it ain’t really so, means… WHAT?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter:
But what you have done is declared that it is YOU who are choosing to believe. This is a profound (and true) metaphysical statement. I assure you this is NOT what reformed theology teaches.
You have made a claim to the validity of your powers of perception and reason. And this is my point: this is necessary BEFORE Jesus can actually BE any of those things you described, Muff.
And YOU have judged good and correctly. He is those things.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous,
” I am confused as to how we can choose to sin but we cannot choose Christ.”
I am utterly confused by your confusion. 🙂
We CANNOT choose Christ? To me, that’s utterly ridiculous. Every human being has a mind to consider Christ, a tongue to confess Christ, a will to choose Christ, etc… We do not choose Christ because we do not desire Him, and that is all our fault.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
From what I know of the fruits of Pastor Burleson’s ministry in Enid, they have been good. Changed lives and good water for future crops of humanity. He’s left the world a better place than he found it. Other than amicable curiosity, why should I care what his religious beliefs are?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
More important than “choosing Christ” is “obeying God” and the Royal Law of unselfishly loving others and loving Him above all other gods. So…
“Every human being has a mind to consider God, a tongue to confess God, a will to obey God, etc… We do not obey God because we do not desire Him nor desire to obey Him. That is all our fault.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Of course, when you “choose Christ” you are choosing the only one who can take your heart of selfishness and turn it into a heart of love because He convinces you that He loves you. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dave A A:
Dave AA,
Yes. I think I see what you are saying. And…EXCELLENT! Great catch!
Yes, according to their OWN “sound doctrine” there is no amount of trying the pervasively depraved can do to “prove” they are good or saved. The only thing anyone can do is concede that there is nothing they can do. If is PRIDE to attempt to live righteously by your own will.
So, yes. How do you square depravity with their misogynistic demands that women stay home and fulfill their roles to prove that THEY are saved? Human action of any kind is utterly irrelevant to salvation and sanctification…that is their whole depravity point.
Dave, excellent.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Beakerj,
You ask “I can find no peace or confidence in it whatsoever – why would I believe God loves me, if he doesn’t love everyone?”
A great question. When my wife began asking that question she couldn’t sleep for nights. Then, one day, she realized that God’s unconditional love for her in Christ was a matter of His faithfulness and promise that those who embrace His Son are loved by Him. She began to realize that her faith was a gift of God’s grace, and that warrant to believe God loved her was all in her faith in Christ – and nothing else. Therefore, she began to experience (what she calls), “beautiful, personal, unbelievable, unconditional, incredible love from God” and all the fear left. She had always assumed that being “a good little Baptist girl” guaranteed God loved her, and the idea that God was under no obligation to love her at first scared her, but the more she saw the love of God in embracing His Son, the more at peace she became. So, “why would I believe God loves me, if He doesn’t love everyone” is only answered in Christ. Not everyone is in Christ. Not everyone believes in Christ. Not everyone has been given the righteousness of Christ. “Kiss the Son,” the Psalmist says, “Lest your God be angry.” This anger is a judicial anger at rebellion towards Him. Kiss the Son, and even rebels are adopted by God. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade,
You are just repeating the same thing in (slightly) different ways. You are reinterpreting language in service to your premise. You are equating desire and will, but then making us “slaves” to our desire to NEVER obey God. Wade, a desire without choice, which IS the existential premise you are pushing, is NOT free. And if desire/volition/will is not free, then there can be no real choice, and man can neither be justly rewarded or condmed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Someone here linked to another blog which linked to one of their (their = DeMoss, Kassian) sites,
truewomanhood101 – divine design.
That site/ DVD series/ workbooks are chock full of reasons as to why it’s your joyous, God-ordained role in life to submit to male headship and to bake cookies.
Not that I’m opposed to cookie baking, and I enjoy eating cookies, but there are other things I want to do in life. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
This is precisely why it is so frustrating in listening to reformation preachers. In the very same post they will declare that faith and ALL that goes with it can have absolutely NOTHING to do with you (all God), and then say you need to “kiss the son”…as if the gift of grace which occurred in utter spite of you (because we are freely NEVER able to choose Christ…whatever that means) somehow squares with any human volitional action.
And this is the very metaphysic they cannot rationalize. It always boils down to contradiction. And still they NEVER connect the human destruction with the doctrines they believe.
Amazing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
I really don’t want to go more rounds with you on any of this- we will never see eye to eye. I just object that you are here defining Reformed Theology and then knock it down. But you define it in a way most adherents to it do not define it.
Regarding man’s will, the Reformed position is than men do follow their wills. Total Depravity does not “trump” free will. It describes our free will. The Reformed position is that men always follow their wills. If they followed God’s will then there would be no sin.
But Reformed Theology does believe that God can change our wills. He can and does change us from desiring to do evil to desiring to do good.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Under the Reformed understanding, people who are not saved do not WANT to choose Christ. It’s not that they are not allowed, it’s that they are not enabled to do so.
I personally do not buy the notion of how Original Sin operates, but I think it IS true that “all have fallen” however we got there. And once fallen, I do think we lose the will to choose Christ.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
I really respect you. I don’t know your back story, but I realize that someone, somewhere (or maybe multiple people) really burned you out on what you call “Reformed” theology.
I have to agree with Jeff S. above. The difficulty in defining what I believe (or Jeff believes) based upon what you have either seen and/or experienced in your circles, and then categorically saying our beliefs bring “human destruction” is a little over-the-top. I could give you hundreds of names of people who would tell you their lives, their families, their emotions, their psyches, their health, their ______ (fill in the blank) have been transformed for the good through believing in the doctrines of grace I teach. I do not presume to tell you what is best for you, I would simply request that you be careful in assigning definitions and conclusions to what I believe and where what I believe leads people without really knowing me, what I believe, or the people to whom I minister. Assuming things gets us all in trouble.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Choosing and obeying are morally equivalent. They are also not mutually exclusive. One cannot be a function of man’s free volition and the other not. This is impossible. If your will is not involved (or, must be forced by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as depravity forced you NOT to obey…which is the exact same thing as denying man has any freedom of will) in salvation, then it cannot be involved in sanctification. Once God has chosen you FOR you, “free” choice in sanctification becomes moot.
I submit that you will never concede that man can choose Christ without the hijacking of his will. This puts you in a metaphysical quandary that you cannot reconcile. It will always be contradiction. This is what you must live with.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
One final thought, Argo…
I have always believed, always taught, always said, and always have staked my ministry on one simple truth… “Anybody who desires to believe in Christ CAN freely, personally, and unconditionally come to Christ.”
Period. End of sentence.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
You said, “I submit that you will never concede that man can choose Christ without the hijacking of his will”
Absolutely, positively, 100% WRONG.
I am saying JUST THE OPPOSITE.
It is the sinner who wills Christ. It is the sinner who chooses Christ. Nobody’s will is hijacked. Period.
Christ came to me in such incredible love, unbelievable beauty, stupendous mercy and overwhelming glory that I CHOSE, I WILLED, I CAME, I DESIRED, I CALLED, I GAVE, I SURRENDERED, I BELIEVED, etc…
Can’t get any clearer. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade,
I have had experience with reformation doctrines for years. I am assuming nothing. The logical conclusions of “grace” teaching in the reformed construct are what they are.
I will not be bullied into silence. You have yet to respond to the majority of my points. You claim that my assumptions are invalid, that I’m merely assuming, and then warn me to shut up.
I am simply describing the inconsistency of ideas such as “depravity”. And point out the connect between spiritual abuse and ideas. I have never accused you of doing anything other than holding ideas that are logically suspect.
But instead of dialogue I get scolded.
Wade, you are not my father not my pastor.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade,
I do like the sound of that. And I will concede that you and I are in agreement with this for now.
I am not sure how this reconciles with some other ideas…but, I will think about it.
Thanks for that last comment. I think it was nice to hear.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Okay. Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
“I will not be bullied into silence. You have yet to respond to the majority of my points. You claim that my assumptions are invalid, that I’m merely assuming, and then warn me to shut up.”
Wow, Argo. I deeply apologize. Please forgive me. I have obviously failed in my communication to you. At no time have I ever desired to bully you into silence, nor has it flickered across my mind to warn you to shut up. The fact that this is what you heard from me is my fault, not yours.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ RB: sorry to have given the wrong impression.
Like elastigirl, I was asking partly with the hope of getting a discussion going, not because I disagree with you. (I don’t!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
Wade,
You are very gracious. Thank you.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
But this is even more confusing. Here you seem to be acknowledging that we CAN decide to “embrace” Christ. Free will.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
How can you say I never desired Him?
You seem to be talking two totally different things trying to make them the same. You are claiming that we CAN choose Christ but that we won’t because we do not desire Him. The end result is the same thing…something is keeping us from desiring Him and if God is Sovereign he can override that something but does not for all. So the conclusion is the same. And how can it be our fault if God does not override it for us like He did for others?
I think I am weary of the platitudes and the answers which seem clever but are cognitive dissonance. I can understand it because when we get right down to it, the truth of this doctrine is that it makes God seem cruel so one tries to position Him in the best light possible and it only gets confusing because of the cognitive dissonance. But when analyzed comes to the same conclusion. God is doing all the choosing and man has no real input no matter how thin you slice it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
Ok, then you are NOT a Calvinist in any way. Do not affirm any of the TULIP? Not Reformed and do not agree with Pink or Spurgeon? What you wrote above describes free will. Now I am really confused because I went back and read an earlier comment which has this statement:
“I don’t believe God unconditionally, personally, and eternally loves with delivering love (as in “He shall deliver His people FROM their sins”) every sinner. I believe there are a few (notice the word “few”) that He leaves in their sins for the purpose of the praise of His holy justice. ”
That is Calvinistic.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1,
Man is a free moral agent. He is free to obey God. More specifically, he is commanded to obey God, His Creator by loving other people and loving Him above all else. Nobody “forces” man to not obey God. Every man freely chooses disobedience. That’s not to say all men are equally immoral, it’s just to say that all are immoral.
God is under no obligation to deliver anyone from the consequences of man’s rebellion. The fact that He does deliver an innumerable company from their sins is grace. If a man desires deliverance from his sins he will always find it because all the promises of God say that he who seeks will find. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous,
“Something is keeping us from desiring Him and if God is Sovereign he can override that something but does not for all”
Wow. That is pretty darn insightful.
What was keeping your spouse from choosing to love you? What was holding your spouse back from freely committing herself to you in love? What was that “something”? I may not know, but I do know how you overcame that “something.” You loved your spouse. You wooed your spouse. You drew your spouse to you through your LOVE.
Now, if God does this for every human being, then I am so confident in the love of God and its majestic power, every human being will be delivered from their selfish disobedience, for how could you ever be wooed by the love of God and NOT come.
The question before us is simple: Is God under obligation to woo in love those who have rebelled against Him?
If so, then His love is no longer gracious, it is an obligation. I no more believe God is obligated to love a sinner than you are obligated to love my wife. God is just and takes no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked, but to say He is obligated to marry the wicked is more than I can say. The fact that HE DOES marry the wicked is unbelievable in terms of grace.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversations!
I must step aside to fulfill other commitments and obligations. Thanks, one and all, for a stimulating discussion.
Please know, I could be wrong in everything I am saying. I don’t believe I am, but I know I could be.
We are one in our faith in God through Christ. That’s enough. How we go to Him is a secondary issue. 🙂
Good night. Have a great weekend all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
But notice here that the assumption is that ALL men are in rebellion. You cannot arrive at this conclusion unless you deny that man really has any free volition at all. To say on the one hand that ALL are BOUND in sin by their FREE desire to willfully obey God is an attempt to argue two ideas that cannot possibly be reconciled. You have no rational basis on which to make this claim.
The question for you, Wade, is WHY are ALL in rebellion? WHY do NONE choose to be perpetually obedient; to be moral (your quote “all are immoral”). What is it about men that, when presented with a choice, they ALWAYS categorically reject being perpetually obedient? If there is any reason at all, then you must deny free will, because free will which is bound by anything outside itself is not free.
But really, all that is meaningless argumentation. The real crux of the matter is this: If you claim that men are free to choose, Christ, you MUST deny total depravity, even if NO ONE ever actually chooses Christ. It is impossible that you can be totally depraved and have real freedom of volition.
IF you declare than men do have free will, then it ultimately does not matter in the least what they choose or do not choose. If you really believe that men are free to will, then the choices they make are ultimately irrelevant in the equation. ALL men may reject Christ, but this is NO argument for total depravity, or the need for God’s grace in leading people to know Him, because you have already conceded that by man’s free will, neither of those things can be true or necessary. If you concede that man freely chooses Christ you must jettison any notion of total depravity or God as the instigator of salvation. Man’s will must always come FIRST, and anything else…grace, gift, calling, etc…second.
If you concede that man has free will and can choose good, regardless of whether he does or not, then you must deny the doctrine of total depravity.
Do you?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
Now I am even more confused. I thought everyone has rebelled against God. Isn’t that the interpretation of Romans 3 you mentioned above. No one does good?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
But, Romans 3 also says NO ONE SEEKS God.
There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
So now it is interpreted differently from your interpretation on “no one is righteous” (does good)?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
No- he is saying what Calvinism says and he is inline with the WCF here.
Man does what man wills to do. If our wills are convinced that Christ is good, we will act according to our wills.
The disagreements between Calvinists and non-Calvinist are:
-Whether the will of those who are not Christians has the potential to gain desire for Christ without being drawn by the Spirit
-Once a person has been drawn, will he or she ever will anything other than Christ?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And further, if you concede the freedom of men to choose Christ, then ALL those who choose Him must have done so by their OWN free will…again, destroying the notion of total depravity. To say that man has free will but that is not how he is saved is to make free will irrelevant to the salvation equation. If free will is irrelevant to the equation then free will is not really free. It is always bound by that thing which IS relevant to the equation. God’s grace. Or…”election” of some but not others. This is why doctrines of “grace” are huge red flags for me. Because often they are merely a euphemism for determinism. And if the person holds to reformation theology, you can bet on it. It is determinism, nothing more.
And notice how Wade uses the word “obligation”. God is not “obligated” to save those in rebellion. This is tantamount to arbitrary election…a reformed doctrine. What this must mean is that God’s choosing some and not others has nothing in the end to do with free will. God’s salvation is purely based on his “good graces” and nothing more. Free will is moot. Determined/arbitrary election is how God saves. Free will isn’t free because it is always at the mercy of God’s deterministic will. As such, free will isn’t really free at all. It is pointless. And that is ALWAYS the idea of reformation teaching (whether conscious or not), to remove YOU from your life; to drive a wedge between YOU and God’s salvation equation.
And they will do it sometimes by conceding just enough to get you to be quiet. Or to end the debate.
If they can convince you that they really believe in free will…hey, no skin off their noses. They’ll agree with you all day long. Why? Because they know that free will DOESN’T UTLIMATLY MATTER in in their theology. You can have free will…sure, but understand that it is wholly irrelevant to HOW you get saved.
See the sleight of hand? See the cunning linguistics? Notice the other implicit fact: IF God presents Himself to you in all his opulent glory, then you have NO choice but to accept Him…by your free will, of course (wink wink).
And if you say that there are reasons God saves some and not others that are NOT divinely arbitrary, you concede that men can do things to warrant God’s salvation favor. And as such, you also deny total depravity and the doctrines of “sovereign grace”. Wade has not done this.
People, Wade is a nice man and I believe that he really thinks he has TRUTH. His intentions are likely very good and loving. But you cannot change the doctrine. As I said before: it is what it is. And what it is, is destructive. The doctrine will eventually lead to bad assumptions, which will lead to bad outcomes.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
Total Depravity means a person won’t choose good, even if they can choose good. I guess it depends on your definition of “can”. A person walking by buried treasure every day always has the ability to dig it up and take possession of it, but if he is ignorant that it is there (or of its value) his ability does not good because his will is not for the treasure. I would say this person “can” but won’t. Once he understands its value, then his will certainly compels him to take action.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
Really? REALLY?
I could just scream reading this. I walked away from the church, and by extension, Jesus*, because I came to the conclusion that what I’d invested over 30+ years of my life in was not based in truth or reality. In other words, I had spent pretty much my entire adult life worshiping someone who was a construct of my mind and everything I’d processed through it.
Madeline L’Engle wrote a teen book called “An Acceptable Time.” One of the characters is an Episcopal bishop named Nason Colubra. The storyline of the book is that the main characters and Colubra get thrown back 3,000 years in time. There is a scene in the book where the main characters and some other people encounter Colubra praying to Christ. There’s an intimacy in that scene…when I think of all the things I wanted in my Christian walk, that was one of the things I wanted more than anything, that intimacy with Christ, that he would be THAT REAL to me. He never was. It was all in my head. (I could come up with other examples, but that’s one which has stuck in my mind.)
And yet you say, Wade, that I don’t choose Christ because I didn’t desire him. Yeah, right. Really, you simply have no idea. I’m just going to shut up now because otherwise I will completely lose it.
*Please note, I have enormous respect for the teachings of Jesus. However, I don’t buy the “Son of God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father” construction of the Nicene Creed. So yes, I am rejecting Jesus’ divinity. Because there is NO EVIDENCE for it. And to reiterate again, coming to that conclusion was like a knife to the heart,it went on for a couple of years and to some extent is still going on. I’d also note I’m just crying typing this, because I KNOW there will be people who judge me as “never a believer” and heading straight to hell on the shortest path possible. Fine. But the thing is, I do believe in verifiable truth–tell me some verifiable truth, not stuff based in faith, and I’ll give it a listen. But Christianity is not a verifiable truth. It is a series of unverifiable propositions that I can no longer give assent to.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And “obligation” is utterly besides the point, UNLESS you think that Christ did NOT come to save all (limited atonement).
