First!

Maybe people should just tell The Gospel Corporation (TM) “Don’s Stand So Close to Me.” (Noted: the song is about a teacher who should tell a teenage admirer to Go Away, but I’m just riffing on the title.) If I had the time, I’m sure I could work hits from The Police into a response, but that’s what occurred to me right away.

OP:

If you click on the link, you will see 15 churches listed on the left with each church having a “Report” button on the right.
This Big Brotheresque approach to monitoring churches that self-identify with what The Gospel Coalition stands for has started us wondering… Who is allowed to file a report?
Does it have to be someone who attends a TGC church? Perhaps it has to be a pastor of a church listed in TGC’s directory…

Does the “G” in TGC really stand for “Gestapo”? It sure seems like it. These guys are really into control.

Dee, I’m going to have to report my friend’s church in DC for having a woman read scripture and give a short benediction afterwards. If they’re not in TGC now, they never will be!

Shameful.

“* Editorial Note: It appears a rather small number of churches in our area are getting the Gospel™ right.”

This reminds me a lot of the foolish arrogance of my former Fundy church sending a missionary to the Seattle area because “there was no fundamental Baptist presence in the city”.

These guys really aren’t much different than the Fundies. Same arrogance. They just have a more polished image.

“As one who attends a Southern Baptist church, I wonder what this reporting process will entail for SBC churches that claim to be autonomous. Looks like Southern Baptist churches that self-identify as Gospel Coalition churches can no longer make the ‘autonomous’ claim because they are under the authority of TGC.”

This could also be said about SBC churches that hold dual affiliation with Acts29. It’s no doubt that Acts29 is connected at the hip with TGC. Acts29 also polices its member churches to make sure none are wandering astray. These New Calvinist groups support each other … it’s all about the movement, you know. The latest from TGC is just further evidence of the authoritarian patriarchy of this system. TGC has emerged as “Geneva” where the magisterial reformers can keep their ducks in a row. I guess they want to know if any whosoever wills, congregational polity, women teachers, or other such “heresies” slip into the mix! Actually, this move by TGC may be a good sign that they feel threatened that mainline Christianity is getting wise to their sinister plot to take over all of Christendom with reformed theology.

Regarding “autonomy”, traditional non-Calvinist SBC churches (still the majority) better be praising the Lord that they have such power! It’s the only mechanism left to them to keep New Calvinism from gaining control of their pulpits … for those that have enough discernment, that is, to see it coming in the back door. The Gospel Coalition = The Calvinist Coalition.

I think the reporting system should be viewed as a 100% positive step and not in any way as a negative or as church discipline. The one requirement to be in the directory is the church agrees in full with TGC’s Foundation Documents. TGC further states that they are unable to review each church in the directory. Therefore, they need to rely on feedback. The report simply asks for your name, e-mail and the reason for the report, such as the church no longer follows some aspect of the Foundation Documents. I think TGC could be considered negligent if they allowed such a church to continue in their directory.

Restaurants and

Max wrote:

“
Regarding “autonomy”, traditional non-Calvinist SBC churches (still the majority) better be praising the Lord that they have such power! It’s the only mechanism left to them to keep New Calvinism from gaining control of their pulpits … for those that have enough discernment, that is, to see it coming in the back door. The Gospel Coalition = The Calvinist Coalition.

Max,
Seriously, how long do you think Non-Cals will be the majority in the SBC? Or do you think it is just a matter of time?

Shall I report “Free Web Advertising for Christian Ministries” in Houston that doesn’t even list a real address?

GovPappy wrote:

“* Editorial Note: It appears a rather small number of churches in our area are getting the Gospel™ right.”
This reminds me a lot of the foolish arrogance of my former Fundy church sending a missionary to the Seattle area because “there was no fundamental Baptist presence in the city”.
These guys really aren’t much different than the Fundies. Same arrogance. They just have a more polished image.

How long ago was that? Because I was raised in Tacoma, only a half-hour south. The GARB was everywhere and while their church names were not IFB, they were associated and plenty fundamentalist. I am still having PTSD flashbacks.

GovPappy wrote:

they don’t have a hope and a prayer of setting up New Geneva on earth and burning some more Servetuses

True, but they are out and about to sacrifice the “Whosoever Gospel” at the altar of their aberrant theology.

I am glad they are being strict about compliance. Sometimes friends ask for my opinion on churches they want to attend, especially when they move to new area. This will save time.

K.D. wrote:

Seriously, how long do you think Non-Cals will be the majority in the SBC? Or do you think it is just a matter of time?

New Calvinists already control, at the leadership level, the majority of SBC’s entities (7 of 11) … including its leading seminaries, home missions agency, foreign missions venture, and publishing house. It’s just a “matter of time” before the remaining entities surrender to the movement. Traditional pulpits and pews will phase in as non-Calvinist pastors and members pass from the scene. While they are in the majority now, the aging process will eventually do them in. New Calvinism is attracting the 20s-40s … the church of tomorrow. They have time on their side.

As a 60+ year Southern Baptist (of non-Calvinist persuasion), I have observed an interesting dynamic in this regard. There is a tremendous influence of certain SBC leaders and non-SBC reformers (TGC, Acts29, SGM, etc.) on this new breed of Southern Baptist pastors. “New” Calvinists entering SBC pulpits have a strong allegiance to such influencers and their closely-connected network of reformed organizations. While most “Old” Calvinists of the Founders’ sort may be opposed to the message, method, and mission of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with this new brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks and elsewhere.

There is no doubt (at least in my area) that the young, restless and reformed are attracting a generation of 20s-40s disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church. A “culturally-relevant” message, methodology, and missiology are packing the house. Encouraged and emboldened at certain SBC seminaries, these young pastors have revolution on their mind and are intent on changing the SBC landscape. While the actual theological shift may take a while, these young pastors have a lifetime of ministry ahead of them to accomplish that task. Give it another 10-20 years and the largest non-Calvinist denomination in America – a once great voice for worldwide evangelism – will be effectively Calvinized throughout its pulpits and pews due to the attrition rate of non-Calvinists. Perhaps sooner, if the sustained attack and pressure of New Calvinism can make it happen.

mirele wrote:

Maybe people should just tell The Gospel Corporation (TM) “Don’s Stand So Close to Me.” (Noted: the song is about a teacher who should tell a teenage admirer to Go Away, but I’m just riffing on the title.)

Considering recent MenaGAWD’s trophism towards ehebephilac sex scandals, you’re riffing on more than just the title.

GovPappy wrote:

@ Max:
The good thing is that in this awful heathen secular society we live in, they don’t have a hope and a prayer of setting up New Geneva on earth and burning some more Servetuses.

But try convincing them of that.

“But Missionary Man, he got GAWD on his side…”
— The Eurythmics

And the Republique of Perfect Virtue continues to beckon seductively from the far side of the “regrettable but necessary” Reign of Terror.

K.D. wrote:

Once again, all the churches are in affluent areas, or near colleges, the leadership is all young, all have same shirt on, same haircut…do they get reported if they wear the wrong shirt?

“Affluent areas” = like robbing banks, “that’s where the money is”.
“Near colleges” = full of young idealistic-but-inexperienced activists-in-waiting, ready to remake the world. “Give me your children and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
“Leadership is all young” = like Komsomol or the SS, “Young, tough, and cocky”.
“Same shirt on, same haircut” = uniform regulations, no individuality allowed. Same armband, too?

GovPappy wrote:

This reminds me a lot of the foolish arrogance of my former Fundy church sending a missionary to the Seattle area because “there was no fundamental Baptist presence in the city”.

I’ve read about this on ex-IFB forums.

IFB churches will seek to plant IFB churches around the USA or Africa or other places, even though there are already Pentecostal or whatever other denominations, because they don’t consider other denominations to be “real” or “good enough” Christians.

They think every town needs an IFB church. Other forms of Christianity aren’t Christiany enough or true enough in their view.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“regrettable but necessary”

Problem is, I don’t sense much “regrettable” in New Calvinism. “Necessary” appears to be controlling the movement … they MUST restore the true gospel that the rest of us have lost! The young rebels actually believe they are a part of a revolution – a modern day reformation in which they are key players. It’s exciting!! That’s why a young bull reformer can come into a church by stealth and deception in which they lie to a pulpit search committee about their theological bent and ecclesiological intent. The bull then goes about breaking all the dishes in the china shop, causing weeping and gnashing of teeth, and agonizing church spits. There are numerous reports of this happening across the SBC landscape … just happened at a 100-year old SBC traditional church around the corner from me.

But I thought these guys maintain that if you have an issue with church “leaders” you are supposed to use “Matthew 18”? Now instead of “Go to your brother” we are supposed to go to “Bigger Brother” and report it to the secret police. Bureaucracies, it is so hard to keep up with the regulations.

