The Romans 2 vs 8 quote in Wade’s post has a typo – should read “unrighteousness”.

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.

“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?

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.

@ 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.

@ dee:
Dee,

Surely we can all agree on chocolate. 🙂

“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.

@ Bridget:

And “I” enjoy . . .

@ Bridget:
So then there would be chocolate denominations…:shock:

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.

@ 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???

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).

@ elastigirl:
Oh my, I certainly hope so! I like cheese. Do you like cheese? 🙂

@ anonymous:
Thanks Bridget!

Now, how is it you do the eye roll guy?

@ 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.

@ Bridget:
🙄

anonymous wrote:

@ dee:
Dee,
Surely we can all agree on chocolate.

No, I can’t eat chocolate…sever allergy. 😉

@ elastigirl:

I agree! But it’s hard to tickle without touching . . . a major no no for many.

@ K.D.:

White chocolate? Or allergic to one of the other ingredients?

@ 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?

@ 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.

anonymous wrote:

K.D. wrote:
anonymous wrote:
@ dee:
Dee,
Surely we can all agree on chocolate.
No, I can’t eat chocolate…sever allergy.
Oh. Well, this is a grace based chocolate cult so you must not be excluded.

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…..

@ 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)?

@ Janey:

VERY interesting.

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”.

@ anonymous:

“With or without feathers?”

It depends on whether or not there is hope. (Obscure, show-offy, literary reference joke.)

@ Dave A A:

Calvinists have TULIP. Arminians have Daisy: “He loves me, He loves me not…”

@ elastigirl:

So very true. I’m in! Apple pie and ice cream when we’re done in.

Could it be that some see God as “authoritarian” and others see God as “relational”?

anonymous wrote:

Surely we can all agree on chocolate. 🙂

Calvinist chocolate or Arminian chocolate?

Anon 1 wrote:

Could it be that some see God as “authoritarian” and others see God as “relational”?

Exactly what I was thinking.

JeffB wrote:

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.

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.

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.

@ 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)

Patrice wrote:

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,

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.

@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!

Ann wrote:

The point seems for us to be obedient to God (prayer), but the answer is up to God.

Ann — I’m with you on this point. God is God. I am not. End of story. That’s good enough for me.

Anon 1 wrote:

Daisy wrote:
anonymous wrote:
So then there would be chocolate denominations…
But then there would be schisms, like people who like plain milk chocolate vs people who like chocolate bars with almonds.

Only those with the dark chocolate have the true chocolate

But almond joy’s got nuts.

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…

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

How bout Calminian chocolate?

@ dee:
That was Muff’s marvy comment of the day. I merely riffed. 🙂

Steve Scott,

Pretty good observation.

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.

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.”

So…

@ Wade Burleson:
I look forward to that message, and also the one where you take up Hebrews 13:17.

@ 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.)

@ 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)

Hester wrote:

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.

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.”

@ Daisy:

Daisy,

You are strong, beautiful, smart, tough, wise, full of ability and know-how. Wear it with pride. 🙂

@ JeffB:

lovely

and a propos in a very funny sort of way

@ 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.

@ elastigirl:

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.”

Not exactly the kind of god (note the small “g” here) I’d want to be around…

@ 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. 🙂

@ Daisy: I no longer think it tastes “okay.” I liked it when I was younger, but now – oof!

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!

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 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.

Jeff S wrote:

So yes, people ARE happier for others to suffer in order to keep all of their theological ducks in a row.

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.

numo wrote:

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.

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.

@ 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.

She [Braitman] didn’t stay single on purpose.

…But she wanted a partner. She still does.

She does not think marriage is broken and does not think life — at least her life — is better lived alone. It just worked out that way.

… For most of her life, she assumed the right one would eventually show up.

… Just 51 percent of the adult population is married, down from 72 percent in 1960.

Here was the part that grabbed my attention:

And when we meet someone who hasn’t married by 40 or 50, we want an explanation. So, we assign one: He’s a commitment-phobe. She’s too picky. They all have “issues.” Because if there was no reason, it could happen to any of us — and that’s not a prospect we’re eager to confront.

Braitman, the blogger, knows people assume it’s [her prolonged singleness is] somehow her fault, and they’re quick to try to fix the problem. “Everyone’s weighed in on it,” she says. “ ‘You should wear your clothes tight. You should not have short hair. You should dress more like a girl.’ I think I’ve heard everything.”

None of it feels like the truth. Of course she is selective — who isn’t? And haven’t other women with short hair found husbands?…

If it’s a person’s lot in life to live with a chronic disease or raise a child with disabilities, we are sympathetic. But if they don’t have a partner, we assume a character flaw.

“There is so much sadness and guilt and shame,” she says….

@ 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.

Daisy wrote:

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.

“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

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.

@ 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. 🙂

@ 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…

@ 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,

“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.