Christ has been crucified. That is not in dispute among Christians. So what is left is to decide whether or not this sacrifice is efficacious for ALL men and women, or just a “limited” number.
Enter “obligation”. Obligation is not relevant unless God has the FINAL say in who gets saved. Which makes free will irrelevant. And Wade can concede free will all day long and yet never deny any of his root Calvinistic assumptions.
If all men are free to choose Christ, who has ALREADY been sacrificed, then the onus for salvation ULTIMATELY rests with MAN. HE must freely choose his salvation. The ball is ENTIRELY in his court. There is not need for the Holy Spirit to “prompt”, there is only need for people to “go and preach to the nations”. So that people can hear about Christ and decide and choose or reject for themselves.
But to declare that AFTER Christ’s death God STILL is not “obligated” to save…well, folks, that is “limited atonement”. Again, free will is besides the point. It is ALL God’s grace. And that is reformation determinism.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
Man…I feel you there. I’m so sorry you have be so screwed by false doctrine. Please, please understand that there are those of us who are working tirelessly to come up with a comprehensive refutation of all of these dreadful reformed assumptions that have so damaged you.
These ideas are NOT of Christ. Please believe that. I’m so sorry for your pain.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Last comment, and I’ll stop monopolizing:
Wade, now that Christ is crucified, God, in order to not be a denier of Himself, certainly IS obligated to save ALL who free choose Him. If obligation is something to consider, then He is indeed on the hook for Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. He can have NO basis for rejecting anyone who has freely chosen His perfect sacrifice.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
Once again, saying the Reformed teach determinism is wrong. It is not right for you to say someone teaches something that they expressly do not teach. The WCF CLEARLY stats in Chapter 9:
“God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.”
It’s fine if you want to accuse Reformed theologians of believing contradictions or nonsense (as you have done), but you go too far when you talk about “Reformed Determinism”. Reformed Theology does not believe in determinism. Full Stop. Please stop characterizing it that way. You aren’t going to change my mind and I won’t change yours, but there are a lot of people who read your mischaracterizations of Reformed Theology and they might believe you. That is not fair to them. Don’t give them a false definition and then knock it down.
Calvinists believe in free will. You do not have the right to say that we don’t.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
Jeff,
Reformation theology does NOT believe in free will. Whether I convince you or not is irrelevant. The logic is on my side. I don’t care what the WCF states (and whenever someone uses the word “clearly” red flags fly…if doctrine was that clear, there would be no debate). You can preach free will all day long, but as long as you accept that man’s free will is NOT the final arbiter of his salvation then free will is irrelevant. And this is why reformation people are allowed to get away with this rational theft. Free will is ALWAYS subject to that which DETERMINES the final outcome of his life. And if that is true, then by definition free will isn’t free…it is BOUND by the inexorable determinism of God’s will. If God’s will ALWAYS trumps your will in the relationship, then man’s will isn’t free. And there is not relationship.
Declare that man’s salvation is first up to him, rooted in his free and wholly unfettered, un-coerced, un-compelled acceptance of God’s sacrifice without reference to ANYTHING preceding or subverting it, whether God, the devil, the Holy Spirit, “sin nature”, depravity, circumstance, grace, etc., etc., in the salvation equation then I will concede that I am wrong. Until you can do that, my opinion stands.
I have the right to declare that and I will.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There is no way on this earth that you can ever, ever rationalize the idea that Calvin believed in free will. Have you read his institutes? Show me ONE place where you can draw the logical conclusion that Calvin (or ANY neo-reformed doctrine for that matter) believes in free will efficacious to man’s own ultimate salvation or demise.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, I believe it is really a different definition. There are a lot of the same words but they carry different meanings. Sovereignty is another example of that.
I have gone through this idea of free will with quite a few Reformed people and the logic is circular. As in, people choose to sin but at the same time sin is their natural state (total depravity/inability) so they are “free” to do it but they are going to do it anyway. Then they can only “choose Christ” if God has determined it to happen. It is doublespeak and I think if you analyze your confessions they show that people can choose but also that God chooses. It is doublespeak.
Sadly, most of those confessions were politically motivated at the time because of church/state situations. They are not scripture but man’s interpretation of scripture for the masses to follow. Does not mean they are all wrong just suspect and not a good place to start.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There was certainly no “free will” in whether you attended church in Calvin’s Geneva! :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Yes…I was wondering. Was Calvin encouraging his “clearly” accepted idea of inherent free will when he burned Michael Servitus at the stake?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
As a believer in Reformed theology as it applies to salvation, it seems to me that there is some degree of unclear communication from some others on this thread who subscribe to this theology, which we believe is what Scripture teaches – Calvin, Luther, etc. also thought it was what Scripture taught. If I am wrong, I apologize.
It’s late, and I don’t want to go into detail or give Scripture references – I just want to briefly outline what I believe Scripture teaches on this subject.
Jeff S – You quoted the beginning of chapter 9 of the WCF: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.” But the chapter goes on to say that this was the condition of man in his “innocency,” when he was created. But when he fell “into a state of sin,” he lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation….So he “is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself.” (BTW, numerous Scripture references accompany all of the WCF.) “God…by His grace alone, enables him to freely will and to do that which is spiritually good,” but, because “of his remaining corruption,” he not only wills what is good, but also wills what is evil. “The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.”
So, yes, man’s will is not absolutely free before or after he becomes a believer because sin to some degree causes him to want what God does not want. If his will were absolutely free before becoming a believer, he would continually will what he never wants, which is to love and obey God. After salvation, he is able to will what God wants and able to will what God doesn’t want, so his freedom is still not absolute. His will is tied to his nature.
Total Depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he can be, but that sin affects every aspect of him – mind, body, soul, will, etc. As far as salvation is concerned, his nature is to not want God, so he will not choose God. When God does a work in him (regeneration or effectual call), he then wants God, and will choose him.
Scripture makes it clear that no one deserves God’s mercy, including the ones He chooses. There is nothing special about the ones He chooses. We can’t possibly know why He chooses the ones He chooses.
But lets say that He gave everyone the ability to choose Him. Unless everyone did, wouldn’t we say that there was some unfairness? Ultimately, why did some choose and others not? If we say that one factor is where on the earth he lived, wouldn’t we say that it was unfair that he lived there? If someone was more “spiritually sensitive,” didn’t God make him that way?
We may not like that Adam’s wrong choice affected all of us, but Scripture is clear that he was our representative. My speculation is that all of us would have made the same wrong choice. The Bible is also clear that God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. He knew they would, but did not make them do it. They chose.
I’ve written more than I planned to. This is my understanding, and, of course, I may be wrong. As I, and many others have said, ultimately we don’t know how God’s sovereignty and human freedom intersect. For instance, God desired that His Son be crucified, but the people who did it were responsible for their sin.
I realize that some may not think God is good if these things are true. By faith, I believe He is good despite the fact that I don’t fully understand His ways.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB: The issue is further confused – or maybe “complicated” is a better word? – by the fact that Reformation does *not* necessarily equal “Reformed.”
If you look at the Anglican communion and a snapshot of the various Lutheran bodies throughout the world, you’re going to see a spectrum of belief that very likely doesn’t square with the ongoing discussion here re. Reformed theology and/or groups like SGM that have assumed the name “Reformed” without having any clear understanding of the Reformed tradition. (Not to mention Reformed people making Luther one of their own, when he was *not* a Calvinist!)
Ah well. These arguments have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years now, and I so wish they would – could – cease. it would be nice if we all (not just people here) dropped our weapons for even a wee bit of a truce!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“If you look at the Anglican communion and a snapshot of the various Lutheran bodies throughout the world, you’re going to see a spectrum of belief that very likely doesn’t square with the ongoing discussion here re. Reformed theology and/or groups like SGM that have assumed the name “Reformed” without having any clear understanding of the Reformed tradition. (Not to mention Reformed people making Luther one of their own, when he was *not* a Calvinist!)”
Very true!
“Ah well. These arguments have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years now, and I so wish they would – could – cease. it would be nice if we all (not just people here) dropped our weapons for even a wee bit of a truce!
”
Actually these “arguments” have not been going on for hundreds of years by the peasants at all. There were scholars debating them, leaders going to war over them, etc but us ignorant masses had no say at all. And one could be excommunicated or worse earlier on for disagreeing. It is interesting to note that much of the archives of Europe finally opened up to new research scholars after WW2 when the last of the European church/state fell. Couple that with the study of the newly found Dead Sea Scrolls when the world was not at war and new archeological finds to help us understand scripture in 1st century context and then the explosion of social media and we are in an entirely different position.
I do not consider our discussions “weapons” and am sad you think of it that way. There is no need of truce as I love everyone here I interact with. Disagreement does not have to be hate or war.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
Jeff, good comment and thanks for articulating the WCF. (Even though I disagree with it :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
You complain about being bullied, but now you insist on telling me that I do not believe what I claim to believe.
I get that you think it is not rational. I disagree and think you are wrong, but it’s fair. But to insist that I believe something (and tell others that) is uncharitable at best.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
This is still free will though. Man still does what he wants to do.
The rest of chapter 9 does not imply man has lost the ability to do what he wills, only that his will has turned against God.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
To be clear, I am not starting with the confession. There are things in the WCF I definitely disagree with. But it IS an excellent summation of Reformed Theology and provides an good baseline for understanding the thinking behind the system of thought. So if an idea blatantly goes against what the WCF states, it probably isn’t a core idea of the Reformed faith. That’s the reason I bring it up.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes, they do show that. Whether it is doublespeak is up for debate, though. For my money, this is something that is beyond us that we simply cannot grasp. But we’ve been down this road before; I know you don’t like that answer.
But as I’ve said before, I cannot see any way of viewing man has having free will without coming to some form of contradiction. In the Atheist option, there is not God to miraculously give us free will- we are merely the product of our inputs. As I see it, any option that involves God ends up with what you label as “doublespeak” at some point, so I fall back to the one that I believe I see in scripture. ]
I know that answer is not satisfying. To be honest, it isn’t all that satisfying to me, but between all the options I’ve understood and considered, it is either believe that somehow both God and man choose, believe that only God chooses, believe that we are mere products of our inputs, or just don’t believe anything at all. I choose the first because it’s the best my limited understanding can do.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I meant to say “apparent contradiction”, as I believe contradictions cannot exist.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
A couple of times there has been a reference to “God giving us free will”. This is how far down the line we have gone as products of Platonist thinking. We say things an yet are never aware of the contradiction.
If our free will is a direct function of God, then it is NOT free. It is inexorably tied to God, because the first link in the chain is God. A boat chained to the dock is not free to drift where it will.
Mans will must be wholly of himself and by himself. Otherwise it is determinism, and God is responsible for sin…not that there could be any such thing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Debate is not war. And arguments are not weapons. And if anyone has historically used their “sound doctrine” as a club to compel either destruction or obedience, it has been the reformers.
Exhibit A: S. G. M.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“marriage is defined by God (as well as divorce) and abuse in marriage is a divorce of that marriage in the eyes of God (the abuser has abandoned the marriage) whether or not the state EVER recognizes a divorce.”
This is what Gordon Hugenberger has always taught. (He was my pastor for many years before he left to be at Park Street). He’s as Reformed as they come, but opposes hierarchy in all its forms. I wish he would write more often for non-scholarly audiences.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous wrote:
What a load of codswallop.
So sayeth Nancy Leigh DeMoss, who is famously … SINGLE.
She gets a pass from her complementarian devotees, however due to her $$$ family connections. Ugh.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Patricia in MA: Park St Church was instrumental in my Christian walk. It majored on the majors and helped me walk through many issues. Did you know that Park St endorsed the Biologos site which shows the depth of their thinking. And anyone who contends that Park St compromises is crazy.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Rafiki wrote:
When she shows up, the big boys see the checkbook. She does not understand that most women do not have her clout.
Both she, and Kassian have messed up their whole argument on complementarianism. Kassian has claimed that comp is not staying at home and raising kids. By so doing, she now must make esoteric arguments like “the man is the spiritual leader” which says absolutely nothing. Or, if it does, no one has been able to get this thick skulled blogger to understand what, practically, it means.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
The average Christian has no idea how much power a 6-figure donor has in a church or seminary or organization. Big donors basically have carte blanche to get whatever they want — and they know it — and they are nearly untouchable. The favoritism is unbelievable.
For example C.J. Mahaney’s/SMG’s two $100,000 gifts to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary bought him unwarranted support from Al Mohler and Gospel Coalition during this child sexual abuse coverup lawsuit. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/02/14/sovereign-grace-ministries-and-the-sbc-%E2%80%93-is-there-a-merger-in-the-works/
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1: I think discussion is great and much-needed.
But I do wish that *all* people who say they are xtians would stop the doctrinal infighting (over the secondary issues).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
I’ll take a shot at it.
Stereotypically and/or via some gender comps:
(1.) Pink (2.) Hoop Skirts / Pantaloons
(3.) Baking Cookies (4.) Cleaning Dishes
(5.) Not using your marital art skills on a mugger (if you have any marital art skills)
(6.) Submitting to your man (if you have one)
(7.) American Heritage dolls (8.) Easy Bake Ovens
(9.) Having the Vapors
(10.) Always being nice and agreeable
And probably…
(7.) Flower Arranging (8.) Hair care / styling
(9.) Dieting
(10.) giggling demurely (see this photo of a Geisha for example)
(11.) Nail Polish (12.) Pearls
(13.) Scrapbooking
(14.) (with wide eyed facial expression, in breathy voice): Saying, “Math is so hard!”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wade Burleson wrote:
I’m not looking to get into a great big old debate with Wade or anyone else about these topics, but quickly, I wanted to say Calvinists often define terms and concepts differently from how I, or any Average Joe, would understand them…
When you (or any Calvinist – unless you are disagreeing with most Calvinists on this), say something like, “Nobody’s will is hijacked” –
Is that not because Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit’s calling on a sinner is “irresistible,” that is, a sinner being called on by God cannot resist or reject God, so his will will go along with God.
My understanding of Calvinism is that Calvinists believe God predetermines in eternity past who will be saved (who they refer to as “the elect”), and thereby also determining who will be condemned for all eternity, and those being condemned don’t have a choice in that at all.
God just randomly picked and chose in eternity past who gets eternal life and who does not (as other Calvinists have explained this to me in years past).
It looks like God does all the choosing and willing in this system, and humanity does not really get a choice, and even if they had a free will, their free will doesn’t matter worth a squat.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Would using marital arts skills on a mugger be submitting to him so thoroughly that he is ashamed and gives up his mugging career?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Why did the Jewish religious leaders seek to have Jesus crucified by the Romans?
As to your conversations with Wade B., where he was saying people can choose Christ.
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that Calvinists often define terms/concepts differently, as I was saying in the post above.
I usually try to avoid debates with Calvinists because the debates give me headaches.
You cannot speak plainly when debating Calvinism. It’s kind of like how Mormons or JWs re-define terms common to Christians, or how Roman Catholics define and understand the word “grace” differently from Baptists and Protestants.
Usually, I hear Calvinists say people cannot choose Christ because they are spiritually dead, but maybe Wade B. is meaning to say he believes unsaved can choose but decline to do so because they are sinners, and sinners are antagonistic towards God and will never truly “desire” God (unless and until the Holy Spirit draws them).
I’m a bit uneasy with people saying people never do good or desire good, though yes, I realize there is some Bible verse which says something similar to that. There are occasionally atheists who save kittens from burning buildings and the like, which I would say is a good deed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
You’re welcome, and thanks for your comment.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
That might be the DeMoss/Kassian definition of feminism, but not the mainstream definition.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
. . . Kassian . . .
@ Bridget:
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
I didn’t need to read Argo’s posts to arrive at the conclusion that Calvinism really does not believe in “free will,” not how most people understand it.
A lot of Calvinists I’ve seen will re-define the concept of free will and place so many qualifers on what it means that it winds up not being so “free.”
It might be defined by some, for instance, as mankind only wants to do evil, never good, man will never voluntarily choose God, etc.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
Either her or another lady made the same argument, it was some lady who is supported by CBMW, I think.
In one blog page about a year ago, she said being a gender complementarian woman does not mean you have to be a stay at home mom and bake cookies. She was quite emphatic about this point.
But then, the same exact lady, a few months later, in another blog post (or at a conference? I don’t recall) said/wrote that the only/best biblical roles for women were… being a stay at home mom and baking cookies.
Then another Christian lady (who disagrees with complementarianism) pasted both those quotes, one above the other, on one of her blog pages, to show how contradictory the gender comps are at times.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bridget wrote:
I was lampooning their views of biblical, proper femininity. For my amusement. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
You took the words right out of my head Daisy – it is so re-defined that we are talking about 2 different things.
I can’t get past the idea that in Reformed thought we are ALL allowed to be born with a broken nature, which means we have a corrupted will & so do not naturally want God, & yet, with limited atonement, God will only give some the chance to be different. We had no choice but to be born this way, no opportunity to ‘want’ to be different. It’s like letting a baby be born addicted to heroin & blaming it for wanting it & punishing it for being this way. Bizarre.