Apparently a TGC church member was excommunicated and forbidden to enter the church premises. He complained to the Lord ‘They won’t let me in because they say I’m a sinner. They said I was self willed, disobedient,don’t tithe and question the elders with regards to how they spend the church money and over their belief that you have predestined the lost to hell before the beginning of time. God replied: ‘What are you complaining about. They won’t let me in either!’

@ singleman:

Which one? I live in the NOVA area….

@ Bill M:

I guess it is okay to forego Matt. 18 if you are snitching to TGC? The entire “report” function and blurb are strange. It seems like they would need a full-time person to vet the information and a team of people to decide if a church is in or out.

Tim wrote:

When I read the word “coalition” it usually refers to like-minded but disparate people or groups who come together for a common purpose. By that definition, an outfit called The Gospel Coalition should be broadly developed to include every flavor of believer there is who is blessed by the gospel of Christ.
Perhaps TGC has a different meaning for the word “coalition”.

That sounds fine in theory but in practice, not so much. What is “the gospel of Christ”? Ask that question and you’ll find numerous answers. Are all definitions acceptable? Are all true? How much detail is too much? How little detail makes it insufficient?

TGC staked out a position. Those who agreed, tagged along. No one was forced to associate with them. It is long past due that they hold accountable those who claim to be with them but aren’t. I don’t see why this is a reason to get agitated. The root issue is, and has always been, their selective enforcement of accountability…

They establishing of a layer of royalty that was accountable to no one, not even their own guidelines. One rule for the ruling clergy, another for the laity. It degenerated even further into defending fellow rulers against those who attempted to hold them accountable, and attacking those who called for accountability.

Their selective enforcement is nothing new.

WillysJeepMan wrote:

TGC staked out a position. Those who agreed, tagged along. No one was forced to associate with them. It is long past due that they hold accountable those who claim to be with them but aren’t. I don’t see why this is a reason to get agitated.

All of that is fine. I was just wondering why they would bother with the word “coalition” in their title as that suggests a different type of organization than they are running in practice.

@ Daisy:
The problem, again, seems to go back to what I like to call Donut-Hole Theology – those who’ve defined their theological system so narrowly that they can shoot in any direction and hit enemies. They’re the hole in the donut. That Pentecostal church down the road hasn’t just gone a little farther with spiritual gifts than you do, they’ve done perverted the Gospel and are preaching the wrong Jesus, darn it! Therefore you can’t work with the local assemblies or see a vibrant community of believers and move on to a less reached area. Oh gracious no, that would be collaborating with the enemy or letting him have free reign over an area! No, the world won’t be conquered for Jesus until there’s a _______ Church on the corner of every community, because only we have the pure Gospel™.

@ Eagle:
Instead of undergarments, they are expected to attend conferences and buy books.

Max wrote:

K.D. wrote:
Seriously, how long do you think Non-Cals will be the majority in the SBC? Or do you think it is just a matter of time?
New Calvinists already control, at the leadership level, the majority of SBC’s entities (7 of 11) … including its leading seminaries, home missions agency, foreign missions venture, and publishing house. It’s just a “matter of time” before the remaining entities surrender to the movement. Traditional pulpits and pews will phase in as non-Calvinist pastors and members pass from the scene. While they are in the majority now, the aging process will eventually do them in. New Calvinism is attracting the 20s-40s … the church of tomorrow. They have time on their side.
As a 60+ year Southern Baptist (of non-Calvinist persuasion), I have observed an interesting dynamic in this regard. There is a tremendous influence of certain SBC leaders and non-SBC reformers (TGC, Acts29, SGM, etc.) on this new breed of Southern Baptist pastors. “New” Calvinists entering SBC pulpits have a strong allegiance to such influencers and their closely-connected network of reformed organizations. While most “Old” Calvinists of the Founders’ sort may be opposed to the message, method, and mission of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with this new brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks and elsewhere.
There is no doubt (at least in my area) that the young, restless and reformed are attracting a generation of 20s-40s disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church. A “culturally-relevant” message, methodology, and missiology are packing the house. Encouraged and emboldened at certain SBC seminaries, these young pastors have revolution on their mind and are intent on changing the SBC landscape. While the actual theological shift may take a while, these young pastors have a lifetime of ministry ahead of them to accomplish that task. Give it another 10-20 years and the largest non-Calvinist denomination in America – a once great voice for worldwide evangelism – will be effectively Calvinized throughout its pulpits and pews due to the attrition rate of non-Calvinists. Perhaps sooner, if the sustained attack and pressure of New Calvinism can make it happen.

I think you are right. I taught in high school a bunch of now Calvinist pastors, missionaries etc….They hate my guts, literally, because I write in my blog from time to time with questions about the New-Cals. They attack me not on my blogs comments, ( gutless *****) but in a clandestine manner.
Just curious, what state are you in?…( I’m in East Texas)

Eagle wrote:

Who is the Joseph Smith of this camp?

Well, the co-Kingpins would be founders D.A. Carson and Tim Keller. Everything TGC must be blessed by them. For your analogy with Mormonism, you could call one “Joseph” and the other “Smith”, I guess. But, others have contributed significantly to the TGC mission, including Council Members Al Mohler (“The Man” at SBC), John Piper (of course), Ligon Duncan, and Mark Dever. Previous Councilmen who fell from grace and no longer in that capacity include C.J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, and Tullian Tchividjian. (That says a lot about “elder” selection smarts of Carson and Keller). If there is one being calling all the shots it would the spirit of John Calvin, which is alive and well within New Calvinism.

K.D. wrote:

They attack me not on my blogs comments, ( gutless *****) but in a clandestine manner.
Just curious, what state are you in?…( I’m in East Texas)

What you are experiencing is an ancient religious practice called shunning, which is experiencing a comeback within New Calvinism. Count it all joy that you are a target – you must be doing something right for the Kingdom!

I live in the “Show Me” State (Missouri). I’m reluctant to mention that on other blogs, lest the YRR pinpoint me and throw Calvinus Beer bottles at my house (it’s true, the sickos have a beer named after him). I come from a long family of Missouri Mules – we are a stubborn people who don’t believe that one should stick his head in the sand on issues that matter … like Calvinization of the SBC.

Dee or Deb, As you can see from past postings, I am from your neck of the woods. I was surprised to see Holy Trinity Anglican Church listed as in TGC. I know many people who attend and the church doesn’t appear to be as demonstrably rigid and patriarchal as churches like Open Door Baptist or Providence Baptist. The pastor is young and a little cocky, but his wife is very educated. Their marriage is fairly traditional, but they don’t seem to be “playing roles”. I have been close to people who attend all three churches (as well as Summit) and Trinity seems to draw a wealthier “old Raleigh” crowd. The patriarchal attitude in this area is not only influenced by reformed theology, but is fairly pervasive in the southern culture.
I consider myself a “none” and am frankly frustrated with the inflexible and narrow attitudes by many local believers. This has contributed to my quitting church altogether. I would appreciate your take on Trinity’s membership in TGC. And while you are at it can you or any of your local readers recommend a community of believers in the Triangle area that aren’t influenced by the neo-Cal trend???

Eagle wrote:

Max wrote:

they MUST restore the true gospel that the rest of us have lost!

Sounds like Mormonism!

And Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wahabi/Talibani Islam, and every Reverend Joe Soap cult leader who comes out of the woodwork.

P.S. Polygyny/Plural Marriage(TM) IS the logical next step to Complementarianism(TM). The Alpha Male/Herd Bull claims every female in the herd he can for his Harem.

Daisy wrote:

started noticed this “radical for Jesus” philosophy a few years ago on Christian TV, by different preachers who hosted TV shows about it or were promoting books about it. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.

And during my college days in the Seventies, it was “Radical for The People(TM) against the Capitalist Imperialist Power Structure! REVOLUTION NOW!”

Max wrote:

they MUST restore the true gospel that the rest of us have lost!

As said Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Dake’s Annotated Bible, and so many others. And al-Wahab and the Caliph du Jour of ISIS said the Islamic equivalent.

The young rebels actually believe they are a part of a revolution – a modern day reformation in which they are key players. It’s exciting!!

A generation before, the exciting “part of a revolution” was Communism.
A generation before that, divided between Communism and Fascism.
A generation before that, Socialism and SCIENCE!

Much ado about nothing. Report the churches on the list that have pedophiles working in their midst, that cater to CJ Mahaney, etc. Perfect opportunity. Any church can get on the list, which makes the whole thing rather stupid in my view. Remember though, many who post on this list want their own “pure” coalition, they just have the rules of purity different. Each of us sees in a glass darkly and I think we should agree to disagree with other Christians when there is not real sin at stake. P.S. Please report all those polygamous churches out there–most important.