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. 🙂

@ numo:
I’ve been thinking about that. I guess I probably should. :/

(Needless to say, I haven’t done it yet…)

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)

Argo wrote:

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 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.

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

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.”

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think you are ascribing something to me that has not been said.

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?

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.

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.

And yes, I do mean good PERPETUALLY. Everyday in and out.

Anon 1 wrote:

So, on one hand you are affirming total depravity (total inability) but then at the same time saying we choose to sin.

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!

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.

elastigirl wrote:

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)

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)

@ 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.

@ 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…..

Argo wrote:

. 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).

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?

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.

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.”

@ 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.

@ 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.

Wade Burleson wrote:

Beakerj,

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.

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.

Anon 1 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?

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.

@ 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.

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. 🙂

@ 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.

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.

@ Wade Burleson:

Wade,

You are very gracious. Thank you.

Wade Burleson wrote:

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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.

Wade Burleson wrote:

The question before us is simple: Is God under obligation to woo in love those who have rebelled against Him?

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?

Anon 1 wrote:

Wade Burleson wrote:
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.
Ok, then you are NOT a Calvinist in any way.

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?

Argo wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

Jeff S wrote:

Calvinists believe in free will. You do not have the right to say that we don’t.

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.

@ 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?

@ 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!

@ JeffB:

Jeff, good comment and thanks for articulating the WCF. (Even though I disagree with it :o)

JeffB wrote:

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.

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.

Anon 1 wrote:

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.

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.

@ 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.

“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.

dee wrote:

When she shows up, the big boys see the checkbook. She does not understand that most women do not have her clout.

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/

elastigirl wrote:

so, what is feminine?

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!”

Would using marital arts skills on a mugger be submitting to him so thoroughly that he is ashamed and gives up his mugging career?

@ Anon 1:

You’re welcome, and thanks for your comment.

. . . Kassian . . .

@ Bridget:

dee wrote:

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.

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.

Daisy wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
Calvinists believe in free will. You do not have the right to say that we don’t.
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.

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.

@ 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.”

numo wrote:

@ 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).

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)

“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.

JeffB wrote:

@ 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.

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.

Argo wrote:

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.

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!

elastigirl wrote:

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?

Well, it IS the difference between liberty and slavery? Ideas matter.

I do like the idea of Napoleon hats, though.

@ Anon 1:
Anon 1 wrote:

JeffB wrote:
He willed that sin enter the world
W
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.

@ 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.

JeffB wrote:

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.

How does free will equal being on a God-like level? Um, my attributes are not the same as God’s. Not even close.

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.

@ elastigirl: Thanks – you have vividly described what I was attempting to say!

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.

elastigirl wrote:

Just seems this greater discussion is way overspiritualizing the concepts.

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?

numo wrote:

I don’t think being civil and peaceable in discussion is a flaw, exactly…

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)

@ 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. 😉

@ 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.

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.

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)

@ 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 🙂

@ 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.)

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.

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

@ 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!

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.

@ Muff Potter:

What exactly has been intolerant?

Jeff S wrote:

(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 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

Jeff S wrote:

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.

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.

Jeff S wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

Jeff S wrote:

Argo wrote:

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.

I don’t even know what this means.

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.

@ 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.

@ Argo:
Not at all. I just live at ground zero. :o(

@ 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.

@ 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.

Anon 1 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.

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).

Jeff S wrote:

Daisy wrote:

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 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

Very well stated, Jeff.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

Hey Anon1,

When you said you were at ground zero, what did you mean? That was a curious statement.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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!!

@ 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!

@ 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!)

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. 🙂

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)

Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

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.

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.

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. 🙂

“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)

Anon 1 wrote:

What exactly has been intolerant?

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.

@ Muff Potter: Very much agreed – good way of putting it, too.

@ 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 🙂

Anon 1 wrote:

“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.

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”

Daisy 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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.”

@ Muff Potter:

Muff,

Thank you for your kind words. And I understand.

And I’m no going anywhere. LOL

Hey…peanut gallery, stop groaning! 🙂

@ 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)

Jeff S wrote:

@ 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.

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.

@ 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)

@ 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).

“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.

@ 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.

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.

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

@ Janey:
Those Tweets were great! Thanks for bringing them to our attention.

fake piper tweet hilarious!

@ 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.

Agh! I was still typing, accidentally bumped the post comment before I edited.., sorry for the rambling and misspells…

JeffB wrote:

I think that, whatever we discuss having to do with the Christian faith, our ultimate source of truth is the Bible.

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….

@ 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.

Jeannette Altes wrote:

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.

Entropy sets in, and the Law deteriorates from Lawful Neutral through Lawful Stupid to end in Lawful Evil.

Argo wrote:

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?

Sounds like Hyper-Calvinism with Math’s Impersonal Will substituted for God’s Omnipotent Will. I would expect parallel results and side effects.