I find this definition of free will – acting according to your given nature only- lacking morally, because of a lack of choice over our nature. There is no chance to not be this way, & yet we are punished for it…if this was in another religion we would slam it, the way we slam Sharia law for flogging rape victims because they have had sex before marriage. Well,they have, haven’t they? It doesn’t matter to them whether it was ‘willed’ or not. I feel this encroaches on the same territory.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Calvinists (not the SGM fake ones) don’t say that no unsaved person does anything good. They say that they do not do anything good that pleases God. “Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.” (Heb 11:6) It has to do with one’s *motive.*
Calvinism is an *attempt* to deal with *all* that the Bible says, not just the parts we like. For example: “When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
I think that our inherent idea of fairness means that there is an absolute equality among people. The only way it would work out like that in salvation would be for God to save everyone or no one. Anything else implies some sort of non-equality. In a comment above, I wrote:
“But let’s say that He gave everyone the ability to choose Him. Unless everyone did, wouldn’t we say that there was some unfairness? Ultimately, why did some choose and others not? If we say that one factor is where on the earth he lived, wouldn’t we say that it was unfair that he lived there? If someone was more ‘spiritually sensitive,’ didn’t God make him that way?”
The very fact that we were created by God, that we didn’t just appear, means that we are not autonomous beings – on some level, we are dependent on God’s will. He willed that sin enter the world. Why? We don’t know, though we can speculate. When that happened, it changed everything. Humans were no longer contented creatures who were happy to depend on and obey God. God could have decided to save everyone or no one. He decided to save some. *If we agree on that, then the absolutely level playing field is over, whether or not we are Calvinists.*
Some might say that God could have given us absolute free will. I think that then we would be on a godlike level, and God wants us to depend on Him.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
“I do not consider our discussions “weapons” and am sad you think of it that way. There is no need of truce as I love everyone here I interact with. Disagreement does not have to be hate or war.”
++++++++++++++++++
“dropping our weapons for a wee bit of truce” (in light of the whole conversation) seems to me to describe something like a food fight or nerf gun war, waged with all seriousness and passion, with Napoleon hats & all.
Discussion and exploration of a topic like this can be interesting, exciting, invigorating. But in the end…. so what? How does examining “free will”, etc. under an electron microscope really matter?
Never having grown up with any of this, I find it hard to see what the point is. It is lively discussion material — but,…so what?
I have a feeling that Paul, any ghostwriters, other NT writers, the whoever(s) who wrote Genesis, etc. might say,
“Guys, guys…. WHOAH…. calm down. You’ve been discussing my scribblings for HOW long??? Look, these were just my opinions & ideas. That? Listen, I had food poisoning the day before I wrote that — I really wasn’t thinking all that clearly. And that? I was getting off on metaphors. Feeling very figurative right then. This is weird.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
No judgment from me that’s for damn sure. If Augustine and the medieval scholastics who followed are right, then the likelihood is high that I’ll be joining you in hell too. I still cling to the person of Jesus with a hope that I cannot prove. For me it’s a lot like Dorothy clicking her ruby slippers together. It’s what I choose to believe. Oddly enough, I have another un-provable theorem: The Almighty doesn’t particularly care whether we believe in him or not, he believes in us*
*cribbed from Mother Abigail’s dialogue with Nick Andross in Stephen King’s The Stand
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
numo wrote:
I guess I don’t see the process of salvation as a secondary issue. Comp vs mutualism is a secondary issue(?) and we discuss that all the time here. Not sure I understand what constitutes a secondary issue. But then I did not realize we were fighting so maybe I am off a bit. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Calvinism is an *attempt* to deal with *all* that the Bible says, not just the parts we like. For example: “When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)”
Check out the Greek for Appointed. I have found in some instances the word used could also mean “hand stretching” which is a metaphor for choosing/voting in other verses.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“I think that our inherent idea of fairness means that there is an absolute equality among people. The only way it would work out like that in salvation would be for God to save everyone or no one. Anything else implies some sort of non-equality.”
Jeff, this is because Calvinists start out with the foundational premise that man has no volition. When man is a free moral agent, man chooses what to seek and how and that is not unfairness.
With Calvinists, it is all God and no human input. They claim this elevates man to god like status. So I often wonder what they define as “image of God” in man. It is as if they think God took away that image after the fall. The other problem is that they claim God predestined salvation BEFORE the fall. It almost seems like our existence is one big cosmic play for His Glory (not sure how that Glorifies Him at all since it is very non relational) and we are automans in that grand play.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon1 – there’s lots of space & lots of chocolate under the bed…want to crawl in & talk Greek with me? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
Jeff,
“They say that they do not do anything good that pleases God”. And then you proof text Hebrews: “without faith, it is impossible to please God.”
Jeff, I find it hard to accept that Calvinists can declare this kind of semantic torture with a straight face.
People, notice the formula. Once you see it, you can never get away from it. It is a blood red neon sign that flashes in front of all these evil doctrines.
It ALWAYS goes back to removing YOU from the equation by subverting will in favor of some external determining force…which of course is “God” (In Marxism it is the “state”, in physics it is the “laws of nature”, in SGM it is the “local church”…none of these are truly God). There simply can be NO free will in the Calvinist construct, no matter how much you or Wade apply the iron maiden to the language.
What you have just done is equated GOOD with FAITH…and then the “sound doctrine” of Calvin moves straight to the idea that faith is from God, as a product of His arbitrary and deterministic will.
Do you not see how this very statement reduces all life to utter moral relativity? You have just eliminated the concept of moral good altogether and made it merely another function of that “grace” which is always, perpetually, beyond us. We are bound by the absolute of total depravity. We cannot SEE good because it is just another function of WHO God somehow decides, by some arbitrary reason, is “saved”.
Again, according to you: good = faith, and faith = God’s elective, sovereign will. Notice how there can be NO man in that equation at all.
This is not secondary issue. This is an issue upon which the world hangs in the balance. If man cannot see good and cannot do good and is not equipped to know good, but “good” is merely revealed as God’s arbitrary whim of “granting faith” (election), then man cannot by definition see evil. If we concede this, then man cannot confront evil. And the hoards of satan run over us like grass.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
Willed? What is your basis for that? Because sin happened and He is Sovereign? God is not secure in His own Sovereignty enough to allow free will for humans and angels? What is the point of His “long suffering” and patience with us if He is directing all of this? It really makes God out to be some sort of moral monster. God willed that evil would enter the world is what it really boils down to. And I don’t accept that at all. It makes Him ultimately the author of evil because He willed it.
Calvinism takes all the relational love out of the equation. Without relationship there cannot be real love. Whether it is the Trinity or between God and man.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
What it does is allow certain people to define what is “good” because they have correct doctrine as only they truly understand God and can interpret Him for the rest of us. This is pretty much what SGM did on steroids. I agree that most traditional Calvinists are not that bad about it but then we also became a free nation with religious liberty and that cut down on putting people in stocks for not attending church or banishing people for not agreeing with the elders.
If you notice this is happening in many Reformed churches with the concept of church discipline. Look at how they are applying it in 9 Marks churches. They are deciding what is “good” and what isn’t. And this is because the pew sitters in that church look to them for this instead of being encouraged as free moral agents in the priesthood to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have never seen anything so overtly backwards and authoritarian as the 9 Marks model for Christendom. It is like it is the 1700s or something in America!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Beakerj wrote:
Yes! Cos I live at ground zero where it is really scary!!!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
Well, it IS the difference between liberty and slavery? Ideas matter.
I do like the idea of Napoleon hats, though.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
If we concede that ALL actions stem first from the HUMAN being (or any life…be it a fish or a cricket) then all of Calvinism falls on its face,which is why they will equivocate and derange the language but they will NEVER concede unconditional free will.
Because IF it is MAN who acts, and acts on his OWN ability, then ultimately it does not matter WHAT he chooses. The very fact that whatever he chooses is OF HIM and him alone, by NO determining force or will, MUST mean that he can know truth HIMSELF, as a function of his very nature. It MUST mean that he has the capacity to objectively quantify his environment in service to an objective that HE ALONE prescribes. And if this is true, then man must be able to relate to God. And if this is true man MUST be the author of his own salvation or damnation in that MAN gets to accept God or deny Him, not the other way around. And if this is true then God is OBLIGATED to relate to him in a way where He convinces man of the supremacy of His ideas (which, despite Calvinisms best hindrances, God does quite well). And man HAS to FREELY choose them. Whether man does is not is ultimately irrelevant. If man truly has free will, then God CANNOT determine, He cannot elect, and He cannot be the CAUSE of man’s salvation. Man must choose!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Anon 1 wrote:
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo–except some teach prevenient grace. That is, man on his own is as helpless as the Calvinists would say. But as the Wesleyans would hasten to add, God didn’t leave man on his own and gave him enough prevenient grace to be accountable and able to choose.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Anon1,
They will have a lot to answer to God for. Not all Calvinists proceed from a true understanding of where the doctrine must lead people, but I believe that many do. And I truly fear for what awaits them. They have set up the high places and sacrificed men and women to themselves. Making themselves God.
I will never stop raging against this kind of thinking. Not only so as to save those who listen to it, but to save those who preach it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ linda:
Yes. They do. I deny it. I do not believe that man’s will was “corrupted”. Man’s free ability to will is of himself, and cannot be removed without violating man’s existence. God can destroy man in a flood, but he cannot subvert his will without contradicting and denying HIISELF. Once man’s will becomes a function of God’s “grace” in any metaphysical construct, then it is no longer Christian, it is gnostic. It is logically and metaphysically impossible to reconcile.
I have said a million times, I am NOT Arminian. I deny reformation doctrine in ALL its forms, all the way back to Augustine and beyond.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
How does free will equal being on a God-like level? Um, my attributes are not the same as God’s. Not even close.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Daisy, do you remember which blog (or whatever) “pasted both those quotes, one above the other, on one of her blog pages, to show how contradictory the gender comps are at times”?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Free will does not mean that you can do WHATEVER you want to do, or that choice is not limited somehow (by, for instance, knowledge or aptitude or imagination). What it means is that ALL of man’s actions are directly and only a function of his OWN innate, self-derived, self-engaged ABILITY to do whatever he does; whatever he thinks, whatever he values; whatever he accepts or engages or denies; how his body acts, ages; loses hair, grows fingernails…all of this is a function of the PERSON comprised of a mind free to will and a body free to do what it does. That man is the whole sum of himself FIRST in the metaphysical equation. That there is a stark and very real line between that which is God and that which is man…and Creation in general.
That is free will.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Yes, free will is the difference between liberty and slavery. Couldn’t agree more that this idea matters especially. Concerning humans enslaving their fellows.
Just seems this greater discussion is way overspiritualizing the concepts.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl: Thanks – you have vividly described what I was attempting to say!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
It could be as simple as being a threat to the established order. Jesus had crowds surrounding him. At Passover. In Jerusalem. Where there was a large detachment of Roman soldiers to keep order because there’d been incidents in the past with people declaring themselves to be the Messiah at the Passover and seeking to overthrow the Romans. It really didn’t matter what he preached. The fear by the powers that be may have been that Jesus could have upset the apple cart by telling his followers to overthrow the Romans. Certainly entering Jerusalem in a princely manner (people spreading cloaks and palm fronds, we’re told) would have been extremely troubling to religious authorities determined to keep things calm for the festival and their good buddies the Romans happy.
In other words, you didn’t have to declare yourself the son of God to get whacked. Just being a garden-variety troublemaker, tipping over a few tables in the front of the temple where the traders were changing money and selling doves, lambs and High Priest Caiaphas’ latest best-selling scroll (ok, maybe not the last, but you get the point) would be enough to get you in trouble. Especially in a world where life was cheap and when you’re just a peasant from occupied Galilee, you’re low on the totem pole compared to Sadducees making deals with the Romans….
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo–I’ve yet to see anyone grow so much as a fingernail without the aid of God.
But all I was saying is that not all Reformed push what you were saying they push.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ linda:
Linda,
I don’t understand. You mean you can somehow quantify God’s involvement in the fingernail growing process? How much does He contribute, exactly? Tell me, where does God’s involvement end and the fingernail begin to act? Where is the dividing line? And if the fingernail grows according to God’s power as opposed to its own ability, then what is the fingernail except God in some “other” form?
You see, this is where these ideas always go. Since God is an absolute, He must control absolutely. The problem is that if He controls absolutely then there can be no distinction between Himself and that which He controls. And hello moral relativism.
God can interact with us, but there must always be a line between Creation and Himself. That means creation acts purely according to its own ability…in order that the relationship is REAL. The fingernail grows because IT grows. Not because God “causes” it to grow.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
elastigirl wrote:
Perhaps I am. I don’t think Argo is. He is focusing mostly on reason. A good question folks might want to ask is why it makes them uncomfortable to discuss differing ideas (or read it) and how things work? What is wrong with thinking deeply even when we disagree?
I sometimes get the feeling some want to control the convos here and make them what they want them to be. No conflict except the ones they like. I hope that is not true because none of us can grow in that sort of environment. I really appreciated Jeff’s comment about WCF because he explained it exactly as it read and agreed with it. I disagree with it but really appreciate him owning it.
This whole convo is about the nature of God. His attributes and how that plays out for us. I guess we have to ask ourselves if what we believe and why matters?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1: Err, no, not really.
It’s just that sometimes things have taken a hostile tone. It’s hard for everyone when that happens, and I know I’ve been guilty of it myself at times.
This medium is *very* limiting when it comes to discussion about topics that tend to get heated, because we can’t see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, or see gestures. That all makes it much easier to misread or misunderstand what others are saying, per tone and more.
I don’t think being civil and peaceable in discussion is a flaw, exactly…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
numo wrote:
what really helps is not to make general blanket accusations or try to shut down a convo using vague rebukes that no one knows exactly who wrote the wrong thing that offended you. It is always best to tell the person directly as gently as possible how you are offended and why. But most will not do this. Why do you think that is? Is it that blanket vague rebukes are safer for the person who feels uncomfortable?
Sorry, my old corporate communication training days are coming out! Nothing worse than blanket rebuking memos telling people not to smoke in the bathroom when everyone knows it was Bob. Why not just tell Bob and be specific? :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1: Politeness, for one thing.
We aren’t corporate managers here; we’re just people, right? Trying to talk with each other.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1: Also, I’m not certain it’s a question of “being offended” so much as it is wanting us (me too!) to be able to discuss things without resorting to a food fight (or any of the other things elastigirl described), complete with Napoleon hats.
Though an occasional pillow fight would be fun. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
You have not described what “civil” and peaceable reads like to you. Could it be that some have differing thoughts on what that looks like?
If you give me an example of something I have said here that was not civil or peaceable in your view, please tell me. I would like to know.
Corporate communications is nothing but interpersonal communication. One does not need to be a manager at work. It applies to moms and kids, husband and wives, etc.
I feel as if someone here really offended you. How will they know if you are not specific? That means it will most likely happen again from the same person if you do not explain it to them.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1: You know… I am tired right now, just from trying to explain what I think.
it seems you and I are always at loggerheads, and I don’t know why that is. When I try to clarify, it just doesn’t seem to work.
for now, I’m going to put the onus on this medium (text-speak) and leave it at that.
and no, nobody has offended me in the way you describe.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
This side discussion is also a bit of a threadjack – apologies to all for that!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NO problem, Numo. It is just that I still am not clear on what you think is uncivil and impolite here and who you were referring to.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
I love to discuss differing ideas and how things work. I agree — what is wrong with thinking deeply even when we disagree?
I’d love nothing more than to ponder the beauty of…oh, say the moon, or a strawberry, or time travel all night over a candle & beverage of choice with a kindred spirit.
Where this reformed / Calvinist / whatever discussion is concerned, it reminds me of Red Dwarf.
Anyone ever watch Red Dwarf? (BBC science fiction comedy) Extremely funny
A Star Trek-like expedition gone very bad. 3 million years in the future the only life forms remaining on the “enterprise” are Lister (the last human being alive, who had been in stasis as punishment for having a pregnant pet cat named Frankenstein on board, & thus survived all the catastrophe), Rimmer (his boss who is now a hologram), Kryton (an android), and Cat — a humanoid who evolved from Lister’s pet cat (who somehow survived the catastrophe — humans evolved from apes, Cat people evolved from cats).
One of the first few episodes goes into the history of the Cat people. Their complex religion had evolved over time based on Frankenstein’s memory of Lister (the Holy One) which he passed down, the memory of Frankenstein himself, and the virgin birth (all the kitties born from Frankenstein). Their holy scriptures included extrapolations and parsings of Lister’s laundry list (which he lined Frankenstein’s basket with 3 million years before). There had been religiously-motivated wars over the ages. Some of the cats believed their scriptures indicated they were to wear red hats, some interpreted differently and believed the hats were meant to be blue. The infighting led to the destruction of the cat people. Except for Cat — the last remaining Cat person.
All of this…. based on a laundry list.
I somehow think Christians come up with the darnedest things that were never intended in writings that have been deemed holy scriptures.
(favorite episode: Meltdown. I dare you not to laugh)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Elastigirl, I am not really sure how to take your comment. Can you just ignore our comments if they bother you? Or are we to stop discussing it? I am really confused about this.
“I somehow think Christians come up with the darnedest things that were never intended in writings that have been deemed holy scriptures.”
Are you speaking of Calvin’s writings or something we wrote here?