Dee, Thank you for the suggestions! Hope your visit with Karen went well!!!!!

singleman wrote:

We’re discussing churches, not restaurants or other businesses. Indeed, churches operating like businesses are contributing to the problem.

Exactly. But these churches willingly act like members of a franchise, and franchises have to protect their brand.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Eagle wrote:

Max wrote:

they MUST restore the true gospel that the rest of us have lost!

Sounds like Mormonism!

And Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wahabi/Talibani Islam, and every Reverend Joe Soap cult leader who comes out of the woodwork.

P.S. Polygyny/Plural Marriage(TM) IS the logical next step to Complementarianism(TM). The Alpha Male/Herd Bull claims every female in the herd he can for his Harem.

I have watched some of the TV shows highlighting fundy
LDS young women, escaping polygamy. If it didn’t say Mormon/LDS, I’d swear it was fundy, complimentary Christianity, they were trying to escape.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“People’s Republic of Tyranny” on TV Tropes:
The more adjectives about Democracy there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.

I beat you to the punch line this time. At the time I was thinking it was something you would write.

Will M wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:

GovPappy wrote:
The good thing is that in this awful heathen secular society we live in, they don’t have a hope and a prayer of setting up New Geneva on earth and burning some more Servetuses.
Ya’ durn tootin’ it’s a good thing!

I will go with another Ya’ durn tootin’. A man, at my former church (which went NeoCal), actually mentioned that he would prefer to have lived in Geneva over living in our current culture. I pointed out to him, that if I would have lived in Calvin’s Geneva, they would have burned me! He did not have much to say to that.

On second thought – what would the plural of Servetus be? Servetii or Servetuses?

Too soon.

TGC or A29? They both strike me as institutions with identity anxiety. This sounds very much like a denomination. Certainly, they are moving in that direction by calling for accountability to doctrinal statements regarding church membership. I suppose an argument could be made that they are just like the NAE or other similar association with denominational members. I don’t know. How is TGC or A29 NOT denominations? That’s a question that needs answering (and “because they say they are not” is not a good enough answer, IMO).

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?

They turn on each other like Arab Sheiks and Mukhtars when they’re not busy with the hated Jews.

GovPappy wrote:

what would the plural of Servetus be? Servetii or Servetuses?

Proper Latin would be ‘Serveti’. 🙂

@ Max:
Emergent -> Resurgent -> Submergent

Excellent commentary!

Deb wrote:

Emergent -> Resurgent -> Submergent

Thankfully, “Emergent” is but a whisper of what it used to be. That was one weird ride for the church! Many of the young folks swept up in “emerging church” headed toward resurgent (New Calvinism) when the glitter wore off of Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Don Miller, and assorted others (including Driscoll at one time). It’s a good sign that those folks are history when you find their books at yard sales for 25-cents (Velvet Elvis, Love Wins, Blue Like Jazz, A New Kind of Christian, etc.) I’m hoping that names like Piper, Keller, Mohler, etc. will also fade into the sunset soon and garage sale tables stacked with their writings. Unfortunately, New Calvinism appears to be a more vigorous strain of the epidemic that is distracting 20s-40s from the genuine. Of course, mainline organized religion has its problems, too. I fear that we have entered the church age known as the Great Apostasy. But God …

My sense of what happened with the “emerging ministry/church movement” of the mid-1990s and thereafter for about a decade, is that two of the more centrist streams may turn out to be the healthiest in the long run: the missional stream and the new monasticism/community stream.

Back to one of the themes of this post — associations and accountability — I feel we’ve seen an emphasis on closure-oriented “purity” from the Resurgent/New Calvinism stream, and a sort of floodgate-opening “inclusivity” from the Emergent/Progressive/Convergent stream. But I’m not sure there’s really been accountability systems in either end of the spectrum — each has a lot of leftover celebrity fallout situations to clean up, as have been covered here at The Wartburg Watch.

Meanwhile, the missional and new monastic streams, frankly, seem more conscientious about avoiding spiritual abuse, and being about “welcoming and mutually transforming” instead of “condemning and rejecting” or “welcoming and affirming.” I see them engaging concretely in both community development and theological dialogue, a balance I find more appealing. I could be wrong, but it seems there is more emphasis in these two streams on relationship-based accountability than on doctrinal and/or organizational checklists.

So there’s that, for what it’s worth.

dee wrote:

CJ Mahaney used to deny that Sovereign Grace Ministries was not a denomination.

“I am not a crook.”
— Richard M Nixon

brad/futuristguy wrote:

According to RhymeZone dot com, plus a little linguist elbow grease, about all that’s left for these “-gents” are Divergent, Insurgent (well, we’ve seen some of that in apparent church takeovers), Splurgent (we’ve seen that happen, too), maybe Allergent, and finally, Detergent.

Don’t forget “Ent-ent” (in the tradition of “Ism-ism”).

@ Sopwith:
Whew! Brother Sopwith, you paint the picture well.

@ Deb:
GC wrote:

I started a new Twitter account to share information from those who are calling out church abuses, gender inequality, and other stuff Jesus would not like. I had been tweeting some of that information on my (completely unrelated) blog/business Twitter account, but I think it confused people who follow that account. So if you’re on Twitter and are willing, I would love for you to follow @More_Like_Jesus, just so it looks like I have a few friends – lol.

Now ya done it.

dee wrote:

Calvin was into the witch hysteria.

Indeed! The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59, records that more than 20 women (and men) were burned to death for witchcraft (because they were believed to have something to do with the pestilence that struck Geneva in 1545; hmmm … wouldn’t that have been sovereign God instead?!). In the Minutes, you will also find that a girl was beheaded for striking her parents; a man who publicly protested against Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled; a book printer who in his columns had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city; along with numerous other atrocities by the magisterial reformers at the drop of a word from Calvin. Why would anyone in their right mind want to follow the teachings of such a man?! That’s it, the New Calvinist multitudes are not in their right minds! Lord Jesus, lead them out of the darkness with your strong arm.

dee wrote:

The sad part of this is that people make friends, think they are good friend, and find out, if they leave, that they were never friends at all-merely clique of people who were supposed to believe the same things.

I am going to write two posts about Karen Hinkley next week. One will be her Cinderella story. The other will be a bit of a rant from me about the aftermath. This comment is a harbinger to that rant.

I’ve found there were exceptions but the rule is that if someone at the former church never took the time to get to know you outside the walls of the church while you were there they will not do so after.

I’ll be out on the trails, away from internet and phones for the next week. I look forward to hearing about Karen when I get back, she has shown great strength. She may live a quiet life finding some good friends and fellow believers or she may tackle big projects, either is good.

As to rants there is the occasional commenter that drops in and casts judgement on the folks here, not looking for context why. We should only have nice things to say, peacefully minding our own business while wonderful people like Karen get ground up. If anything the commenters here give me hope that it doesn’t have to be that way and I don’t have to settle for it. Keep up the rants, nice ones of course, there are times when anything other than outrage is the wrong reaction.

@ Sopwith:

Any religion or ‘Biblical’ belief system that demands the suppression of the human conscience and denies the existence of universal human goodness is capable of any evil. If you think it’s confined to Calvinism alone, you’re deluded.

Velour wrote:

Amen! Thanks for introducing us all to him through Echurch here.

A hearty amen here too. I couldn’t care less what Burleson believes or doesn’t believe by way of theology. He’s a kind and good man, a man of deeds, a man who has done what he can to improve this world.

And about the gospel, for all of us blocked by TGC, maybe this will cheer you up:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=9bfG02aJOow
😉

@ Melody:

Eagle wrote:

@ singleman:
Which one? I live in the NOVA area….

The Falls Church Anglican, currently meeting in Arlington.

Sorry for the late reply. I worked late last night and had to be back at work early this morning. I’m getting too old to do that much longer.

dee wrote:

@ Velour:
I am glad that you like him. I know there are some who are suspicious because of his Reformed bent. However, he believes women should be in leadership and he also believe in leading with love.

And Wade has always been fair. He has said, when others opposed those who had a private prayer language/speaking in tongues, that they couldn’t be Baptists missionaries, etc. that he has seen this gifts mentioned in the Bible continued to be used and they have not ceased.

@ Muff Potter:

Thanks, Muff. My reply is in that thread …

@ dee:

“There are a number of churches joining in so they, too, can belong to something! My guess is that there are some who do not fully believe in TGC’s statement of beliefs. Well, actually I know of a couple that do not for sure.”
++++++++++++++++++++

so, I read TGC’s statement of beliefs (preamble, and the other 2). Except for (a)the gender roles biz, and the opening statement (b)”we are a group of churches in the reformed tradition”, everything else was pretty garden variety. Unless I missed something.

The sola scriptura paragraphs grated on me a bit, but it seemed to me that everything except a & b above was delicately worded to keep on the generic side.

what would the churches you refer to not fully believe regarding TGC’s statement of beliefs?

is it the gender roles thing? (which is of course a load of horsesh*t) Anything else I didn’t notice in the foundation docs?

elastigirl wrote:

Question: I looked up churches in my area on the TGC site, and the one I am taking my kids to is listed. It’s actually the church I grew up in. I don’t believe it has ever been Calvinist in the least. There is a new pastor there.

I have no idea if they are on the list just to “belong to something”, or if there’s more to it. I plan to ask the new pastor.

but, i’m really in the dark about what a neo-reformed church is like (aside from those blasted gender roles, the discipline thing, member covenants, & I do know the words in TULIP).

Aside from these things, could someone clue me in on some warning signs, and the inherent danger/trouble?

*Have you taken a thorough read of the church’s website? Links? Assessed their beliefs (spoken and unspoken)? (That was one of the things I didn’t do at my former church and what I did read I didn’t understand.)

*If your church has posted links to various organizations that they support, and you don’t know about those organizations and what they believe, I would recommend that you post them here and ask for folks’ insights.

*Here is Pastor Wade Burleson’s (he’s a conservative Baptist pastor in Oklahoma who does the EChurch service here on The Wartburg Watch) but a fair man with a good head on his shoulders and his heart is in the right place. His blog is a great place to look up information (so are previous posts that Dee and Deb have written here). Here is Pastor Wade’s blog article about why people should “say no” to unbiblical Church Membership Covenants.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html

Don’t let the Scripture verses on the page sucker you in to signing one. I learned my lesson on that one. NEVER again!

*Comp doctrine/patriarchy doctrine in my experience at my former church created a church culture that showed a contempt for women AND men. The pastors/elders were not only willing to order their own wives about, but other women in the church, and men too. They were arrogant, abusive, and contemptuous leaders. Everyone else just puts their brains on hold and goes along with the abuses.

*Where those abuses, above, flourish so will other abuses.

*Don’t get suckered into having most of your relationships in a church. Keep a wide array of friends.

*Perhaps the other thing I’ve learned is that these dangerous, abusive beliefs are being taught in seminaries and then the graduates are going in to churches and taking them over.

I am sure that Gram3, Brad the Futurist Guy, and others will have insightful things to add.

elastigirl wrote:

Question: I looked up churches in my area on the TGC site, and the one I am taking my kids to is listed. It’s actually the church I grew up in. I don’t believe it has ever been Calvinist in the least. There is a new pastor there.

I have no idea if they are on the list just to “belong to something”, or if there’s more to it. I plan to ask the new pastor.

but, i’m really in the dark about what a neo-reformed church is like (aside from those blasted gender roles, the discipline thing, member covenants, & I do know the words in TULIP).

Aside from these things, could someone clue me in on some warning signs, and the inherent danger/trouble?

Adding on to my list of my experience at my former NeoCal church:
*It was UNLOVING. It seemed nice on the surface. But those NeoCal beliefs are about control, dominance, pride, and they and love can’t exist in the same place. No wonder the church is so unattractive to unbelievers. When unbelievers are MORE accepting and MORE LOVING than the people who claim to have indwelling Love in them (Jesus)…then the church doesn’t have anything to say to the world.

*Along with Unloving, the NeoCals are Judgmental. They are always ranting about some group of people, some other Christian group that can’t “possibly know God”.
I found it just insufferable. I know many people (some in my own family) from those faith practices that are supposedly *despised* as *less-than* by NeoCals. The people of those other Christian denominations are (or were if they’ve passed on) some of the most loving, kind, generous, decent people I have ever known in my entire life.

*I honestly felt like I’d just come out of a gang, like the Crips or the Bloods or something, upon leaving a NeoCal church. They function like a gang: Us vs. them.

@ Velour:

“Perhaps the other thing I’ve learned is that these dangerous, abusive beliefs are being taught in seminaries”
++++++++++++

aside from stupid gender roles, membership covenants, and the discipline crap, what is it about the (neo)Calvinist beliefs being taught in seminaries that is dangerous?

what is it about (neo)calvinsm (or perhaps it’s just Calvinism) that’s dangerous, or leads to dangerous things?

(no worries about me & gender roles, covenants, and church discipline…. I’m finished with the institution. have many friends everywhere. my kids want to go, and I want them to have a youth group — I’ve been impressed with the youth department thus far. but them being on the TGC list is something i’ll have to understand)

Mae wrote:

I’d swear it was fundy, complimentary Christianity, they were trying to escape.

Sounds like a new spin of the Duggar Family: free the girls!

doubtful wrote:

@ dee:
Good to know that no pugs will be losing their heads anytime soon….I guess your next pug is going to be named Servetus.

How about Arminius? 😉

Darlene wrote:

Calvin’s teachings … on Evanescent Grace from The Institutes is especially troubling.

Darlene, Calvinism is indeed troubling the further one wades into this aberrant theology. I’ve heard “evanescent” grace referred to as the 6th point of Calvinism (making it TULIPS, I suppose). For those not up to cruising the Internet on this, it is rotten thinking which implies that God deceives some people into thinking they are saved so he can damn them afterward according to His “good” will. These poor folks go to church thinking they are elect, but they are not.

In his Institutes, Calvin writes “by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them … the Lord instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption …” Calvin misrepresents the very character of God! What love is this?! Who in their right mind would want to follow the Calvinist God who elects some to be saved and others to be damned before they ever draw breath … and who deceives folks into thinking they are saved in order to damn them later for His pleasure?! Are the multitudes in bondage to New Calvinism “really” saved? How can they know for sure? Do they have only a “temporary faith” which will be judged and damned according to Calvin? Where is their assurance? Where is Jesus in all this?!!

Praise God that I know that I know that I have been washed in the blood of the Lamb! Young Calvinist listening in to this, run to the Cross of Christ, repent, believe, accept Him, live for Him. You can truly know Jesus and the power of His resurrection. It will keep you from the grips of the spirit of Calvin, which still lives on planet earth through his followers.

@ Darlene:

The irony of Calvin’s teaching on election/predestination is why on earth would it matter since he made church attendance and espousing”correct” doctrine mandatory or else face serious punishment. IOW, everyone in Geneva was “elect” and believed “correct doctrine” whether they wanted to be or not. :o)

The creepyist part of the Institutes is his teaching on reprobation. Did you know you can believe you are saved, act like you are saved but really be reprobate and not know it until you die?

Lydia wrote:

The creepyist part of the Institutes is his teaching on reprobation. Did you know you can believe you are saved, act like you are saved but really be reprobate and not know it until you die?

I wonder then, what is the point in being a Christian (or thinking you are)? There would be little to no point in living by Christian ethics, attending church, reading the Bible. Etc. You might as well do what you want.

@ Darlene:
Thank you for linking to that very good article. I did have that site bookmarked but hadn’t read that entry before.

Daisy wrote:

wonder then, what is the point in being a Christian (or thinking you are)? There would be little to no point in living by Christian ethics, attending church, reading the Bible. Etc. You might as well do what you want.

Well, when the Institutes were the official ST of the church state, you were not allowed to live any way you want so who would know who was elect or not?. Force and coercion were practiced as part of the systematic theology. Those who questioned found themselves in lots of trouble depending on where they fell within the caste system. Even Calvin’s protege Castellio found himself banished and unable to find employement because he dared to question.

Then the deterministic ST tended to ebb and flow throughout history with the political situation. Some of Europe and even the history of the SBC Founding is an example of what I am talking about. Look at the evolution of Founding Calvinism in the SBC after the South lost the war. Boyce, a Founder of SBTS, believed that slavery was determined by God so that slave owners could disciple them…as slaves. But how could God have determined slavery as a good thing since they lost the war?

CAlvinsim tends to die down and/or go a more free will/social gospel route. The latest historical resurgence of Calvinism is closer to Calvin and one reason why it comes off so controlling and angry. I think we live in interesting times. When in history could so many average people have the freedom and resources to share experiences and debate this ST outside of theological/academic circles?

Velour wrote:

But I will avoid an independent church again because they truly have no outside accountability.

I used to believe this and it sounds good in theory but my direct experience is it doesn’t work. At my former church and subsequent stories I’ve heard and read a pastor can drive a church into the ground with no intervention. I took my concerns to the denomination hierarchy, through their channels, the confidentiality was violated and nothing came of it, fellow pastors are above reproach and lowly parishioners are suspect. I shouldn’t say nothing came of it, I recall the quote “When you come at the king, you best not miss”.

GovPappy wrote:

Not all TGC is 9marks crazy, but it seems to be heading that way. They’re not listening to anyone but themselves, the self-appointed Keepers of the keys. I’d stay away.