One of things that I really like about TWW is that there are so many different types here from liberal to conservative, Calvinist to Free will, comp to egal, etc. It is not a typical blog like so many others where everyone is like minded and on the same page. I realize most folks crave that but I find it boring! :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Anon1, you are reading far too much into my comment.
No one and no comment is bothering me. Discuss on, everyone. I’m speaking very generally — my comment above is simply an illustation of how I see the Calvinist / Reformed conclusions, as well as the conclusions of much of christian thought.
To me, much of it all seems like wringing more complexity out of things in the bible than were intended by the writers or is perhaps even there to begin with. Like, when one stares at something long enough it begins to take on shapes or coloring or form that really isn’t there.
i’m simply being one of the “many different types here from liberal to conservative, Calvinist to Free will, comp to egal,” and sharing my thoughts. Being one of fellow aggee-ers, disagree-ers, different perspective-ers.
It was intended to be light-hearted comment. Baffled by your response.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
I thought you were going after reformed assumptions. As such…I loved your comment!! 🙂
Things DO get heated. Because this is one of the few sites that allows real and deep and serious issues to be discussed without the threat of being Control-Alt-Deleted (I have often stuck up for Dee and Deb based on this, even though they never respond to my posts anymore LOL!). We are attacking relentlessly long held assumptions and “orthodoxy”. I’m actually surprised things have stayed as civil as they have.
We should be able to be passionate and even a little frustrated/exasperated without people assuming that “tone” implies a character assault. I think that was Anon’s point.
Debating ideas vehemently om a blog is much better than bullets and clubs. The arena of ideas is where we should have at it!! IMO 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Thanks for explaining, I really mean that. I feel like there is some cryptic communication going on and was not sure what the real message was.
I am not sure what we see in Calvinistic doctrine is not there…as evidenced by what we see coming out of the SBC, SGM and 9 Marks. Real situations that are affecting real people. The things we are seeing are natural progressions of practicing purer forms of Calvinism– as seen throughout history. Indoctrinating and Controlling people and stifling the Holy Spirit.
But if you think some of us are implying something that is not there, I for one, would like to know. I don’t think I am above correction or learning from others even if I am a bit bold about a doctrine I think is dangerous.
Thanks for the exchange, it really helped me understand where you are coming from better in the long run and keep in mind, all of the miscommunication might be due to me being a bit thick! :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl: OK, you’re on! I’ve seen odd episodes here and there, but have never really gotten into the show… But it’s on netflix’s streaming service, so away we go!
btw, have you ever read the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz? Very similar idea, although in this case, the “scriptures” include a shopping list written by a guy whose last name was Leibowitz (now St. Leibowitz), one of the few documents to survive a nuclear apocalypse. I’m willing to bet that Red Dwarf’s writers were tipping their hats to the author, Walter Miller. (book came out during the 60s – it’s a tad bleak, but also very strange and wonderful, in its own way.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Well I’ve certainly felt some hostility in this thread (and given some with my “you don’t have the right” comment- though I feel very deeply about that- that we should not tell other people what they do or do not believe). I admit I do get angry when I feel like Argo mischaracterizes Reformed beliefs and then uses very strong language (“And still they NEVER connect the human destruction with the doctrines they believe”) against them. And I don’t know how to resolve this, because whenever someone reacts to this, he says he has the right to his opinion, even when it is hurtful. And I guess he does. But it creates an environment I don’t want to be in. No, I don’t believe that Calvinism is responsible for “human destruction” when followed correctly, and it’s a hurtful thing to say. How well do people respond when someone comes here and says something of that magnitude about something like egalitarianism? If someone said that egalitarianism was responsible for “human destruction”, I’ll bet hackles would be raised.
No, I do not believe that Calvinism is responsible for “human destruction”. I do not believe it is a “Cult of Death”. When I read those statements, it makes me sad and hurt, so I alternate between staying away and trying to defend my beliefs. It’s very frustrating, especially when what I believe is a secondary issue (Calvinism) gets raised to a primary issue. And Argo continually speaks as if every single person who has ever been a Calvinist is hopelessly deluded and he (Argo) has all the answers to show them the error of their ways.
I’ve tried to follow Argo’s logic, and I cannot. It doesn’t make sense to me. Whether that makes me an idiot or he off in left field, whose to say? But there are many, many very intelligent people who have accepted Calvinism (and many who have rejected it). I am not alone in my views.
I honestly just want to be able to hold to my beliefs and not have them be assaulted. And Argo wants to exercise his right to assault them. I really see no way around that- we can’t both have it our ways. At the end of the day, it hurts and I’m tired of it. I’m not trying to censor him by saying that. I just am telling you how I feel.
I guess in a perfect world we’d all agree on what are primary and what are secondary issues, but we don’t. And when I hold to an issue that is someone else’s punching bag, well I’m going to get hit. And I guess when I’ve been hit enough, that’s when it’s time to take a break.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
When, after about 6 or 7 years as a believer, I first read about Calvinism, in an article written by J.I. Packer, I was somewhat shocked. I thought it unfair and I didn’t like the way it portrayed God. FWIW, R.C. Sproul felt the same way when he discovered it, and he says that that’s the common reaction of people when they read about it, whether or not they come to subscribe to it.
For those who want to investigate it, they check out its claims with Scripture. In my case, I discovered that it checked out, and that passages I had either sort of skipped over or didn’t understand became clear.
I realize that this can be interpreted as me talking myself into believing something that isn’t there. I can only say that I truly do not believe this is what happened, especially after quite a few years. Or you might say: Why don’t people see this in Scripture before they discover something called “Calvinism” (most of which goes back at least as far as Augustine)? I’m sure many have – I’m just not one of them.
I think many have to “discover” it after becoming believers because our instincts about what we consider to be fair are so deep that we don’t want to see God in any way that violates our sense of fairness.
The thing is, though, we have this Bible. I believe its ultimate author is God. (I don’t pretend to understand it all, and I know that there are probably some scribal errors; all relatively trivial, according to the experts.) If this is true, then I believe I have to give God the last word, despite my feelings. Also, my feelings sometimes change as a result of what I believe.
*To those of you who find Calvinism’s beliefs outrageous, and who may even hate it, I ask one thing: Accept the possibility that most of those who subscribe to it (particularly the parts about election and salvation) are honestly attempting to wrestle with what the Scripture says, and are not inherently mean people who delight in authority above all. Of course, unfortunately, the latter exist, but they have to distort what Calvinism says about the Scriptures in order to justify themselves.*
I realize there are limits to proof-texting, but I notice that sometimes people will not respond to verses that I quote but instead give their philosophy about the issues. Anon 1 – you *did* respond to Acts 13:48. I checked out the other uses of the Greek word. They refer to men appointing or voting, but obviously men can not appoint people to eternal life. Concerning volition, Calvin believed that man had free will, but there were some points where God’s sovereignty overruled it. Concerning sin, all I can say is that Scripture says that God ordained it but is not the author if it. Admittedly, this is beyond our understanding.
Argo – If Adam was created without a sin nature, then I think that he had the level of free will that you believe we all have. Yet he (and Eve) sinned. You write, “I do not believe that man’s will was ‘corrupted’.” Does this mean that you do not believe mankind fell into sin after Adam’s sin? Or do you believe that this occurred, but that man’s will was not affected? Concerning faith – Yes, I believe that Scripture says that without faith, man cannot please God, and that God chooses who will have faith. But if the first man was created to have faith, and that man sinned, and that man represented all of us, then, in effect, we all sinned, and, as one of the results, we all lost our faith. God could have left it like that. Instead, He chose to give faith to some. Would we have done it differently? Maybe. But so what? He’s God, and we’re not.
numo – Yes, there is historical confusion about the word “Reformed.” You sound like you know more abut it than I do.
Bridget – I was talking about *absolute* free will. I do not know exactly what that means, but I think only God has it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Anon 1 – you *did* respond to Acts 13:48. I checked out the other uses of the Greek word. They refer to men appointing or voting, but obviously men can not appoint people to eternal life. ”
There might be some misunderstanding here. The act of voting or hand stretching is “choosing”. So I was not saying than man was appointing himself to eternal life without God. I was saying that man can choose to believe/have faith.
Of course, I disagree with most of what you wrote and have heard the same from most Calvinists that it was in the bible and that is why they believed It does not seem to be a natural sort of belief for a forced one and I agree that most are repelled by it at first unless they grew up with it as a matter of course.
I often think it is simply a case of the filter we have for reading bible. If we prefer a systematic determinist God then we find one in there. If we prefer a God who created man to have free will then we find that.
But there is really nothing in early Christianity until Augustine with such a filter for a determinist God UNLESS we redefine concepts. We do not see determinist behaviors from early Christians. I have read Calvin and find him very confusing and contradictory which also makes him easy to proof text for certain concepts. Same with Spurgeon, sadly. Calvin was influenced by Augustine who brought into his Christian writings, Greek Philosophy. And to be honest, I see a lot of Augustinian influence in seeker mega’s, too. Especially the dualism.
Truth is, if people do not really have volition then we cannot hold them responsible for their actions.
A professor who is really researching this wrote a series of articles about Augustine’s early influence and introduction of new concepts into Christianity that sadly became the norm…. they were published here:
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00d83451a37369e200d83451a37469e2/search?filter.q=Jim+Gifford
Blessings!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo, If you are still reading, you might like this one:
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/02/augustine-and-southern-baptists-part-6b-augustines-critics-and-legacy-by-dr-jim-gifford.html#more
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
FWIW, I think I would prefer the idea of an Arminian God to a Calvinist one. I just don’t believe that’s what scripture teaches. Maybe my interpretation of scripture is wrong- it’s just honestly what I read when I pick up my Bible.
However, I tend to view evangelism as if I were an Arminian. It’s really only when I look at myself that my Calvinist views have any effect at all.
And I do think that actually follows what I read in scripture. When we are commissioned, we are commissioned to spread the Good News and make disciples. We aren’t thinking about who is or isn’t elect. We are praying for them to respond to the Good News and be saved. The language used does imply a perspective that people make a choice to be saved. That that choice is only enabled by the Holy Spirit (at least, that’s what I believe) seems to be left out when we are exhorted to evangelism.
Yet it seems when we self examine, we see that it was only through the grace of God that we received the gift of life. It was not my intelligence, holiness, good will, or any other quality that enabled me to have faith. I am both indebted and secured through the thought that it was by God’s unfailing power alone I was saved, not my own strength which may fail. That is an encouraging and humble thought to me.
I’m not saying both doctrines are true, but I am saying there are certain attitudes we must balance. The person who does the opposite of what I said above is a real jerk. He views others as a Calvinist (why bother talking to anyone- it’s all predetermined anyone) and himself as an Arminian (man, I’m awesome because I was smart enough to choose Christ). Now that latter may not be what a true Arminian thinks about self, but there sure are a lot of Calvinists that come off that way.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB: I wa raised Lutheran and am a revert, so I’m admittedly somewhat nonplussed when people claim Luther as “Reformed,” when in reality both he and the various Lutheran bodies (at least, the few that I know about) are *not* Calvinistic/Reformed in beliefs and practice.
A lot of Calvinism is a big “???” to us, to be honest. And I pretty much intend to stick with that!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S: I figured you felt some hostility in this thread… I wish I knew what to suggest, other than backing out of the discussion for a while.
Sometimes it’s wise to let things go. I feel extremely uncomfortable when folks make claims about absolutes, so…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I think a little more tolerance for our reformed brethren is in order. TWW has long been like Al Andalus of old. Let’s keep it that way.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
” But if the first man was created to have faith, and that man sinned, and that man represented all of us, then, in effect, we all sinned, and, as one of the results, we all lost our faith. ”
I keep hearing this about Adam. Are you saying we are all personally guilty for Adams sin? Inherited guilt? Would you call your view what is known also as Adam as our Federal Head?
My take is that Adams sin corrupted the earth and us. We are born into a corrupted earth into corrupted bodies but that we are only responsible for the sins we actually commit and know we commit as we have a sin nature. (think the mentally challenged, infants and very young children). The view you present is what introduced infant baptism. Babies are born “guilty” and therefore if died in infancy would not have eternal life. So the answer was infant baptism which seems to have morphed over the centuries into covenant baptism (not salvic) in some Calvinistic circles.
I would call original sin (which was coined by Augustine) “original death”.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter:
What exactly has been intolerant?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
I do try to step away, but I’m not great at it. I sometimes feel like if I don’t speak up then people just keep going with (what I think are) wrong ideas. And for me, one of the big concerns is that people make soteriology the issue rather than abuse. When we focus on (what I think are) secondary issues, the primary ones get displaced. So if I just let it go, I worry that Calvinism becomes the punching bag rather than the folks and issue that truly deserve it.
In the end, it’s just crystal clear to me that Calvinism is NOT the issue here- in fact, Calvinism has helped me and encouraged me a lot. But I know it is equally “clear” to others that Calvinism IS the problem. We can’t both be right, as certain as we may be.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
I haven’t read through all the posts since whatever last post I made here, but…
this is a little like gender complementarians who insist that they don’t believe or teach sexism (these are usually the ones who say they are “soft comps”), but at the end of the day, they really are – they are limiting women and telling them they can only bake cookies. If they don’t say so explicitly, it is the logical conclusion of their interpretations and understanding of gender, marriage, etc.
To me it’s the same thing with Calvinism, you can say you deny you believe “X” by way of Calvinism, but from where I stand, you really, really do. You may not think so, but that is sure what Calvinism looks like to some people.
I don’t think gender complementarism is liberating or respectful of women (nor do I think it biblical either), no matter how many times I see gender complementarians say it really, really is. That’s about the best analogy I can think of at the moment to the disagreements with Calvinism.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oops, just saw Jeff’s comment. Jeff thanks for having the nerve to state who upset you and why. That is communication! Now maybe we can get somewhere in simply asking questions and stating where we differ.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
As I’ve said before, FWIW, Original Sin is a concept I don’t necessarily agree with. I do agree that all have fallen, which seems to really be the important point, and that the fall did affect us. But I don’t think the scripture tells us HOW the fall affected us or the mechanism that makes us all fallen, so I think Reformed Theology goes too far in this respect. But practically, it makes no difference to me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter: Amen!
Also, I would rather see Deb, Dee and GBHC address people directly when there is a problem. None of us have mod powers and I don’t feel right about stepping into their shoes.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Daisy:
Daisy, you make some good points. I cannot stand complimentarianism. Am I am well versed in it since the Danvers Statement and even coordinated many comp conferences for years.
Now most folks reading that will jump to the conclusion I now hate comps. Not true. I have MANY comp friends! In fact, most of the Christians I hang around with are some variation of comp…mostly soft ones. And some are willing to have exchanges about it and even search scriptures with me having many deep discussions. Some have changed some of their thinking and others have not. No big deal. The thing is we can talk about it, disagree and love one another. Some are Calvinists, too. Now there are comps and Calvinists who think I am a heretic and have told me so. So be it. I am not looking for their approval.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
That is a very rare position for someone who identifies with Calvinism! It would seem that Total Depravity hangs on inherited guilt/original sin.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
If man’s will is subverted in the fall, then all of the consequences are moot. A person with no free volition can never be in a position to be judged as capable of doing or desiring or RECOGNISING either good of bad. Because a person who’s self awareness is ruled by something beyond him is no longer capable of judging reality; of knowing truth. Ergo, such a person cannot undergo punishment, nor curse, and all that goes with it because he/she does not possess the will to comprehend; to rightly judge its effects. To rightly connect his actions with the consequences. There can be no fall unless your will–your ability to willfully organize your world–remains in tact to grasp it.
In short, if man does not have absolute free will, then you can never claim to understand “the fall”. I find it incredulous the people who deny that man possesses the ability to freely apprehend his life and faith and environment can with a straight face claim that they understand ANY thing. Can even begin to argue for this “truth” or that.
Further I LOVE the irony of Calvinists claiming some kind of victim hood, as if their faith teaches them that they EVER have a reason to cry out for their own justice. Hmmm…this never seems to be the concession when someone else is on the receiving end.
Isn’t everything “but for the grace of God go I”? Of what right can a totally depraved worm stake his demand for fairness?
Your doctrine. Not mine.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
I understand that. However, if there is an issue of meaning of words, then I think the prudent thing is to talk about the meaning of those words. If we have different definitions of “freewill” or “determinist”, then lets talk about that. Someone saying “I don’t believe that God is deterministic” and someone else saying “Yes you do” is not great conversation. It is immensely frustrating for the person being told what they believe, despite their convictions that they do not.
Because here’s the thing- the way Calvinism is viewed by people on this site who have been really burned by it is a way I have NEVER heard of it being viewed until I came here. Never.
Calvinism has been a source of humility, gratefulness toward God, and empowering. I have seen only positives in my life and the lives of anyone else I know who has embraced the doctrines. Then I come here and there’s a whole lot of people talking about stuff like how their lives can’t have meaning if Calvinism is true, or people are just puppets, etc. There’s a real disconnect because what is being described here is NOTHING like anything I have ever seen or experienced.