This is another excellent point about these NeoCal churches. (*Elastigirl, take note!) As has been discussed on this blog before, for all that the NeoCal churches decry the Roman Catholic Church, they have set up their local church structure EXACTLY like the Roman Catholic Church and crowed the senior pastor as Pope. They then believe that they hold *the keys* to The Church and Heaven and dissenters are *keyed out* (thanks Gram3 for the excellent term) of the local church via excommunications/shunnings.

There is ZERO respect for the priesthood of all believers, ZERO respect for the Lord’s authority in our lives (which has been superseded by the elders/pastors), and ZERO respect for Holy Spirit’s leading in a believer’s life, and ZERO respect for individual Christian conscience.

GovPappy wrote:

@ Velour:
This, and the subsequent posts, is good stuff.

I had a fairly short experience at a 9marks church, but I can see now that we’re gone the DNA was present. Elder rule making decisions without the congregation, tight, controlling, no real questions allowed to the doctrine, etc. And, of course, the membership covenants. Nothing is more obvious yet unspoken than that their doctrine is unquestionable. It’s just not done. You’ve signed on – that means you agree with the doctrine, and no further growth in that regard is allowed, and the membership covenant will see to that. My current egalitarian views would, of course, not be accepted.

It’s a grand, shiny veneer – they truly believe the most important part of the believer’s week is the preaching service at the local church, and darn it, it’s a thing of beauty. Great music, Communion, a shorter, simple sermon, constant emphasis on grace grace grace….

It’s only when the pastor is constantly, yet subtly, asking where you’ve been, when forced spiritual intimacy at small groups meetings drives your wife to tears, when the elders don’t know your name but ask if you’ve considered attending membership classes, when the pastor asks your wife her testimony, then judges it without a word…. Yeah, buddy, I can read body language and cues. I’m not a paranoid introvert type for no reason.

This place wasn’t your typical pastor pounding on the pulpit about homosexuals type, but the DNA of authoritarian crazy was all there, and it will bite you.

Not all TGC is 9marks crazy, but it seems to be heading that way. They’re not listening to anyone but themselves, the self-appointed Keepers of the keys. I’d stay away.

Excellent post and points, GovPappy. I am sorry you and your wife were subjected to such treatment at a former church and I am glad you folks made your escape!

Lydia wrote:

The creepyist part of the Institutes is his teaching on reprobation. Did you know you can believe you are saved, act like you are saved but really be reprobate and not know it until you die?

Here’s what Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.) had to say on the matter:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not
care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

Daisy wrote:

I’ve noticed that sometimes Non Christians are easier to talk to about problems and stuff than church people.
I am still astounded at the harsh, unfeeling, or unsympathetic reactions from Christians (many of whom are weekly church goers) I got in the years after my mother’s passing.
My marginal, lukewarm Christian internet friends and Non-Christian internet friends were more understanding and empathetic towards me than the Bible reading, church going Christians

That is so true, Daisy.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:

“Perhaps the other thing I’ve learned is that these dangerous, abusive beliefs are being taught in seminaries”
++++++++++++

aside from stupid gender roles, membership covenants, and the discipline cr@p, what is it about the (neo)Calvinist beliefs being taught in seminaries that is dangerous?

what is it about (neo)calvinsm (or perhaps it’s just Calvinism) that’s dangerous, or leads to dangerous things?

(no worries about me & gender roles, covenants, and church discipline…. I’m finished with the institution. have many friends everywhere. my kids want to go, and I want them to have a youth group — I’ve been impressed with the youth department thus far. but them being on the TGC list is something i’ll have to understand)

Gram3 and some other folks, can you give an assist to Elastigirl’s question here. You know so much more about the subject than I do.

elastigirl wrote:

Aside from these things, could someone clue me in on some warning signs, and the inherent danger/trouble?

Late on in his career in Seattle, Mark Driskle attempted to buy out or annexe other local congregations by persuading the pastors to come under his authority. I don’t know how successful this was, but one of the reasons he gave them to do this was “to be part of something bigger”. And the problem many of us had with that “logic” was that a group of believers already is part of something bigger, to wit, the Body of Christ himself – both locally and universally.

The fact that a congregation signs up to some form of doctrinal allegiance with a remotely-coordinated brand identity might itself be a warning sign. Jesus stated that if we only love those who love us, that’s no big deal. One of the problems of local groups chasing membership of something elsewhere is that it absolves them of responsibility to do the hard work of building relationships with church groups nearby who do things differently. It’s very hard, though, to find a local church group who are accountable to other local Christians.

Bill M wrote:

It certainly puts a different spin on “eternal security”.

Hee Hee

Calvin’s ST focuses on Perserverance of the Saints which is not really like eternal security because man has selective volition in Calvin’s ST and is unable to respond.

I don’t buy into either, btw. I often wonder what they do with Hebrews 10 and other passages that are warnings.

elastigirl wrote:

what is it about (neo)calvinsm (or perhaps it’s just Calvinism) that’s dangerous, or leads to dangerous things?

The only thing I would say is that any ‘ism’ (religious or secular) is dangerous when it is allowed to suppress one’s conscience and moral compass within; you can’t hear shrieks of torment when you’re doing the Lord’s work for the greater ‘good’.

I think it’s a good thing that you want your kids to have a good youth group because it will go a long way in steering them away from unsavory elements. Let them be kids though and make their own mistakes, they’ll grow up the better for it. The best thing you can do as a parent is to be there for them when they fall and skin their knees so to speak, just as you did when they were little.

Max wrote:

Velour wrote:

I noted at my former NeoCal church that the people who ranted the most about *homosexuals* had themselves lived straight lives of the GREATEST sexual sin before coming to church.

There’s also another side to that observation. I once knew an itinerant evangelist who preached aggressively against homosexual sin … until it was revealed that he and his music guy were living in that sin. And, of course, we all know about the hard anti-gay ranting by Ted Haggard … who, himself, was proven to be a homosexual after one of his partners got tired of his anti-gay ranting. Church has become a safe cover for all sorts of demons. Some of those who preach the hardest about certain sins may very well do that to hide their own.

Spot on, Max!

@ elastigirl:
I wouldn’t say the hunger for power or control is specific to neo-cal folks or doctrine, but I’m sure you’d agree there. The Fundies are all about the leadership of the man-o-gawd, you got denoms that are all about apostolic authority in no uncertain terms, etc. Same basic setup, just different terminology.

Where the neo-cals are different, and in my opinion, possibly more insidious because it’s less obvious, is the elder rule aspect. It gives an illusion of balance of power (and in some cases it might actually work when there’s folks with integrity), so it’s more palatable to the average serious church-goer. But really, whether it’s one guy up there calling the shots, or one guy setting up a bunch of yes-men to call the shots for him under his direction, you get the same basic result.

It’s always about authority for some folks – the trick is making it palatable to the Bible-reading Christian. One guy up there calling himself an apostle and demanding unquestioning following is just gonna get laughed off the stage in most Baptist circles these days. So you get together and make your authority Biblical™ by surrounding yourself with Elders™ to hide what’s really going on.

The guy inside me who doesn’t want to think the worst of everyone in the ministry wants to believe most are just following the lead of biblical interpretation that folks they respect model for them. Fact is, it enables wolves, and can put the sheep asleep.

So no, I’m not sure neo-cal doctrine (besides the male leadership aspect, which is huge, but hardly specific to them) in itself is all about power and control (lip-service is given to the priesthood of believers), but I do believe it’s getting more popular because it’s less obviously controlling than, say, IFB churches. The crazy slides under the radar, initially.

GovPappy wrote:

It’s always about authority for some folks – the trick is making it palatable to the Bible-reading Christian. One guy up there calling himself an apostle and demanding unquestioning following is just gonna get laughed off the stage in most Baptist circles these days. So you get together and make your authority Biblical™ by surrounding yourself with Elders™ to hide what’s really going on.

The power also comes from being the ones who interpret scripture for the pew peons. Since the Holy Spirit has been replaced with biblical interpretation by those who are “specially anointed” with the right titles. Once people buy into that, the rest is easy.

They hate it when I bring up 1 John 2:

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Velour wrote:

Gram3 posted something recently that “The Law is for the immature.” That’s spot on.

Yes! Another one to repeat over and over!

Lydia wrote:

My mom used to warn about pastors who had “pet” issues they focused on quite a bit.

Lydia, your mother had wisdom, something that’s in short supply in New Calvinist churches. Most of discernment is really just simple observation, looking around and listening carefully; over a period of years you hone that ability well enough to spot a Piper a mile away. Age doesn’t always bring such wisdom and understanding, but it helps. Look around, you won’t see many gray hairs in NC churches. Easy pickins’.

Daisy wrote:

I wonder then, what is the point in being a Christian (or thinking you are)? There would be little to no point in living by Christian ethics, attending church, reading the Bible. Etc. You might as well do what you want.

The point of any human goodness (Christian or non) is to build a better and safer world in the here and now, the sweet-by-and-by will take care of itself. After all, we’re the ones who have to live here and make the best of it, no?

@ elastigirl:
This. 100 times over.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Muff Potter:

“The point of any human goodness (Christian or non) is to build a better and safer world in the here and now, the sweet-by-and-by will take care of itself. After all, we’re the ones who have to live here and make the best of it, no?”
+++++++++++++++

MUFF POTTER FOR president? how about SAGE HUMAN BEING WORTH LISTENING TO

(can’t imagine a worse job than POTUS)

Church secretary in a NeoCal church or a mega would be in the running for “worst jobs”.

numo wrote:

This. 100 times over.

Preach it sistahs ! (elastigirl & numes)

@ elastigirl:
It is – calling a Christian to repent, etc based on “worldliness” seems unhelpful to me, a buzzword. It’s in the eye of the beholder’s interpretation of scripture. What about him/her is contrary/hurtful to the body of Christ and people? Explain. Name specific actions and attitudes. Dialogue. Find common ground, then build off that for mutual edification. “Remaining unspotted by the world” is only a helpful directive when it’s unpacked.

If I had a dollar for every tweet I’ve seen quoting a theologian denouncing worldly Christians and churches, I’d be a rich man. It’s unhelpful grandstanding.

So you’re probably right – worldliness is the negative, manipulative, “us vs them”, “we’re the true remnant” word, with the generic holiness concept being the positive word.

I certainly don’t deny holiness and worldliness have meaning and we should strive for the one and avoid the other. Point being, the concepts are absurd if they’re not constantly unpacked.

Sorry – rant over.

Muff Potter wrote:

The only thing I would say is that any ‘ism’ (religious or secular) is dangerous when it is allowed to suppress one’s conscience and moral compass within; you can’t hear shrieks of torment when you’re doing the Lord’s work for the greater ‘good’.

Or carrying out The Inevitable Marxist-Leninist Dialectic of History.

elastigirl wrote:

‘holiness’… strikes me as one of those silly-putty words … is there really a standard prescription for that word?

Elastigirl, I understand where you are coming from. Too many Christians relate “holiness” with something that gets on Pentecostals and we don’t want it on us! Holiness, as I see it, is really a process toward Christian maturity. We never really attain it, but it looms before us as a goal (a pursuit) in our Christian journey.

As an avid reader/commenter at TWW, you no doubt have heard much about New Calvinism’s over-emphasis of God’s sovereignty at the expense of human free will. They essentially say that God does it all and we are not to “do” anything but rest in His grace. Whereas, a pursuit of holiness is a joint venture between God and believers. By His Holy Spirit, God has made it possible for us to walk in a holy lifestyle that is pleasing to Him. We are not to be driven by rules and regulations, do this and don’t that, but by the Spirit of God who convicts of us of sin and helps us overcome … a pursuit of holiness.

Regarding “the world” … I agree, Christian culture overdoes it on this. The Bible brings the word into perspective when we bring it alongside our individual desire for Christlikenes:

“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh [craving for sensual gratification] and the lust of the eyes [greedy longings of the mind] and the pride of life [assurance in one’s own resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father but are from the world [itself]. And the world passes away and disappears, and with it the forbidden cravings (the passionate desires, the lust) of it; but he who does the will of God and carries out His purposes in his life abides (remains) forever.” (1 John 2:16-17 AMP)

Jesus says “I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have [perfect] peace and confidence. In the world you have tribulation and trials and distress and frustration; but be of good cheer [take courage; be confident, certain, undaunted]! For I have overcome the world. [I have deprived it of power to harm you and have conquered it for you].” (John 16:33)

GovPappy wrote:

I certainly don’t deny holiness and worldliness have meaning and we should strive for the one and avoid the other. Point being, the concepts are absurd if they’re not constantly unpacked.

When I think of what “worldliness” means, I think of what the “world” values: personal power and personal pleasure. To be worldly is to live in pursuit of those worldly goals. Holiness is to live in pursuit of the goal of being conformed to Christ. He was not a legalist, and he was not conventional. He was also not proud that he flouted either the law or convention, as many are. It is not holy to be a Church Lady who judges people, but neither is it holy to be a non-judgmental tattooed biker who likes to be provocative. Both are drawing the attention to themselves, though in very different ways.

  __

“Can We Have Assurance Of Salvation?”

See: Max’s comment :

Max: “Are the multitudes in bondage to New Calvinism “really” saved? How can they know for sure? Do they have only a “temporary faith” which will be judged and damned according to Calvin? Where is their assurance? ”

***

Scripture verses on The hopeful assurance of salvation:
 
John 5:24 – truly , truly, I say to you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 10:28 – And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

1 John 5:13 – These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Romans 10:13 – For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 5:11-12 And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has life; [and] he that has not the Son of God has not life.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Romans 8:1 – [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

John 6:37 – All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.

Romans 10:9 – That if you shalt confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you shalt be saved.

John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.

Romans 8:16 – The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Acts 2:21 – And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

—

Gram3 wrote:

GovPappy wrote:

I certainly don’t deny holiness and worldliness have meaning and we should strive for the one and avoid the other. Point being, the concepts are absurd if they’re not constantly unpacked.

When I think of what “worldliness” means, I think of what the “world” values: personal power and personal pleasure. To be worldly is to live in pursuit of those worldly goals. Holiness is to live in pursuit of the goal of being conformed to Christ. He was not a legalist, and he was not conventional. He was also not proud that he flouted either the law or convention, as many are. It is not holy to be a Church Lady who judges people, but neither is it holy to be a non-judgmental tattooed biker who likes to be provocative. Both are drawing the attention to themselves, though in very different ways.

Agreed.

__

“Speaking In Jesus’ Name?

John Piper neglects to tell his listeners to the following prepared video, what the gospel of Jesus Christ is.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=z3uJUaAwWC4

—

numo wrote:

Keeping in mind that the early church expected Christ to return very, very soon…

And so shall we live.

“scripture has been so proof texted and parsed by those using it as a weapon, for their own advancement or to control others, we cannot see the beauty in it anymore.” –Lydia

Lydia,

hey,

Are you speaking for yourself, or are you speaking for others?

—

Debi Calvet wrote:

@ Darlene:
Thank you for linking to that very good article. I did have that site bookmarked but hadn’t read that entry before.

Your welcome, Debi. I’ve make it a mission of mine to understand Calvinism after my son became a Calvinist a number of years ago and then de-converted from the Christian faith altogether because he deduced that God is a monster, and he could not believe in such a God any longer. Well, I never bought into the Calvinist playbook, knowing full well where believing in such a system would lead….as I said, to the mental institution. I keep my sanity, thank-you-very-much, and trust in the love of God and His unending mercy and compassion!

Darlene wrote:

Lydia wrote:
@ Darlene:
The irony of Calvin’s teaching on election/predestination is why on earth would it matter since he made church attendance and espousing”correct” doctrine mandatory or else face serious punishment. IOW, everyone in Geneva was “elect” and believed “correct doctrine” whether they wanted to be or not. :o)
The creepyist part of the Institutes is his teaching on reprobation. Did you know you can believe you are saved, act like you are saved but really be reprobate and not know it until you die?

Lydia, yes, I am familiar with Calvin’s teaching on reprobation. And evanescent grace, otherwise known as *temporary* grace teaches that God actually tricks certain people into believing they are saved, but in actuality they are damned – and God does this all to glorify Himself, according the the Calvinist playbook. This makes God out to be a Deceiver, something that according to what we know of Christ’s teachings is a character trait we should reject and avoid. Further, if according to Calvin, God actually deceives people in this way, how would anyone ever know that they have been filled with the Holy Spirit and saved from their sins? And this is why many Calvinists – the Puritans for example – struggled with whether or not they were one of the elect while on their death beds. Because all the repenting and casting themselves upon God’s mercy would be to no avail if God had damned them before the foundation of the world. When one really peers into the depths of this theological system, what can be discovered can be like a stab to the heart – disturbing to the core of one’s very soul. Such a belief system could drive a person to madness – to a psychological and emotional breakdown from which one may not recover.

Here’s what I think, if anyone cares. I suspect it is what many of you think:

John Calvin was a stark raving psychopath, and Calvinism is insane. There, I said it, and it had to be said. But let’s face it, it’s been the undercurrent of this whole thread and actually many others. Calvinism, neo or paleo, is wacked. I feel we need to stop pussyfooting around this self-evident fact.

I don’t feel that Calvinism is a legitimate Christian theological system at all. I don’t think it comes from Christ or the Holy Spirit at all. I think it comes from quite somewhere else.