What I believe is that the doctrine (like so many others) has been abused in people’s lives. That’s the only explanation I have for why my experience (and numerous others) is so different. I realize the other answer offered is that I’m just doing it wrong- that I’m not following through with my beliefs to their logical conclusion. That might also be true, but if I’m a poor Calvinist and a good Christian, I’ll accept that and not really wish to change 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, whether it is Fundamentalism or Calvinism doesn’t doctrine often drive actions/behavior? I saw doctrine drive bad behavior of leaders at seeker megas for years. And they were mostly free will type leaders. But they loved Hebrews 13:7, too! I often think it goes back to dualism which many free will folks subscribe to in variations along with the Reformed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes, I know it is not towing the line. I’m not afraid to think for myself 🙂
I don’t think Total Depravity is dependent on inherited guilt. It hangs on the notion that all have fallen short of the glory of God. A good Reformed person would disagree with me there, but again, I’m just calling it as I see it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
This is EXACTLY what comp leaders told me for years when I disagreed with their interpretations. They assumed I had been burned by this doctrine being wrongly applied. That was not true at all. But it was assumed that was the case because I had a problem with it.
I do think there are many Calvinist churches that are not abusive. The ones I am familiar with are more traditional older denominations and tend to be a bit more liberal. The Presbyterian seminary here was one of my clients for years and I can say honestly they were an awesome bunch of people to work with from the top. There was NO authoritarianism at all there during that time.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
I don’t even know what this means.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I believe that the fall placed man’s inherent moral innocence…his GOOD as a product of his physical self…OUTSIDE of him. He rejected his own perfect self, his LIFE, and Gods in the process, by conceding that his moral worth lay beyond him, in the form of some external standard of good and evil.
The ground was cursed because man had forfeited his right to exist in harmony with it the moment he rejected himself as his source of moral perfection. Man conceded that all good was beyond him. As such, he now needed to WORK in toil for it. To earn it.
If course we all know the futility of trying to earn something that is utterly exclusive to us. The reason we cannot do enough good to earn perpetual satisfaction or salvation is not because we are depraved, or do not have free will, it is because GOOD is perpetually linked to evil in the ABSTRACT and seperate moral “law” of good and evil.
Jesus restores our moral perfection as a function of OURSELVES. Now, we are once again morally perfect. No law condemns us, because our GOOD is in us, not found in the external standard.
That means God affirms us. Who we are, what we do, what we like. Because we ARE good once again. And the greatest moral goodness is found in human beings. Not the law, or the church, or your “role”. The only law now is the law of love. And that is only found in the utter affirmation of INDIVIDUALS.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
I think doctrine drives behavior (both good and bad) less than we think or would like. At the end of the day, we behave based on what is in our hearts and often force what is in our heads to conform. How many people are fine to make doctrinal lines in the sand for others that don’t affect them, but when it comes to themselves then they suddenly sing a different tune?
Where doctrine really matters is when it changes our hearts (and I do think this what you were getting at). So this is where we need to be careful with every doctrine we take in and ask “Is this doctrine going to change my heart to help me love God and others better”? And if it is a HARD doctrine, one that scripture seems to teach but doesn’t seem loving- then I think we have work to do. We have to drive to understand if it is our concept of love that is wrong or if it is how we change due to the teaching that is the problem.
I’m rambling a bit because this is stuff that I’m currently working through. My biggest focus lately has been on questioning doctrines and challenging ideas through the lens of love, and determining what behaviors doctrines really result in.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Just throwing this question out there to see if my assessment of how people view Calvinism is correct:
Does a Calvinist believe that Sanctification is a work of God in us, or a cooperative work between the believer and God?
The answer is the latter, but I have a suspicion that many here view the former as the answer (apologies if I am mistaken here). It is true that a Calvinist sees salvation as Monergistic, but that does not carry over into sanctification.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
What right do you, as one saved purely by grace and of no work and no will of your own, with all you have and are as purely a function of God’s sovereign will, with ZERO claim to any inherent moral worth of your own….what right have you to protest any insult or injustice?
Isn’t everything that is not hell better than you deserve? So why complain about anything? Isn’t it pride to assume that you can somehow demand good for yourself? On what basis? Of what worth are you that you find fault with God’s sovereignty over your life and world?
Unless you don’t think you deserve hell. If you don’t…congratulations. You are not a Calvinist.
That’s what it means.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
In light of the fact that Calvinists deny man’s volition is the primary cause of his salvation, any discussion of sanctification is moot, because sanctification is irrelevant. If you have nothing to do with your salvation, sanctification can have zero practical relevancy.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
So you think it’s the latter, but the reality is that, if you are a Calvinist, it MUST be the former. If it can exist at all in the Calvinist construct.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
I will take a stab at it. Example: Sproul teaches that God controls every molecule 24/7. This is pretty typical Reformed thinking. Therefore if injustice is done it someone, it was predestined to be done. And because God is in control of the injustice, perhaps even willing it so to speak , then crying out for justice means one is questioning God’s actions.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Anon1,
BINGO!!!
You are wicked smart.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
And notice how in Sproul’s ludicrous proclamation, there is no causal relationship between objects. If the cause is Gods control, and the effect is EQUALLY Gods control, then the objects aren’t really doing ANYTHING. The have no ability of their own to be either caused upon or effected. This makes them GOD. There is NO line between God and Creation.
Sproul’s idea is simply unworkable insanity. The disaster this kind of thinking leads to is the stuff holocausts are made of.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
The P in TULIP actually negates that. To persevere in that construct means progressive justification. That is why we are seeing more Calvinists talking about “preaching the Gospel to yourself every day” and Gospel navel gazing.
Why the need to “persevere” when man is not capable, everything is predestined as God is controlling every molecule and the saved were elected before Adam sinned? Everything is mapped out for us in that doctrine. Man has no volition.
Do you think Calvin believed sanctification was mongeristic? a sort of Jesus obeys for us because we cannot?
See Calvin taught that faith was a gift from God bestowed on those God predestined. (Many interpret that passage in Eph that way) It is not something we can do it has to be implanted in us. This changes everything and takes man out of the equation for sanctification, too. I cannot believe God, have faith or trust God. God has to implant that in me. He is doing it for me so to speak. We are back to man has no volition.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
Not at all. I just live at ground zero. :o(
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
And this truly is the crux. It is the only logical conclusion of their theology. There is no rational escape.
Well said.
Unless you are able and willing to draw a stark and quantifiable line between God and man, NEITHER can be truly defined. NEITHER one can truly exist. NEITHER one is relevant to the world.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
I agree about passionate, and frustration/exasperation aren’t anything to be afraid of. It can all be done respectfully. Although perhaps there are fine lines. And personality, cultural differences. What is abrasive to one is simply nothing to someone else. Like my relatives from Brooklyn: “Where the HELL is the coffee?”, which is the equivalent of my California mom: “I was wondering, is there by chance any coffee? Oh, thank you!”
My contribution to it all is simply my bewilderment… why does it even matter? what’s the point?
But yet, I’ve been ruminating more this evening. As far as I’m concerned, we all have 100% free will. Concerning our rational decision-making, we make choices based on what is compelling (logically, emotionally, relationally, experientially).
But then I started thinking, concerning the darker side of human nature (bitterness, hate, dishonesty, lack of regard for another’s welfare, selfishness), are we a slave to it? Not sure…. it is like a child’s immaturity that needs to be tempered with learning to wait, learning patience, learning self-control. I tend to think they are left-over 4-year old issues that missed the growing up part. And which can still grow up if the person “parents” themself. Not necessarily easy, but certainly can be done.
And I also started thinking about prayer. When I pray for someone, that “their eyes would be opened to see God, to find God”, or “help so & so grow in patience”, or any number of things…. am I manipulating them? Are they being manipulated behind the scenes in the spiritual realm? Thereby undercutting their free will?
Really not sure on this. Although I can say I have been making an effort to pray for people in a way that does not manipulate them. Praying for things they have asked me to pray for. Or things I’m fairly certain they would be ok with (safety, good health, healing, wisdom). Or, praying for a person’s ability to perceive objectively (rather than me meddling in their lives behind the scenes in all the things I think they should deal with).
So, all of a sudden I can see the merits in the free will discussion. Although the way I’m thinking about it is somewhat different than the conversation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
–I agree that doctrines, ideas can result in real situations that are affecting real people. Damaging them. Can limit God, and misrepresent him too much. (I think we all misrepresent him to a certain degree even in our best efforts).
++++++++++
“But if you think some of us are implying something that is not there, I for one, would like to know.”
–very honest question. I realize all doctrines are based on information that is there, perhaps going too far in extrapolating at times. I probably could have paved the way to better understanding of my comment(s) if I prefaced it all with the fact that I don’t think the bible is inspired/inerrant/infallible word for word. I think most of it is laced with inspiration here and there, & some things are quite pure forms of it (like Ephesians 1 — isn’t that one like a shot of vodka!). I think a lot of it is the writer’s ideas and opinions, which do contain some wisdom.
But I don’t see the bible as an algebraic equation, wherein every word is like a vital number and operator — all needing to be present and accounted for and in correct form for it to be harmoniously solved as one great harmonious whole.
I think the bible is full of mess & goofiness. In which are nuggets of truth.
So, I have great difficulty with doctrines that I see as being like complex formulas, built on the bible as word-for-word pure truth. To me, the truth in the bible gets tangled up in everything that is not truth — gets distorted and mangled. What is intuitive becomes deformed. And there is great compulsion for people to shape how they live their lives around these non-intuitive things. Turns people into “Contortionists for Christ!!”
I think i’m being a bit abstract here. Examples that come to mind are headship and all its paraphernalia (top of the list), authoritarianism, church discipline, the whole institutional church itself (in fact), puritanical thinking, fear of “the world”, fear of beer & wine & the like, fear of sex & the human body, fear of psychology, fear of self-confidence, fear of assertiveness, fear of making mistakes, fear of meditation & eastern things in general, fear of this, fear of that…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
YAY!!! I think you would find this series very entertaining. The best seasons are 1-5. Other funniest episodes are DNA and White Hole. I would LOVE to hear what you think.
Thanks for the book recommendation. Have’t heard of “A Canticle for Leibowitz”. I’m afraid i’m not very cultured where books are concerned. So all recommendations are welcomed (for remedial acculturation here). I love to read, but I tend to stick with what I like for escape purposes (Wilbur Smith — ever read him? and Robert Ludlum. John Grisham is a nice & easy read.) But I know there are more obscure treasures I am just not aware of. Well, obscure to me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Again you say folks believe something other than what they explicitly say they believe. RC Sproul explicitly states that sanctification is synergistic, and yet you tell him he’s not allowed to believe that.
Your philosophical framework includes that God and man cannot simultaneously be in control. Fine. Reformed Theologians do not agree with you, but THAT is the bone of contention you have, not their view of a deterministic God. Because they don’t believe in a deterministic God- not over every action. You can make a case that God is deterministic over salvation and Reformed theologians are just playing word games when they say he is not, but not over sanctification because the Reformed view is the same as ALL protestants and even Catholics: that we are sanctified by our own actions in cooperation with the Holy Spirit.
See, you become the one making everything about a deterministic God, not the Reformed Theologian. You set up a straw man (a deterministic God is unloving, Reformed Theologians believe in a deterministic God even though they claim they don’t) and then knock it down (God is loving so Reformed Theology is evil).
And then to liken this thought to the Holocaust? Really? You need to look up Goodwin’s Law. Sproul believing that God can be in control of every molecule even while man is also in control is somehow analogues to the slaughter of countless Jews in Nazi Germany? Tell me, who in this conversation is being uncharitable toward the stated views of others?
I’ve hear you express your ideas. To me, they don’t make sense. I’m sorry I don’t see what you see. But I would never accuse your ideas of being likened to the Holocaust.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
The “P” means we don’t “need” to persevere, but that we WILL persevere. Of all the points of TULIP, I very rarely run into those who disagree with “P” unless they are straight up Arminians, because “Once Saved, Always Saved” is a pretty popular belief.
And in fact, the naval gazing you talk about really isn’t consistent with the WCF, which states that we have assurance of salvation (though it acknowledges the idea that some people have false assurance, the emphasis is on the believer having confidence in his or her salvation).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
All humans are created with the image of God, and even though this has been corrupted it is still there. We all have value and worth in relation to one another. The scripture over and over again commands to do “justice”, which means to give people what they are “due”, whether elevation from oppression or punishment for wickedness.
So yes, in terms of how I am viewed before God I can claim nothing in terms of justice- I don’t WANT justice without the work of Christ. However, in relation to others, as we are all image bearers of God, there is such a concept of “justice” and it is possible for me (as well as anyone else) to be dealt with unjustly.
And IMO, this is a weak point that many Calvinists get wrong (but Tim Keller talks about it very clearly in his book “Generous Justice”)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Very well stated, Jeff.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
Calvinism, taken to its logical conclusions is destructive, because it always puts good outside of man…the very wicked thing that occurred in the Garden when man decided to forfeit his morality in service to an outside standard.. This is because it is rooted in Platonist thinking which denies the efficacy of the senses to obtain truth. This being the case, only those divinely gifted in some way can be in a position to apprehend reality. They must force the depraved masses to right thinking. And this force was evident in Calvin’s Geneva in spades.
If you claim to have any inherent worth by which you can demand justice, then you are a bad Calvinist. And I do not mean this as an insult. I am GLAD you are. For demanding justice did not work in Rome, in Geneva, in Massachusets, in England during the English Civil war. Why? Because “who are you, o man, to talk back to GOD? What if you are a vessel of wrath?”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
You appeal to God’s image in man as the root of your right to self justice. This only works if you concede that MAN is the one who bears the image and THAT is why justice is warranted. Without man, that is, there is no image. Man comes FIRST, and is the root and objective of justice because he IS. He has inherent worth because of HIMSELF, which is why God saw for to place His image on him.
If it is the image that is worth of justice, then you have reverted to the old Calvinist idea of putting all worth OUTSIDE/APART from man. And as such, you cannot demand any justice for yourself. In fact, you cannot claim that any perceived injustice isn’t God’s will…it it merely the way by which you understand that YOU are worth nothing. Pain becomes the root of truth. The image is worth saving, you are not. Your physical pain and mental abuse is deserved, because you are corrupt. As long as you just give God the glory in your affliction, you are “righteous”. There can be no justice for the totally depraved.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Thank you.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
I totally understand where you are coming from about the Bible. In too many cases it has become the 4th person of the Trinity within evangelicalism. It can negate the indwelling Holy Spirit if we allow it to because we are not listening or seeking guidance. We so long for a manual to tell us what is exact specific truth in every situation because we have been taught that we cannot know it. We tend to long for rules and formulas to live by. Yet it can be so simple as do to others as you would have them to do to you. So something meant as a witness to historical events and truth has become a club to beat us up with throughout history. Many of the translations came about as political strategies to shore up power. The King James is a excellent example of that. That does not mean it is a horrible translation but that we should be discerning as we can.
It has become a weird upside down world when I consistently find that non Christians or those outside the evangelical institutions are more honest and compassionate than those inside. I am kind of weird in that I would rather see an honest jerk than the empty platitudes and deception I have witnessed in so many evangelical venues.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, I understand that. I was using it as one of the indicators as to why Sanctification has to be mongeristic in the Calvinist construct.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ:
For years and years I felt just like JeffS. I had heard some of the objections, but I easily brushed them aside because of all the “grace” I experienced and saw in the church. Then I saw how quickly the very same doctrines of “grace” could be used to scourge those who intended to question the “divinely appointed leadership”. Then the ugly side of Calvinism roared to the surface, and I realized from then on that doctrine was EVERYTHING. All actions are rooted in assumptions. And the more I studied and thought the more I realized that the MEN leading the church had not changed. The doctrines they believed had not changed. It was merely that the circumstances were such that only the “good” side of Calvinism was apparent (and because of my own evil decision to only see what I wanted to see). It was only when people in the church began to demand justice based on their OWN observations and convictions, rooted in the belief that they held some inherent self-worth that demanded it when I saw how, according to the same doctrine that had been preached for years, this could not possibly be true. Man has NO right to demand justice from appointed “elders in the stead”.
So, someone is wrong here. Me or Wade. Anon 1 or Jeff S. The doctrine says what it says, so someone is not understanding it properly.
I submit that what we EXPERIENCE is irrelevant. It is the assumptions that drive the teachings, the actions, that matters.
So, either Calvinist doctrine leads where it leads, and is rooted in metaphysical beliefs about man that are what they are, or it does not. And IF the doctrines are antithetical to human life, then we are obligated to reject it. What we experience is beside the point! Perceived “good” is beside the point! Objective good is all that matters! If the doctrine is evil, then how can we EVER stand before God and make excuses for why we “did not want to change”. If we say “because I felt, or I experienced”…we have made a mockery of morality. We have insulted God. We have decided that WE are in a position to declare what ideas are good and what ideas are evil based purely on our subjective experiential opinions. We have traded reason for madness.
And God will call you a hypocrite for violating you OWN doctrinal beliefs.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Not too abstract for me! I dislike algebra BTW 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hey Anon1,
When you said you were at ground zero, what did you mean? That was a curious statement.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo: Are you basing your experience of Calvinism on what was preached (and done) at SGM? If that is your only encounter with something they call “Reformed theology,” I have a pretty clear idea that you are feeling a great deal of pain from that horribly abusive system – and that’s not the same thing as the kind of church that JeffS is part of, or Wade, or Sallie…
I’m not for one second trying to diminish anything you have gone through or the suffering it has caused you (and so many others). What I am suggesting, though, is that it has SO much to do with the cultish authoritarianism of SGM and very little to do with what I’ll call “normal” Reformed churches (for lack of a better term).