I feel better now having vented. But I meant what I said 🙂

Sopwith wrote:

Are you speaking for yourself, or are you speaking for others?
—

Sorry, too declarative. I should have said that “some” cannot see the beauty of scripture anymore. Sorry if I offended you. I am going by what so many are telling me they just cannot read the bible anymore.

Something about this reporting….why doesn’t TGC just send out questionnaires to all of these churches asking them if they still adhere to all of their standards? On the questionnaire there could be a check list of their requirements. If some of these churches on the TGC list don’t agree with all of their requirements, they are taken off the list. This would bypass the entire need for *Reporting.* Honestly, I think NeoCalvinism gets a kick out of disciplining people. Further, there’s something a bit hypocritical about all this reporting when Calvinists have been taking over churches by stealth fully knowing that those churches don’t hold to Reformed teaching. Hey, here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the SBC require all of their churches to start reporting back to main headquarters. That way, all those churches that were covertly taken over by the NeoCals can be exposed and forced to leave the SBC. Of course, they should have started something like this long ago, before the NeoCal resurgence within their camp. Now who knows? It may be that the NeoCals are the overwhelming majority within Southern Baptist churches, even among the laity.

__

roebuck,

hey,

Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day and said that they sought in the scriptures their salvation, yey Jesus said they failed to see that those very scriptures spoke of Him (Jesus).

How can one come to Jesus as. a child, if they do not hear the stories and the good news of Jesus, and take them to hear?

—

@ Abi Miah:
I don’t know if that’s the obvious takeaway, but it certainly enables it. In the perfect, honest neocal system, the elders are actual elders and act as checks and balances to the system. As it generally seems to works out with this church-planting madness we’re seeing, the elders are brought in by the pastor, or are selected as little better than yes-men. And then the elders elect themselves, etc.

So maybe you’re right. It’s totally not about power and authority when it’s sold to the congregation, but it totally ends up being about power and authority. Most people just default to following the charismatic leader anyway, and the neocal system enables it.

Will M wrote:

A man, at my former church (which went NeoCal), actually mentioned that he would prefer to have lived in Geneva over living in our current culture. I pointed out to him, that if I would have lived in Calvin’s Geneva, they would have burned me! He did not have much to say to that.

I, with my more-than-a-little-off the wall-humor, would have said, cheerily, “Yes, wouldn’t it be fun to burn Calvin? Makes me want to fly off, go to his grave, and dig him up!!” (See Zooey’s lightly nutty old lady smile here ->)

elastigirl wrote:

what is it about (neo)calvinsm (or perhaps it’s just Calvinism) that’s dangerous, or leads to dangerous things?

The problem with Calvinism (and therefore also New Calvinism) is what one must necessarily conclude about the character of God from the Calvinist system.

According to Calvinism everything, including individual’s thoughts and their actions, is foreordained and rendered certain by God. There is nothing at all that falls outside of God’s predestined plan and his acting to ensure that it happens. This includes evil thoughts and actions being planned and brought about by God in such a way that his will is done. God is therefore the originator and author of sin and evil.

This predetermination of thoughts and actions includes the predetermination “in eternity past” of which individuals would and which would not receive salvation. That selection is not based on anything other than an apparently arbitrary choice by God. Calvinism specifically excludes God’s foresight of an individual’s faith as a basis for selection.

If Calvinism is true then God cannot be perfect goodness and love as the scriptures say he is.

An invaluable resource is Roger Olson’s book “Against Calvinism”. He also blogs at http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical and it is worth spending time in his archived posts.

Another good resource is the book by Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell titled “Why I am not a Calvinist”. They too demonstrate that Calvinism does not accurately portray the character of God. Love is the very essence of God but that must be denied if Calvinism is true or, as John Wesley put it, “If Calvinism is true, God’s love is such a love as makes the blood run cold.”

There are a number of Youtube videos featuring Jerry Walls on Calvinism. A good introduction would be the one of his talk at Evangel University titled “What’s Wrong with Calvinism”.

zooey111 wrote:

“I think its a terrible shame nobody locked him up in the madhouse before he did all the damage to the cause of Christ!”

The spirit of Calvin lives on – you can’t lock spirits up in the madhouse. This is a spiritual battle that has emerged once again in the church and our youth are being led away by the Pied Piper and others. Discerning Christians need to pray and seek God’s face on how to battle this. Thank God for watchblogs such as this; they help equip and mobilize the watchmen God has posted on the walls across this country.

Dave A A wrote:

it was damaging to my mental faculties to try to follow.

Dave, you have hit on the root of the problem. The primary battleground for reformed theology is in the mind. It’s a battle of Intellect vs. Spirit. Calvinism takes twists and turns through Scripture that sound convincing. If the mind travels too far down that road, confusion sets in … even to the point of questioning what you thought you truly believed. And that’s where Calvinism wants you, so that indoctrination to error can be birthed and grow. When one comes under such teaching, it’s critical to call on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth so that error can be discerned and pushed out of your intellect. The stuff truly plays with your mind – it will drive you loony if you devote too many brain cells to it. History paints a dim picture of John Calvin as a mad theologian destroying any and all that challenged ‘his’ teaching. History will paint the same picture of 21st century New Calvinist leaders and their followers once the dust settles.

@ Darlene:
This is very sad.

How hard is it to simply inspire a desire to study the Bible on its own, coupled with a willingness to deal with the results of that study in the congregation, in order that God might reveal Himself to them as He pleases? Why must a rigid theological system be necessary?

How many other casualties of this teaching are out there? One of my closest friends was nearly one of them.

Max wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I am very concerned about the youth. Not so much the ones making a living with it but those who get sucked in young.
Lydia, I have to tell you that this is my greatest burden as I reflect on the impacts of New Calvinism. The “movement” hit at a time when 20s-40s had pretty much given up on daddy’s church. (Traditional church has its problems, too. Nonspiritual deacon boards and cantankerous congregations ain’t much better than immature elder rule. The organized church at large is a mess).
Initially, I was thrilled to see “something” getting young folks back in the house, until I discovered that reformed theology was the bait. An SBC YRR church plant near me quickly attracted 500+ followers – mostly college students and young professionals. When the charismatic “lead pastor” was called to a bigger and better assignment in SBC life, things began to unravel in the church he had planted. Members are leaving; finances are plummeting. When you try to “church” folks with personalities and aberrant theology, after a while the multitudes catch on to the scheme and exit. Disillusionment then sets in. We may never see these young folks return to church again. Whose plan would that be?
I keep praying for a genuine revival and spiritual awakening in America … problem is, I don’t see many others in my neck of the woods doing likewise. Apathy is the theme of the day in “traditional” church; Error is the theme of the day in “new” church. Yep, we’re in a big mess … the organized church doesn’t have enough power to blow the dust off a peanut and the enemy is having a heyday.

Church planting sounds all well and good–in unchurched areas. However, when a new church is planted in an area in which there are existing churches, it typically kills off a church or two. These churches that draw young people are not by and large drawing young people new to the faith, but are drawing young people out of the churches where they had been–churches that need that next generation to remain healthy. If those young people then go to the new cool church and subsequently become disillusioned, they may well have nowhere to go back to–no real alternatives. If one was advancing the kingdom instead of one’s own brand, perhaps instead of church planting teams being sent out, there would be collaboration with churches already in the area. Not so. And it’s not about the theological beliefs, either. In our area, a long-standing PCA church has been dented significantly by the ascendancy of some Neo-cals. It appears to be viable for now, but for how much longer?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Then no more Christ, only CALVIN — forever.

And if “only Calvin”… I think the denomination will die. Or maybe retreat into a “remnant” of hard-core “true believers”. Ironically, in seeking to gain relevance, they’ll lose it.

Daisy wrote:

They think every town needs an IFB church. Other forms of Christianity aren’t Christiany enough or true enough in their view.

Some Presbyterians have the same mindset.

Daisy wrote:

I started noticed this “radical for Jesus” philosophy a few years ago on Christian TV, by different preachers who hosted TV shows about it or were promoting books about it. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.

The “radical pushers” make you sound or feel like a fake Christian or a lazy butt if you don’t sell all you have and live in a hut with a dirt floor in a third world nation and put Jesus first 24 hours a day. It’s very guilt-inducing, and I think, weird.

Now I am thinking of the Harrises’ “Rebelution” for teens. Perhaps they were teaching radical-lite?

And yet, there *was* (is) a problem with teens being totally inward-focused, lacking a bigger vision for their own ability to play a role in making their corner of the world a better place.

A lot of that (in my teens, at least) I can blame on their their self-absorbed, inward-focused parents.

Deb wrote:

@ Eagle:
Instead of undergarments, they are expected to attend conferences and buy books.

Hah! Nailed it!