And hey… I’m Lutheran, so *definitely* NOT Reformed/Calvinistic in my thinking!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
“But then I started thinking, concerning the darker side of human nature (bitterness, hate, dishonesty, lack of regard for another’s welfare, selfishness), are we a slave to it? ”
No. These are free will actions based on our ability to observe reality. These are the outworking of conclusions WE arrive at based on OUR senses and OUR cognitive organization of the information we gather. Now, I’m not saying our actions are always reasonable…I’m saying that whatever conclusions we arrive at, and the requisite actions which follow, are a function of OUR ability to observe, draw conclusions (even wrong ones), and act. We are not always right, but we are ALWAYS free. Which means that we CAN apprehend right and act accordingly, in the same way the Calvinists declare that we can comprehend wrong and act accordingly. But notice you cannot have one without the other. At the heart of man is HIS ability to reason. HIS ability to claim that he can know anything. This ability belongs fully and categorically to HIM, not to anyone else, not even to God.
By the way, your take on prayer really intrigued me. I must think about that for a while. Interesting.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl: Hey – I watched the 1st two episodes last night, and am wondering if things pick up a bit further on in the season? I do like Cat! (The lines about his religion at the end of the 1st episode are priceless!)
Books: hey… I’ve always been a big reader, but I like things that don’t require me to get all “thinky,” too. In a lot of ways, I suspect I’m still very much like I was when I was a little kid, amazed and thrilled at the acres of books in a library or good book store. It’s as if endless possibilities are in front of you – so many worlds to explore!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
Numo,
Short answer: no
I did not arrive at my conclusions merely by being in SGM. I took the SGM experience and compared the doctrines I had been taught with the doctrines of Calvin, taken from his very own Institutes. I also looked at the assumptions of other well-known Calvinist scholars, like Edwards, Spurgeon, Knox, and all the modern shills (Piper, Sproul, etc.). And then compared that to the ideas I heard from “good” Calvinists or “reformation” preachers (Wade, many of the commenters on this blog, the new pastor at my church). It is all the same doctrine, I’m afraid. Like I have said before, the only difference between a good Calvinist and a despotic one is how far they are willing to take the doctrine to its logical conclusions.
SGM are CONSUMMATE Calvinists. To suggest they practice some kind of bastardized version is simply not true. They are merely willing to take the doctrine to its natural authoritarian degree. And it shows.
I’m thankful it isn’t showing in every Calvinist/neo-reformed church. But it doesn’t change the fact that at the root the doctrine is antithetical to human life.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
I live near SBTS. I can remember it as a kid, cos I was there all the time, when it was not an indoctrination center for the YRR. I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a YRR or Mohler worshipper in these parts. The thinking of that movement has permeated much of evangelicalism here even outside the SBC and into other mainstream denominations including Reformed ones. I have seen the trajectory with Piper, Mahaney, 9 Marks, etc,
I have come to the conclusion the whole YRR movement is one big shepherding cult in practice. That is why they have doggedly supported Mahaney. They agree with his SGM methods and they cannot acknowledge there is anything wrong with them. They must separate what they believe from what they do or they could lose the empire they have built with this movement. And it is much deeper than folks think because it is not a denomination but a sort of tentacle that is reaching into many areas using deception to get a strong hold. Read Quiet Revolution.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo: Well, to be honest, I don’t trust *anything* that SGM/former SGM “leaders” say – my encounters with the place (early-mid 80s, long before Calvinism became the flavor of the month) were anything but benign. At that time, CLC and FX were very much into a kind of authoritarian charismatic thing that produced scary, Stepford Wife-type clones of the Dear Leaders.
And even though some good friends of mine (still at CLC and FX, as far as I know) kept trying to get me to join or at least come to their services, I just couldn’t do it. I’ve been to 3 services back when – and all seemed remarkably manipulative to me. (Which is striking, given the fact that I was in a screwed up discipleship movement church at the time…)
SGM’s problems were, I’m convinced, there from Day 1 – ditto for the churches I was once involved in.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Oh…wow. You really are at ground zero. No wonder you speak with such authority on the matter.
I have heard of that book and I will be ordering it today.
Yes, this is a movement, and it is a surreptitious. I shudder to think at the consequences if these people ever get in charge of civil force.
Well…I don’t have to imagine, and neither do you. O history…how you have counted the ways.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
Well, you were clearly smart enough to avoid that cult of death. Which makes me uncomfortable a bit because it means you are much more innately observant than I am LOL :-)! And that is merely a mirror for my own deficiency….oy.
That’s why I have to think and try so hard! I was a sucker! Wisdom like yours does not come naturally to me!:-)
But I pray to God, and He grants…that much I know. So I can tell you it won’t happen again LOL!!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
I just ordered that book. Can’t wait to read it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo: Oh gosh – you are SO wrong about me! I was involved in other manifestations of extreme authoritarianism (something a lot of young people fell prey to during the palmy days of the charismatic renewal) and generally couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
SGM is by NO means the only place that went bad early on, believe me!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hmm . . . imagine hearing all the comments “surely you feel this way about Calvinism because you have been hurt by people who have abused the doctrines of grace.” It’s like a crying child being patted on the head and told “there, there.” No real merit is given to the child’s being. Do we have to deny that people are responding the way they are because they have studied and toiled and they don’t find a cerain doctrine consistent with God’s being?
People are very attached to their doctrines. This is evident. Many are hurt when their doctrines appear to be maligned. Maybe our doctrines mean more to us than we think if we have to defend them. I can honestly say I have a problem with this thinking because we are defending ideas. Ideas are great, fun to talk about, and debate. I try not to take offense at other’s ideas about doctrine. What they “do” and how they live is far more important to me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo: but SGM is one of the few places that has survived from the early 70s-now.
Most of the other authoritarian charismatic churches are long gone (at least, I hope so!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Hmm . . . imagine hearing all the comments “surely you feel this way about Calvinism because you have been hurt by people who have abused the doctrines of grace.” ”
What some are not taking into consideration is that is exactly what spiritually and physically abused people are told often, too. I have seen rape victims (used to be an advocate for those who were raped) be told they cannot be objective about what happened to them. The idea is that they are too emotional to be objective. When the truth is they are excellent messengers to help us understand in the long run. I saw the same thing with comp doctrine. It is assumed that anyone who is against comp doctrine was hurt by someone doing it wrongly. It is not often one actually inquires, oh, you have studied it deeply and disagree on root assumptions and interpretations.
So it is the same response principle albeit much less drastic than rape. So the idea that one was in SGM means they were were hurt so they are not good candidates to speak of problems with the doctrine taught there. The irony is that many intellectuals are attracted to Calvinism.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The argument that Reformed beliefs necessarily cause evil and the abuse of authority simply are not ones that I find convincing. I think it is because I have seen too much abuse of authority in pretty much every branch of Christianity. Any system of doctrine can be warped and manipulated to create problems. I’ve witnessed it in the lives of family and friends in all kinds of situations – Nazarene, Ind. Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Southern Baptist, PDI outgrowths, etc.(and SGM speaks for itself). Doctrine is warped by people with the desire to control and manipulate people. Some of the worst abuses of power I’ve witnessed firsthand in the lives of others were in Wesleyan and non-Reformed churches. That doesn’t make me despise those denominations. It just means people with wrong intentions did bad things.
Are there things about Reformed theology that I don’t understand? Of course. There are things about EVERY system of theology I don’t understand. I don’t understand how Lutherans can exclude other believers from the table. I don’t understand much about Catholic theology. I don’t understand the lack of certainty about salvation in Wesleyan denominations. I can recite what each group believes, but I don’t understand it enough to embrace it. They simply don’t make sense to me and so I would not embrace those denominations even though I’m very confident they are populated with many believers.
I did not grow up Reformed, but when I began to read Reformed teaching it made sense to me because I had always been Reformed in my thinking even before I ever knew there was such a thing.
Reformed theology makes sense to me. But it is only a framework I use to help me try to understand things that are frankly beyond knowing. I don’t worship Calvin and I don’t believe that anyone who isn’t Reformed is hell bound. It helps me think systematically about issues, but I don’t put my faith in it. My faith is in Christ.
We can’t all be right and I’m perfectly fine with that. It really doesn’t bother me that other Christians are so certain they are right and I’m wrong. Honestly I’ve got other things that are more pressing in my life like caring for my husband and daughter, running a business, taking care of my home, etc. I don’t lose sleep over it. God is still on His throne and the Holy Spirit is still living in me whether people agree with me or not. If I’m wrong and I’ve ever taught someone something wrong about theology, Jesus’ blood covers that mistake too.
I have accepted the fact that I simply cannot rationally explain everything. That’s why I can say that God is sovereign and people are responsible for their actions and it really doesn’t bother me. I see both in Scripture. I’m sure that sounds incredibly simple minded to some here, but that doesn’t bother me either.
There are some questions that do bother me and that I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer for. For example, if God is sovereign and it is His will that my husband and I are never financially successful in our business, then does that mean no amount of effort we put forth will matter? (Maybe Wade would like to take a stab at it!) I’ve asked this question of my own pastor and wasn’t really satisfied with the answer I received. It does make me uncomfortable to think about this question. But it doesn’t negate the rest of the Reformed framework for me. I still choose to trust that God is working good in my life even if it means we struggle financially for the rest of our lives.
I can’t explain God’s sovereignty as it relates to salvation. I see a God in the OT who chose the Hebrews and did not choose other groups. I see a God who chose Jacob and not Esau. I see a God who chose David and not his older brothers. I see a God who makes His own choices according to His own counsel. I don’t think that makes Him evil or unfair. It makes Him God. I know that statement will greatly upset some, but my faith is a simple one. I look at what God has told me about Himself through the Scriptures and I accept it, even when I don’t understand it.
Faith and rational explanations are not always going to fit together. I choose to walk by faith because the Scriptures are clear that God wants us to come to Him in faith and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).
Those are my thoughts. I wanted to say something so the few Reformed folks commenting would know they aren’t alone. I’m not going to defend anything I wrote here so I would ask that no one ask me to do so. I’m simply stating my opinions.
I am sincerely sorry for those who have been hurt by people who call themselves Reformed. My husband and I went through a period of spiritual abuse at the hands of people very similar to SGM, but the fact that they were Reformed doesn’t matter to me. They were manipulative, controlling people. It did not change my mind about Reformed doctrines. It made me study more, but I still came out Reformed in my thinking on the other side.
My two cents. Your mileage may vary. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
Bridget,
Just an excellent comment.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Sallie, Thanks for your “2 cents” :o) Your comment reminded me of a few of my close friends who are Calvinists. They come at it the same way you do. We love one another and our kids play together. I think one of the biggest problems we have is that we cannot discuss root assumptions concerning doctrines because people automatically think it means we hate the people who believe it. It is a lot like what the homosexual debate has become. If I think Homosexuality is sin then I automatically hate homosexuals when nothing is further from the truth. I have worked and traveled with homosexuals in my career. I see them as being created in the image of God. But I will be pilliored for even saying Homosexuality is sin as a lifestyle. It automatically means to many people I hate them. It is frustrating so one learns to never give ones view…a form of censorship that is very effective because people want to be accepted and liked.
It is really more about censorship. Don’t say anything I don’t like. An inability to disagree and part friends. People are uncomfortable with discussing issues deeply so we just don’t. And that makes me sad.
I tend to agree with Bridget. It is what people do that is most important to me when it comes to relationships. I do believe that what we believe ultimately drives behavior— as I saw that in the seeker mega world all the time which is NOT Calvinist. And let me tell you there was very bad behavior from leadership in that movement. It was just hidden better. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ: Good comment! I very much agree with you, having seen serious abuses in just about every kind of church one could name. (None of them Reformed by any stretch of the imagination.)
As for Lutherans and closed communion, that’s by no means a universal practice. I know for sure that the MO Synod and the Wisconsin Synod insist on it, but the largest synod in the US doesn’t. (Am a member of that synod, the ELCA.) Long story short: much of this variance has to do with the fact that different branches of Lutheranism were founded by people who emigrated to the US from many different countries – none of them English-speaking. (Also, at very different periods of time: my ancestors came in the 1700s, but most Midwestern Lutherans are descendants of mid-late 19th c. and early 20th c. immigrants.)
OK, that wasn’t so short after all!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Jesus told his Gentile inquisitors that his kingdom was “not of this world” which satisfied them he was not seeking an earthly revolt or challenging Roman authority.
The Jewish leaders were upset not he was overturning a few apple carts but that he was claiming to be the son of God. It did matter what he preached.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ elastigirl:
Sorry I don’t remember. I don’t think I was the first to find it. I may have seen it linked to from an older thread on here by someone else.
If I find the page again, I will let you know. I will do a quick google search, and see if I have it bookmarked in my browser.
It was really funny though – and sad at the same time, to see these gender comp quotes months apart from the same person or organization…
Where quote # one was something like,
1. “Gender comps don’t believe all a woman can do is bake cookies; don’t believe that lie about our position!”
Then, months later, the same lady (or group) says:
2. “Wanting to bake cookies is God’s greatest and only godly role for women, so learn to enjoy it ladies!”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1,
I’m not opposed to discussing things. But I’ve read this whole thread and know that there is really nothing I can say that will change anyone’s mind so I prefer to just share my thoughts.
Most of my friends are not Reformed. My two closest friends are Nazarene and Vineyard. If something happened to me and my husband, they would be the trustee and guardian of our daughter. I know they love Christ and I trust them. That’s the bottom line for me. I don’t identify as a complemenatarian, but most of my friends do. I know they love Christ and I know they are in healthy marriages so I don’t worry about it.
Life is too short for me to get wrapped up in these issues which is why I tend to avoid them online. I have no problem discussing them in real life with people I know. My faith works for me and I don’t mean that in an arrogant way but in a I’m resting in God’s love and provision way. I believe God is big enough to draw near to anyone who seeks Him.
And I completely agree with your assessment of the situation regarding discussing homosexuality. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
numo,
The Lutheran communion position really struck me when we were looking at preschools. There was a Missouri Synod church with one near our home that looked nice, but I could never reconcile the idea that they wanted to teach my child and instruct her in issues of faith, but if I was present at their church they wouldn’t let me take communion. As a longtime Baptist, I couldn’t wrap my mind around that. We’re interested in finding a church closer to our home after moving, but don’t feel we can consider any of the Lutheran churches here because I couldn’t bring a brother and sister in Christ to church with me and then see them denied the table. As I said before, I can articulate why Lutherans have this practice. It just isn’t one I can embrace. Too much Baptist in me. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Life is too short for me to get wrapped up in these issues which is why I tend to avoid them online.”
I am glad you chimed in anyway. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo: I am sympathetic to you viewpoints, Argo, and really want TWW to be a place in which you may express yourself. I also understand that many people have been hurt in Reformed churches but, as we have documented here, it has happened in nonReformed churches.
It is a dream of ours that all of us can dialogue with those who think very differently than we do. In fact, I think it is evidence of the Holy Spirit when we can have give and take with each other.
Jeff S has expressed his concern that he feels targeted and I can see how he could perceive it as so. Could i ask you to take it back a notch? Please do not paint him with same brush as you do with your obvious disdain for Calvinism.
I disagree with some of his theological precepts. But I also know him to be a kind and loving person who deeply cares for those who have been abused by domestic violence.
To me, love and kindness trump theological exactitude any day of the week. Could you please try harder to communicate in a controlled manner?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
Everybody’s got a pet attack-dog for something (we wouldn’t be human otherwise), which of course for the pet owner is the cause of all that’s wrong with the micro & macro worlds.
Tolerance starts to go south when the principle of salaam alaikum (Arabic for ‘peace be upon you’) wears to a thin veneer. When one party sends in drone strikes and cluster bomblets for the tenets of the other guy’s religion, the veneer is gone, it ceases to be a lively dialog and turns into naked aggression.
I don’t think there’s a sophistry clever enough to dismiss this ancient dynamic.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S: I am sorry for some of the comments that have been thrown in your direction. I have asked Argo to tone it down.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
So wonderful to hear from you! Great “widow’s mite.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ: I don’t agree with closed communion, either. but the LCMS is not something I can claim to truly understand. I do know that I used to attend an LCMS church, back here in the East, during the mid-80s, and they had no problem with my taking communion.
What to make of that, I’m not exactly sure, but I do know that the folks I got to know were really nice people and solid in their faith.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter: Very much agreed – good way of putting it, too.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter:
This is long. But please let me respond, then I’ll go.
Numo,
Attacking tenents (beliefs and assumptions) is akin to attacking the person now? You are equating my criticism of JeffS’s admitted doctrinal beliefs with me attacking JeffS the human? Am I now to assume that he who has the best “tone” has the best “truth”? I don’t understand this thinking.
Dee,
You are not arguing for love trumping mere doctrinal tenets. You are saying that love is only expressed in a way that “sounds” right. You equate truth with tone; doctrinal purity with how nice or loving a person seems to be. I am saying that these things can be and often are mutually exclusive, and I think this is the case with Jeffs. I KNOW he’s a great loving person. I LIKE him. But that doesn’t give his doctrine the moral high ground.
And this is the fundamental disconnect, and why it is so frustrating dialoging in any meaningful way with people. TRUTH is simply relative. He how has the best “attitude”, the “kindest” tone ALWAYS gets the moral high ground. So, the doctrine doesn’t matter, is really what you are saying. Beliefs don’t actually mean anything. Because some people behave lovingly, what they believe cannot possibly be wrong. Because they are “loving people”, their ideas are above reproach.
I have never belittled JeffS. I have NEVER questioned or insulted him personally. I have made a conscious effort to limit my comments to his assumptions, NOT what he actually does.
The fact is that Jeff has told me he doesn’t like what I have to say and that I have no right to say it. I have never once claimed that he has no right to say what he says. And yet, I’m the one who must tone it down?
Dee, I admit that I may post too much on some threads. That I can tone down…I get this. I do. But this exchange here simply boils down to the fact that JeffS doesn’t want to hear what I have to say. He would be quite happy if I just went away.
I am happy to go away. You don’t need to ban me. Say the word and I’ll bolt. I post here because I genuinely care for people and want them to question the ideas that lead to the kind of pain and human suffering that are all around us in church today…to show that in the end you cannot disconnect ideas from bad consequences, no matter how hard we may want to. I don’t get paid for this. My time is not compensated. I don’t do this because I have to nor because I have nothing better to do. Before God, my sole motivation is love. I don’t need to “tone it down” to prove that. Unlike the doctrines I oppose, my ideas of love and affirmation for all human beings because of their innate and inherent moral worth before God have never hurt a soul. Some people don’t like the message. Period.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
Dee, thank you for your concern and efforts in how you run this blog. I know you genuinely want freedom of discussion and a place where people are genuinely welcome- that is not an easy task by any stretch. I want and value those same things.
In all honesty, I maybe have gotten a little sensitive (and do not feel I am without blame here- I fear some of my own responses may have been a bit much).
I think we’re going to all come out OK 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Sorry, Numo. That first part of the last comment was directed at Muff. Apologies.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
To be fair, I offered TWO answers to the question. The first was that the doctrine was abused, the second was that my understanding of the doctrine or its logical conclusions might be faulty. I have acknowledged the latter is a possibility. I think that separates me from those who say that rape victims are unable to be objective.
I guess I should have worded it better because I DID say the “only explanation I have”, by which I meant I’m siding with the view that my experience and understanding of Reformed Theology are correct. But I followed that statement with an admission that the other might be true (that I do not correctly understand the Calvinism/Reformed Theology).
Just to be clear, this is what I said:
“What I believe is that the doctrine (like so many others) has been abused in people’s lives. That’s the only explanation I have for why my experience (and numerous others) is so different. I realize the other answer offered is that I’m just doing it wrong- that I’m not following through with my beliefs to their logical conclusion. That might also be true, but if I’m a poor Calvinist and a good Christian, I’ll accept that and not really wish to change”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bridget wrote:
Please see my response above. I believe what I believe, but I DO leave open the possibility that I am in error. I do not discount the experiences of those who have been hurt.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
I do not want you to go away. I hate it when people go away. I really, really hate it because I think that everyone who comes here is important and has something to give to us.
I have learned a lot about caring from a dear pastor. You may feel that you are not belittling people. But it is not about us. It is about the perception of the other person. It is communicating in a way that gets through to the other. Sometimes people do not want to talk when they visit here. They come on, call us some names, and self righteously huff off. They did nothing to advance understanding.
I get like that myself and I have to curb my frustrations a lot. But I also can go at it with the best of them. When someone says they are hurt, let’s all of us (me included) take it seriously. When someone says we insulted them, let’s try again in a way that is kind (me included). When someone asks us to cut it out, let’s do it (including myself).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
For a break from this discussion, feel free to check out the video for my new song “No Me”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v-DDuHLvhA
🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Daisy wrote:
I can’t answer this–not because I don’t want to, but because I don’t buy the original premise, which is that the text describing Jesus’ last days is history. Because the Gospels aren’t history, they’re a narrative designed for one thing, and that’s to point people to faith in Jesus Christ. As such (and given that the Gospels were composed decades after the fact), it’s virtually impossible to know what exactly happened on some spring days around 30 CE. We can guess, but we don’t know.
So I’m just going to drop this right here.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
Thank you. Your response is a great example of the give and take that I would like to see. Believe you me, I am not exempt from frustration, especially when folks do not see things as I see them.
Often times, as I think it through, I realize that it is due to my faulty communication style. Other times, it is due to the pain and life experience of the other person. They see things through the lens of their experience. If I am sensitive, I can learn a lot from them. One dear person wrote me and asked me to put a trigger warning on a recent post which mentioned children being used in child pornography. I was soooo glad she did so. I was focused on a particular point and didn’t think how my example could affect someone who had family members who were abused.
I believe I have learned more from all of you and your comments than from any Bible study that i have attended. i am grateful for the lives of each and every one of you and consider it a privilege to read of your thoughts and experiences.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ dee:
“When someone says they are hurt, let’s all of us (me included) take it seriously. When someone says we insulted them, let’s try again in a way that is kind (me included).”
I love the way you put that. That was beautiful.
Dee, I will do that. It is never my intention to hurt someone. I rage against what I feel are abusive ideas; I realize that the distinction might get muddled in all the words. Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
I want to be real careful here, because I do want to make an effort to disengage here.
No one has said that I or my doctrine is right here. I think most people who comment here do not like Calvinism and do not think it is true. I don’t even think I’ve pushed it. So I would not agree that my doctrine is getting any kind of high ground. I am not asking, nor do I see anyone asking, you to deny what you think or believe. No one is asking you to believe that Calvinism is true or even makes sense (though obviously I think it is and does).
What I wish is that when I say “I don’t believe xyz” you do not turn around and say “yes you do- it is only logical”. Allow me (and others) the freedom to state our own positions. Feel free to question how I can believe what you see as mutually exclusive ideas, but that is different from saying I believe something I expressly do not.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee wrote:
Ditto. The dialogue here has been so enlightening! We are learning so much from each other.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
Great song! Got it going through my head already!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Junkster: Sorry I missed your comment from a few days ago.
It's so great to have you back. You were one of our very first commenters. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dave A A:
🙂
Thanks so much! It’s also available as a free download on NoiseTrade if you’re interested.
/selfplugging
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I said something earlier that I don’t think is true, having thought about it.
I DON’T have anything better to do than post here. I think what goes on here is exceedingly important.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeff S:
My comment wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. You are always gracious and in no way a “Calvinista” from my perspective. I’ll check out the song. Thanks 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Bridget:
Thanks- and I understand it. Your point is a HUGE one. I did myself in with this logic, feeling I was unqualified to make an assessment about my divorce because I was not objective. The truth is, sometimes experience is the best teacher and there is no doubt God uses experience to show us flaws in our doctrines. Marginalizing victims as “unobjective” means we never learn from experience. If we don’t listen, we may only learn when we become the one with the experience.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Feel free to question how I can believe what you see as mutually exclusive ideas, but that is different from saying I believe something I expressly do not.”
JeffS…I read you. I can do that. Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ numo:
go straight to the White Hole, DNA, Meltdown episodes. As a whole, it all get funnier & funnier the more you watch it (at least, that is my experience). But those 3 episodes are great. My first exposure to Red Dwarf was watching Meltdown. Didn’t know anything about the series, but I couldn’t believe how funny that one was.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
Thanks- I am going to try really hard to be less sensitive.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 – In your last comment on Acts 13:48 (“When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed”), you wrote: “There might be some misunderstanding here. The act of voting or hand stretching is ‘choosing’. So I was not saying than man was appointing himself to eternal life without God. I was saying that man can choose to believe/have faith.”
It’s clear that, yes, some of the Gentiles chose to believe. But there is something that characterized those Gentiles: They “had been appointed to eternal life.” You wrote that you were “not saying than man was appointing himself to eternal life without God.” So are you saying that man can appoint himself to eternal life (by choosing) *with* God? Isn’t, rather, the clear sense of the verse that someone appointed the Gentiles to eternal life *before* they believed? And who could that someone be but God?
This brings up something I touched on earlier. I do not mean to be offensive in what follows, but I realize that it might seem that way because “tone” is so hard to communicate online.
Anon 1 responded to a verse that I quoted, and now we are discussing it. Though, of course, no one is obligated to respond to verses I bring up, I notice that it’s very rare when someone does. It’s even more rare, I think, for others to quote verses or passages from the Bible to back up what they say.
Elastigirl is very candid about her view of the Bible. I hope it is not unfair to say that she chooses what parts to believe and what parts not to believe. (“I think the bible is full of mess & goofiness. In which are nuggets of truth.”)
I’m not making any assumptions about what the rest of you think about the Bible. I would just really like to know what your views of it are, if you don’t mind sharing them.
I think that, whatever we discuss having to do with the Christian faith, our ultimate source of truth is the Bible. Some believe that Calvinism has little or nothing to do with the faith, but I think we must back up that belief with the Scriptures. If we don’t, we are merely left with our opinions; some more informed than others, but still our opinions.
I realize that there are objections (not necessarily yours) to seeing the Bible as the ultimate source of truth. Some of them are:
1) Nothing is really clear in Scripture except that Jesus died for our sins.
2) Since it was written by people, how do we we know that they were inspired by God?
3) The world has changed so much since the Bible was written that much of it is irrelevant.
4) Everyone has their own interpretation and they are all valid, except the ones we know for sure are wrong. (Related to #1)
5) If we don’t read Hebrew and Greek, we don’t know what the Bible is really saying.
6) If we only quote a verse or short passage, it is always out of context, so it is useless to do so.
I think that, despite these and other objections, we must, in good faith, grapple with what the Bible says. I think that the Holy Spirit is necessary to illumine the Bible for us, but that He doesn’t directly communicate to us anything that contradicts it.
I hesitate to comment on some issues that have been brought up (I think I hear applause) because I would be quoting Scripture, and I’d first like to know your views of it.
Concerning Calvin’s view of sanctification, here is part of 3.14.9 of the “Institutes”:
“We admit that when God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ, and bestowing upon us the free pardon of sins regards us as righteous, his goodness is at the same time conjoined with mercy, so that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit, by whose agency the lusts of our flesh are every day more and more mortified while that we ourselves are sanctified; that is consecrated to the Lord for true purity of life, our hearts being trained to the obedience of the law. It thus becomes our leading desire to obey his will, and in all things advance his glory only.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
I am no prize package. Sometimes I have all the discretion of Geronimo raiding a trading post. Feelings are often times inextricably linked to our religious beliefs in such a way that even the most surgical critique of those tenets can cause collateral damage to one’s feelings. I must also echo Dee’s sentiment that I don’t want you to be gone either. You have sharpened my thinking immensely with much of your writing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Muff Potter:
Muff,
Thank you for your kind words. And I understand.
And I’m no going anywhere. LOL
Hey…peanut gallery, stop groaning! 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
If anyone is interested in a little levity, here is a Henri video that is actually relevant to the Calvinism issue, but you have to watch to the end to find out why. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiYUzYozsAQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUKV9BaMeTZ1XkpTzvJl226Q
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
Gee Jeff, You are forcing me to think harder than I might be able to!
“It’s clear that, yes, some of the Gentiles chose to believe. But there is something that characterized those Gentiles: They “had been appointed to eternal life.” You wrote that you were “not saying than man was appointing himself to eternal life without God.” So are you saying that man can appoint himself to eternal life (by choosing) *with* God? Isn’t, rather, the clear sense of the verse that someone appointed the Gentiles to eternal life *before* they believed? And who could that someone be but God?”
I believe salvation has to be synergistic or there can be no real relationship between God and man. And I believe it is all about relationship. I do believe the Holy Spirit convicts and draws us. But we have input by believing, repenting and trusting the Justification that was for all. Not all people believe trust and repent, obviously. I throw that in because that is usually what most Calvinists bring up because they are answering from their filter of Sovereignty which they define differently than I do.
I do not think what I glean from scripture lessens Gods Sovereignty at all but increases it. He created beings who could say no to Him. If our salvation is not partly synergistic, the whole idea of relationship with Christ is moot. I do not subscribe to total inability at all. And if I remember correctly, you do not either.
“Anon 1 responded to a verse that I quoted, and now we are discussing it. Though, of course, no one is obligated to respond to verses I bring up, I notice that it’s very rare when someone does. It’s even more rare, I think, for others to quote verses or passages from the Bible to back up what they say.”
I think there is a good reason for this in this group. So many come from places where scripture was used as a club~! And because hermeneutical filters are so different it just becomes circular arguments with people saying things like “scripture CLEARLY teaches…” and that is frustrating.
“I’m not making any assumptions about what the rest of you think about the Bible. I would just really like to know what your views of it are, if you don’t mind sharing them.”
I believe scripture was inspired. I do not believe it is inerrant at all. I do not view it as a sort of 4th person of the Trinity because there are too many translations and it has been politicized over a 1000 years or so. Many translations were the result of political power stances. (And councils, too)
However, the Holy Spirit can get through to us. So much has changed just within the last 60 years or so with the discovery and study of the dead sea scrolls, finds in Greek that give us insight into certain words and how they were used in the 1st Century. (A great example of this is authenteo in 1 Tim which is only used once in the NT and obscure and the translation is HORRIBLE)
These are just a few reasons I think studying what old dead guys (and live ones) teach about scripture is dangerous. The old guys did not have the resources we have today. I doubt they had MORE Holy Spirit than any of us can have, either. :o)
I really believe that our own prayer and study is sufficient with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Too many pastors have agendas these days to amass followers or keep the church doors open. I have come to the conclusion that newer believers ought to study on their own and only listen to those they can ask questions to right then and there. We must all be Bereans. Hold on to your seat…I think “preaching” as we know it today is obsolete in the Body. Teaching is not if we are using the term in the interactive sense.
“I think that, whatever we discuss having to do with the Christian faith, our ultimate source of truth is the Bible. Some believe that Calvinism has little or nothing to do with the faith, but I think we must back up that belief with the Scriptures. If we don’t, we are merely left with our opinions; some more informed than others, but still our opinions.”
Jeff, I think the difference is that Calvinists tend to read the Bible more literally in many places when it is NOT meant to be literal in my opinion. Romans quoting Psalms is one example. They can even interpret Greek grammar differently to come to a different conclusion like we see with Eph. They have a different defintion for Sovereignty, election, etc. And of course all of us read it through Western post enlightenment filters. This can change meanings. Instead we should be asking, who is speaking, to whom are they speaking and what is the occasion. Sometimes we overcomplicate because we do not focus on simple questions to frame what was written in the proper context.
What amazes me about scripture is how much of the truth of Christ is still obvious even though man has had his paws all over it for 1000 years. I have read some very interesting articles lately about Jesus and the Apostles quoting the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT and why. I find all of it so fascinating. But do you know how many preachers I have heard say Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Seriously?
I think we can use reason when reading scripture. We can acknowledge that we do not really understand ancient Hebrew culture. We can study and see that Abraham was not a “Hebrew” so to speak but a pagan when God called out to him. We can read the Code of Hammurabi and see many parallels to Leviticus and so on. The OT was written within the backdrop of a pagan pantheistic culture.
There are many who think it is sinful to even discuss such things as it might turn people off and the Bible is a holy book. The leather or cover is not Holy. The printed pages are not Holy as many have ripped them out and shared them while in prison. What is Holy is only the Holy Spirit using what is written, no matter how badly translated, to illuminate truth, convict us and encourage us concerning the One True God.
I read once that in Koine Greek there were about 20,000 words. In English we have about 700,000. That fact right there should tell us the translators had many more choices and the opportunity for word meanings to change over time.
A perfect example of this is Kephale. The Greeks would have understood Head differently from us. If authority was being communicated it would have been archon or exousia. Or how about the Hebrew? Why was teshuqa interpreted as desire by a Monk named Pagnino in the 1300s when before that the word was translated as understanding was “turning” for the most part which communicated something very differently in Genesis 3?
My study of scripture has led me much closer to Christ. Man has corrupted just about everything he has touched in some way. The bible is not exempt from that. I am simply amazed that His truth pours through it at all to those who seriously study and I give the credit to the Holy Spirit. But I also believe that study of scripture is synergistic, too. People have to want to dig deep and check things out. A study can take you on a wild ride and today we have no excuses with so many resources at our fingertips for free! And that includes understanding the culture and times it was written in and the audience of the time. I don’t think it was ever meant to be a specific instruction manual for life. I believe the Holy Spirit is our guide there. And we must remember the early church did not have the NT as we have it. So what did they do? They believed Jesus was God in the Flesh who sent us the Spirit of Truth to guide us and convict us of sin.
My goodness this is long but one of my favorite subjects!
“Concerning Calvin’s view of sanctification, here is part of 3.14.9 of the “Institutes”:
“We admit that when God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ, and bestowing upon us the free pardon of sins regards us as righteous, his goodness is at the same time conjoined with mercy, so that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit, by whose agency the lusts of our flesh are every day more and more mortified while that we ourselves are sanctified; that is consecrated to the Lord for true purity of life, our hearts being trained to the obedience of the law. It thus becomes our leading desire to obey his will, and in all things advance his glory only.”
Jeff, I have read the Institutes and am concerned because I think Calvin can be proof texted too. I find him contradictory in quite a few places and I know he used Augustine as his foundation. He believed Faith was a gift from God that had to be implanted in us. Mongeristic. It is the same old problem…word meanings, definitions, etc. Saying it one way at one place but then saying another thing in another place that negates the former. When there is determinism there is no synergism at all. Limited Atonement is determinism. The I is determinism. Unconditional election is determinism. Without man’s volition it is determinism. (You are the rare bird that does not subscribe to the T so not sure the other parts of the TULIP can stand without it, I will have to give that one some thought) :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Which Jeff are you referring to not believing in the “T”? That would be a are bird indeed. If you are talking about my earlier comment about Original Sin, I do believe all are fallen and therefore are Totally Depraved- I just don’t necessarily believe it is clear how we get into that state. If you are referring to JeffB, then ignore my statement.
As far as the other points you make, I do not follow why a monergistic salvation requires a monergistic sanctification.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeff S wrote:
JeffS, I am so sorry. I did get you guys confused and wrongly attributed a position on the T to the wrong person!
As to your last question, I thought I covered that earlier and it does get quite involved but the short answer which needs fleshing out against Calvinistic hermeneutic: If man has no volition then there has to be a mongeristic salvation as man is not able to respond, repent, believe or have faith. God must implant that in him first. The determinism does not end when sanctification begins because as Calvinism teaches, people are chosen for salvation before Adam sinned and WILL persevere as God is controlling every molecule. Man is somehow “free” to sin but not “free” to choose Christ. It is all mongeristic or Calvinism cannot stand if man’s ability or responsibility is brought into the equation at all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ formerly anonymous:
Too funny!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Teaching that someone will persevere is not the same as saying his or her journey of sanctification is monergistic. That he or she will end up completely sanctified is no question, but how fast and what route taken in that sanctification can certainly vary.
You wouldn’t suggest that anyone who believes once saved, always saved is monergistic in terms of sanctification, would you? That might lead to some people being synergistic for salvation, but monergistic for sanctification!
And BTW, I must LOL at JeffB and myself. Of course people get us confused. Soverign God must have been playing a joke on us (just kidding! Don’t shoot me :p)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Teaching that someone will persevere is not the same as saying his or her journey of sanctification is monergistic. That he or she will end up completely sanctified is no question, but how fast and what route taken in that sanctification can certainly vary.”
We simply see it differently. I do not start with a deterministic definition of predestination so my outcome is different. I do believe that salvation should result in us being new creatures in Christ who “walk in the light” which does not mean sinless perfection at all. And we all have different views of what that means, too!
“You wouldn’t suggest that anyone who believes once saved, always saved is monergistic in terms of sanctification, would you? That might lead to some people being synergistic for salvation, but monergistic for sanctification!
”
I would have think about that one. I don’t see how it could mean mongerism for sanctification when there is no mongerism for Justification. Man still has input. I don’t like to start with a man made systematic approach and read it back into scripture. I am not married to OSAS as I see, as one example, there are too many references in the NT that might negate that doctrine. Hebrews for one. But that is a whole other area I have not had time to dig into deeply enough to discuss it. Just throwing out some thoughts off top of my head. I am not convinced one way or the other about it. However, The P in TULIP is presented as deterministic so it seems to be totally mongeristic.
Thanks for the exchange!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ JeffB:
“I think that, whatever we discuss having to do with the Christian faith, our ultimate source of truth is the Bible.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
–yet not having a corner on all truth. It doesn’t address everything in life.
–I get the feeling that there is almost paranoia in most of Christian culture that if the bible isn’t all truth and all true, the sky will fall! why the need for this?
question: WHAT IF…. DEAD SEA SCROLLS 2 happened. And then SON OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS happened. And the scrolls compellingly showed that some key sections of what has been published as the holy bible are erroneous, unreliable, faulty, incorrect, mistranslated, authorship not what we thought (not sure what words fit),….something that would cast doubt on the veracity of parts of the bible on which major doctrines have been built?
What would that do? If God is real, and you have a brain and a soul / spirit, you’d have to rely on your interaction with him for truth, wisdom, understanding, guidance, comfort, information.
I mean, isn’t THIS THE GOSPEL????? God is available, here, now, for relationship???
HOLY SMOKES this is what Christians everywhere talk about all the time….. does anyone really do it???
it seems they’re terrified to lose the book and hook up to God directly. Terrified to let go of the tether and fly — fly with 100% one’s ability and 100% God’s ability. In tandem. In communication.
(…..BAAHHHH, I said i’d take my daughter to the store… have to keep my word… “Really, MOM???? I’ve been waiting in the car for 10 minutes!”)
There’s more I could say….
“Some believe that Calvinism has little or nothing to do with the faith, but I think we must back up that belief with the Scriptures. If we don’t, we are merely left with our opinions; some more informed than others, but still our opinions.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
–isn’t that the case with everyone, though? From famous names to my grandmother to you to me to my 7 year old daughter. All we have is our opinions (based on data).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
What I don’t understand is just how sanctification is even relevant if salvation is monergistic…which to me equates to deterministic; for I do not see how they can be logically separated.
I mean, what is the end goal of sanctification? It can’t be for the benefit of others, not even for the efficacious preaching of the gospel to sanctification; for their salvation is determined by God alone. And it can’t be for us; for we are “once saved always saved”. We can’t even “will” ourselves out of our salvation.
For me, I cannot get into the debate about what “role” man plays in sanctification because either way, monergistic or not, man’s role seems irrelevant. The issue of free will must be decided first, I think.
So, the argument re sanctification is a tangential argument to the idea of free will. Free will is either absolute or not; effective in both justification and sanctification.
I do not see any way to make will a function of some OTHER act by some OTHER force. If that is true, then the will is not free, but merely an extension of the force which acts upon man FIRST. For example, one might say that man is too depraved to choose Christ, but after God “saves” them, they are no longer depraved and are free to choose to obey (and presumably disobey? But I’ve never debated with a Calvinist who will concede that…so freedom to choose? Really?). But what is the source of the “free will” to “choose” to obey? Notice in in the equation it is not man…it is God. It is God’s arbitrary act of salvation. It is wholly a function of God’s deterministic power. And as such, any decision man makes after salvation must be directly tied not to man’s will, but to God’s…again because God, as the source of man’s will, IS man’s will. Man’s will cannot be free even after salvation.
So, in the end, if I were to argue about sanctification, I would wonder just how any Calvinist could think sanctification was NOT monergistic given that man is never the source of his own will. I don’t see how the logic “fits”.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“What I don’t understand is just how sanctification is even relevant if salvation is monergistic…which to me equates to deterministic; for I do not see how they can be logically separated. ”
I don’t think they are separate but I do think “Justification” and Sanctification are separate things. However, as I understand it, you cannot have one without the other. Justification is for ALL who repent, believe and trust in Jesus Christ. The Justification is done.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
There is a lot of separating man from himself, I think. This is the Greek influenced thinking Augustine introduced into Christianity with his writings that became somewhat accepted because of his status and systematized by Calvin. (Augustine did not read Greek and some of his interpretations of parables, etc are strange) I read recently some Monks in Gaul really challenged Augustine’s writings but had little influence. It dualistic thinking and we can see the influence of Mani and Plotinus. The thinking was that truth is always outside of us and not really knowable, the material word including humans are totally evil, etc. This is where we got the concept of original sin/inherited guilt (of Adam) definition instead of original death. I am not sure we really understand just how ingrained Greek Philosophy was in that culture.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Anon 1:
Yes. I think that the Platonist thinking that forms the crux of Augustine’s gnostic interpretations of Christianity (replacing Jewish metaphysics with Greek)is heavily ingrained in Western thinking in general.
I mentioned this earlier, but I am reading a book called the God Particle. The author spends a lot of time criticizing Aristotle…which struck me as strange given that Aristotle is the father of logic; that is, using logic to apprehend TRUTH. Well, what I came to realize is that science itself is very Platonist in its thinking, which is there is prevalent the idea of “scientific determinism”…that reality is merely an extension of some unseen, external “laws” which are revealed only observably by mathematics. So, the idea is that these laws “govern” reality.
So…what you see isn’t really what is acting/doing.
What this does is essentially deny that there is anything real we can observe. That the physical objects we perceive don’t actually DO anything. It is merely the outworking of the invisible laws of mathematics. And of course the scientists, as those innately gifted with this special “knowledge” (brains gifted for math and science) are in a position to dictate reality for the rest of us; which inexorably leads to dictating behavior. That is why, I think, there is such a heavy reliance on statistics, probabilities,and percentages in determining civil policy these days. Humans are reduced to mere numbers. Their behavior reduced to some deterministic force. ALL that happens is a function of the math. The better you get at the math, the better the societal harmony. Funny how that doesn’t seem to work all that well, huh?
But the real danger is this: when we remove human volition from the human, it is not long before someone realizes that trying to reason with the barbarian masses is a waste of time. The guns and clubs come out, and those who will not comply are shown just what kind of outcomes the great wheel in the heaven has determined for them.
I believe that the book you recommended “The Quiet Revolution” is an expose on just this sort of process. If doctrine/ideas/the wisdom of the spirit realm is TRUTH, then the path of least resistance is simply to destroy those who get in the way of it.
Scary.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon 1 wrote:
I laughed hysterically. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hoorah for TWW ! You should see some of the other ixtian blogs. Continual strife is the norm where warlords and strongmen rule with an iron fist. Dissenters are marginalized and usually run out of the city like Jews in medieval Europe. TWW truly is like Al Andalus of old, before it fell to the Inquisition.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ironically (and sadly) many, many men in authoritarian churches are passive and they are not being taught how to Biblically lead their families. They are following the authoritarian pastor/elders.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
If you aren’t following the parody Twitter accounts for @Fake Piper, @FakeMarkDriscoll and @LLoydLegalist, you’re missing some good humor.
Here’s a few:
https://twitter.com/FakePiper/status/353639418214621185
https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll/status/353681173630812160
https://twitter.com/LloydLegalist/status/352530922601590785
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff Potter wrote:
Now that is a mouthful for a Monday morning! Thank you Muff
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Janey: Ih ave followed Lloyd Legalist and Fake Jon Piper. I had not seen Fake Mark Driscoll. I shall sign up. Thanks.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Janey:
Oh my gosh! Fake Piper is hilarious!! 😆
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Janey:
Those Tweets were great! Thanks for bringing them to our attention.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
fake piper tweet hilarious!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
fake piper tweet hilarious!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Now how did I post that twice?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Wade Burleson:
I can’t wait for this sermon Wade. I found those contradictions from the original in Hebrews just by using Blueletterbible.org. I looked it up one day because I noticed that he passage just didn’t seem to make sense when taken in context with the verses and chapters before 13. What surprised me though was how all of the translations that BLB quotes from use the same biased authoritarian idea.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Also, I realize that some of you who know that I’m a (for want of a better word) Calvinist may be wondering how I can say that Paul Young “is helping to lead people to eternal suffering by offering false comfort,” when I believe that ultimately God chooses who will be saved.”
JeffB, did you say that back on Friday? Forgive me if I’m wrong, I selected before reading the ready of comments and I can’t find it again.
Anyway, I believe that both ‘extremes’ (tulip vs.universalism) can offer false hope. It’s easy for a Calvinist to think their saved because they believe the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ alone and yet not know the truth as in the demons believe the truth. As a Calvinist I remember being told I was saved when I know that I was not. I didn’t know it then but I know now that I wasn’t. I did not love God but I believed that God existed and that Jesus died for some people’s sins. No amount of convincing me of either the mercy or the wrath of God could cause me to be saved. Yes, God uses people and sermons and other avenues to draw people towards that saving knowledge of God, but I believe that God does draw all people. I believe that God is justified however because of our sinful condition to allow certain mercies to be hidden or rendered for a time for his purpose in that drawing of all people, as in pharaoh hardening his heart by the mercies of the plagues being lifted. I do not believe that pharaohs heart was hardened by predestination for after earthly life. He had a choice and he could have been saved while drowning. Since only God knows our hearts, only God knows where our will will be lined up with his for all eternity for heaven to be heaven and never ruined by a lucifer attitude. I have chosen now not to be so concerned about hell but about knowing God. I don’t want people in heaven who don’t know God. But I know that it is possible to know God in a second. I was taught God all my life, plenty of Arminian, Calvinist and non Calvinist Baptist, but I did not know God. In one second, many years ago that all changed, at my choice through his drawing. I know that Calvinists would say that that was still all predestined but I don’t believe it. I pray for God to reveal himself to all people in the unique way that they need him to. I do love all people in that way, even the worst bullies because I know the repentance can be real, I don’t need to worry that maybe their is a hell
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Agh! I was still typing, accidentally bumped the post comment before I edited.., sorry for the rambling and misspells…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Patti:
I did write that.
Yes, anyone can believe falsely that he/she is saved, or that someone else is saved, regardless of what “ism” that person follows. My brother told me the gospel when I was 32; I was 40 when a crisis in my life, which revealed to me my sinful nature, had a part in bringing me to saving faith. I knew in those 8 years that I was not saved, but no one tried to convince me otherwise.
I’m curious: Did the Calvinists think you were saved because you could recite the doctrines of grace or some other tenet of Calvinism? I hope not.
It’s interesting: Scripture says that Pharaoh hardened his heart but that God hardened it also.
“I do love all people in that way, even the worst bullies because I know the repentance can be real, I don’t need to worry that maybe their is a hell”
I don’t know if you planned to continue. Are you not worried that there is a hell because you know you will not be going there? Or did you never worry that there is a hell? Even as a believer, I find it terrifying that there is a place of unending suffering.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
JeffB, I think this might be part of where the disconnect comes in. I do not believe this (I used to because that was what I was taught). My belief is that the untimate source of Truth is the One who said He was the Truth. I think when we look to written words on a page for ultimate truth, we are setting ourselves up for legalism (at least that is how it worked in the circles I have bounced around in).
For me, God is free to override those words on paper that are man’s interpretation of words written by other men who translated (and in translating, interpreted) the words of still others who wrote down God as they knew and experienced Him. Are there words that God spoke recorded in that book? Certainly. Is every word in that book Truth?
Well, one of the examples of how this has to be treated with great caution is the book of Job. I have heard many sermons preached as true and representing who and what God is from those parts of Job where his friends are speaking. The problem is, the very book itself says that God condemned what those friends said (as recorded in the book) as not speaking truth about Him.
In my experience, when peole have equated the Bible as being the Ultimate Truth, biblical abuse soon followed. (I am not saying you are abusive, just that this has been my experience.) Also, if it is, then how can so many different groups look to it as that and have so many different and contradictory beliefs based on what it says?
My two cents….
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JeffB wrote:
Well, that’s the way I understood them. I was born Calvinist so sort of under the covenant but I made the obligatory profession of faith like all the other 17 year olds at my Christian Reformed Church. I confessed with my mouth and believed in my heart as much as I understood it but it really was all just words to me.
But also my non-Calvinist Baptist school upbringing made me think I was saved because I did do a few altar calls in order to escape the tribulation that the Calvinists said I was going through anyway because they didn’t believe in the rapture, but either way I figured I would at least escape hell.
I guess what I mean by not worrying about hell is that I believe fear of hell can’t bring saving faith. The goodness of God leads to repentance, fear of punishment just leads to begging for mercy. I prefer to think that God has informed us that there is a hell so that we who now hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled and not have to share eternity with evil as we do now on this earth. I don’t think the Bible is crystal clear on just how hell works, but I do believe it teaches there is one. I also believe that heaven would be like hell for people who love darkness rather than light.
God hardening Pharoh’s heart is one of those phrases that just doesn’t tell us exactly how He hardened it. I just believe that God uses circumstances to change our hearts. Even for the softening of heart I have learned over the years that when I pray for certain things I’d better brace myself. Like when I think I’m ready again to pray to be more like Jesus? Sure, I want God to just say “voila, there you go!” But nope, he’ll be taking me through some more basic training, or even when we ask for wisdom, there’s a verse in Psalms or Proverbs that says wisdom comes through the word of God and life’s circumstances.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Jeannette Altes:
Good post. It is not hard to see how many people consider the Bible as the fourth Person in the Trinity. The idea of Bible infallibility I submit leads to what I refer to as biblioidolatry. It is literally the worship of the Bible. It is not tensor calculus to see the human disaster this leads to.
You have correctly pointed out the inevitable outcome of sectarian interpretations of the bible becoming “God’s infallible Word”. This of course is a mandate to sacrifice individuals in service to a subjective ideas of what is God’s “Word”.
You have also rightly pointed out the tacit blasphemy involved in declaring anything but God the source of authority and truth. And He has mandated that his truth will be revealed in human lives, not in a book.
When we claim bible as authority we are ultimately giving MEN some kind of gnosis; special divine insight. This is not Christianity, it is mysticism.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Argo:
Thanks, Argo. It took a while of decompression after I walked away from the cultic church I was in to begin to see the inherent idolatry in the Bile Infalibilty model. I can see now how so many I used to hang with and call friends viewed the Bible as more important than anything – well, except for Faith(TM) in the last place I was in because they were Word of Faith….and that group has turned faith into an idol as well. They certainlt seem to view it as more important that the people who are thrown out or walk out….
One of the things the Spirit (if you will) said to me during this detox process was: The Law was made for man , not man for the Law. When you start sacrificing people on the altar of the Law, you move from mercy and grace to tyrany and abuse.
For those WoF people out there, you can substitute ‘Faith’ for ‘The Law’ in the above statement and it would apply just as well….
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Entropy sets in, and the Law deteriorates from Lawful Neutral through Lawful Stupid to end in Lawful Evil.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jeannette Altes wrote:
The Bible becomes Purity of Ideology, and Purity of Ideology can justify any abuse. (Just ask the survivors of Cambodia’s Killing Fields.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo wrote:
Sounds like Hyper-Calvinism with Math’s Impersonal Will substituted for God’s Omnipotent Will. I would expect parallel results and side effects.