@ refugee:
I think the “we’re totally not a denomination, but we totally are” charade is silly and indicative of their self-absorption and disingenuousness – they can define things any way they want and everyone rolls with it. We’re not going to practice denominational oversight, but we totally are. Just be honest and call it a denomination.

refugee wrote:

Who *is* the Joseph Smith of this camp? (Or if more than one, who would you say they are?)

See my reply to Eagle at Fri Aug 07, 2015 at 03:32 PM. In addition to the “they” listed there, you could throw in a couple of “old” Calvinists who are revered by the “new” Calvinists, including J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul. Within the SBC camp, Al Mohler looms above all others and Matt Chandler is an idol.

refugee wrote:

Perhaps TGC has a different meaning for the word “coalition”.

Actually, they have a different meaning for the word “gospel.” To the reformed mind, Calvinism = Gospel … the outfit should more aptly be named “The Calvinist Coalition.” They don’t allow other flavors of Christians in the mix. If you ain’t “reformed” (= Calvinist), you ain’t in. The opening words in the preamble to TGC’s Foundation Documents states “We are a fellowship of evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition …”

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Don’t forget “Ent-ent” (in the tradition of “Ism-ism”).
I guess Ent-ent could be considered a tolkien movement …

The New Tree Huggers.

dee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
What bugs me is that they are not saying what their primary distinctive is which is Calvinism and Complementarianism.
I could not believe that Piper said Mark Driscoll’s failure was a defeat for complementarianism. I swear he is getting a bit loony.

“getting”? Sounds like he already got there.

Velour wrote:

When unbelievers are MORE accepting and MORE LOVING than the people who claim to have indwelling Love in them (Jesus)…then the church doesn’t have anything to say to the world.

This. Exactly. I want to trumpet this on my FB wall. Of course, my NeoCal acquaintances would not understand the implications. They are blind in their smugness and fear.

Darlene wrote:

Debi Calvet wrote:
@ dee:
Not suspicious, for me, but distressed and anxious. Learning earlier this year what Reformed/Calvinist/TULIP belief actually is rocked my newly reviving faith (which had been rocked for over two decades anyway), just a year or so after I began trying to reestablish a relationship again with God. I attended an OPC church plant just long enough to have my eyes opened and my soul horrified. Actually, that experience and my seeking for relief and comfort indirectly led me here months ago (Internet research).

Debi, I, too, learned the horrors of Mr. Calvin’s teachings after I had been a Christian for a while. His teaching on Evanescent Grace from The Institutes is especially troubling. If you’re curious, just type in *evanescent grace* on Google and you will find a number of links about said teaching. But I’ll start you off on one. Warning: Very Shocking Stuff.
http://beyondcalvinism.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-assurance-of-salvation-and-calvins.html

Oh. god.

These are exactly the thoughts I was wrestling with last week, and cursing our two-decades’ immersion in NeoCalvinism for being the foundation of such thoughts.

Sopwith wrote:

___
“Celebrate Jesus?”
Dear Wartburg Reader,
  The gospel of Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament scriptures, is that you can be born again, obtain a new nature, be translated to the kingom of God’s dear Son, be born of a new blessed hope, be granted eternal life, be translated from the kingdom of darkness, enjoy peace, and joy, be filled with God’s holy spirit, and be made righteous and holy by Christ’s finished work upon the cross, be covered in His pressious blood, obtain new garmets, and have a wonderful place ‘reserved’ for you in God’s house!
The shackles of sin can be removed: Gal 5:19-21; 1 Tim 1:10; Rev 22:15; 1 Tim 6:3-5; 1 Tm 8:1-11; 1 Thes 4:3-5; Col 3: Col 2:8-10; 1 Cor 6:18-19; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rom 6:13; Rom 1:29.
IN All OF THIS, God Almighty has made it easy for each of us to obtain THIS -His glorious salvation:
God so loved you, that He sent His only Son to rescue you, that if you will believe in Jesus, God’s dear Son, you will not perish, but receive eternal life!
Reach out to Jesus, and believe in Him today!
…you’ll be glad you did!
All The Best,
IHS
Sopy
—

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I needed to hear this.

The “gospel” I am having trouble getting out of my head is the one that says that god condemned the whole world (what is that Romans verse? “not one” is without sin), and because of his wonderful everlasting lovingkindness and mercy, he predestined some to be saved, and all for his glory: the saving, and the destruction of the unsaved.

The miracle appears to be that *any* are saved *at* *all*.

@ GovPappy:
The only reason I can attend church sometimes with the members of our family who have chosen a TGC church, is that it does not completely fit the mold. People are urged to sign the membership covenant, but not required to (at least yet). Piper is quoted in sermons, but so is C.S. Lewis. There is a great deal of joy in the worship. There is love there, and the binding up of wounds. They take in refugees from spiritually abusive churches, and listen, and sympathize, and pray, and speak healing words — and there is sincerity there.

Every time I think I detect a hint of coercion, it is as if… how do I say this? It would be like sitting in a canoe, and someone leans too far to one side, and someone else — to keep the canoe from swamping or tipping — instinctively leans in the other direction and sets the canoe back on an even keel. Anyhow, that has been my experience at this church.

@ Bill M:
True. Denominational oversight is no guarantor of safety.

@ refugee:
See, at least that signature gets you some rights.

@ refugee:
I got interrupted, and didn’t finish my my thought, and now it has evaporated. But it has something to do with the promise being infused with the sense of control. Either we are arrogant in thinking that we can control all things, if we just do them right; or we comfort ourselves that everything is under god’s control, and so no matter what we suffer, it’s all in a good cause, and for our good, and his glory.

@ Max:

What’s odd to me is that we are calling this movement “New Calvinism.” What I mean is that I don’t consider myself very “new.” My Calvinist mother-n-law is 90 next month. She was in her 60s before attending churches other than Calvinist ones, as she was ‘forced’ to when she and dad traveled for a couple years in the motor home and volunteered for Wycliff. I remember well her enthusiastic, shocked tone when she declared to me one day that she discovered that were real Christians in other denominations. Sigh.

dee wrote:

I loved that video! I did not know that song.

Rockwell only had the one hit, and most people think it rose to the top on Michael Jackson’s backing vocal.

Muff Potter wrote:

current resurgence of evangelical codswallop gets hosed off the pier so to speak.

This is a phrase I am going to remember and use in the future, probably in many contexts. Well played, sir!

Muff Potter wrote:

current resurgence of evangelical codswallop gets hosed off the pier so to speak.

Muff, in addition to interceding for revival and spiritual awakening in America, I will add this to my prayer list.

Max wrote:

Patti wrote:
How can you recognize churches led by “New Calvinists” in your area? When you go in the door, look for an abundance of English Standard Version bibles – the ESV is their sword of choice (the ESV Study Bible is packed with Calvinist commentary); young pastors tend to quote John Piper a lot and will recommend his books; church polity is always elder-rule; membership covenants are common; their services have few or no altar calls; there is a gradual introduction to the Doctrines of Grace (weekly small group meetings are the place to make-it-happen); women are treated as second-class citizens in the Kingdom (can’t preach, teach, or serve in any leadership role); pastor/elder authority can be oppressive for members who don’t walk the line; and assorted other aberrations such as shunning folks in the community who opt to leave their churches. They also carry a different vocabulary with them. “Gospel-centered” ministry implies reformed belief and practice (to them, Calvinism ‘is’ the gospel). “Born again”, “personal Savior”, “sinner’s prayer”, “accepting Jesus” are not in their vocabulary … they prefer “Christ Followers” (a predestined elect), rather than “believers”. To the un-informed, the church language sounds close to what they have experienced in other churches, but there are deceptive differences if you listen closely. Members will defend their pastors as preaching the “Gospel” and “Christ” only because they occasionally drop those words. It’s all about God and His sovereignty in all things; human responsibility and free will have no part in Calvinist churches. Calvinism is not good news for ALL people, only those who have been elected before the foundation of the world. The message of the Cross of Christ does not apply to ALL people; evangelism and mission are diminished. They may drop the word “missiology”, but it has more to do with spreading reformed theology than reaching a lost world for Christ.

To this excellent list of how to recognize a New Calvinist church in early visits, I would add use of the word “Gospel” as an adjective: Gospel community, Gospel marriage, Gospel mission, Gospel this, Gospel that–often without defining for anyone what the word “gospel” even means. It really appears to be code language.

Abi Miah wrote:

how to recognize a New Calvinist church in early visits, I would add use of the word “Gospel” as an adjective: Gospel community, Gospel marriage, Gospel mission, Gospel this, Gospel that–often without defining for anyone what the word “gospel” even means. It really appears to be code language.

Abi, you are astute. Yes, everything in their world is gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that. On the surface, this sounds good … but “gospel” really does mean Calvinism to them … they are implying Calvinist-centered this and Calvinist-centered that. I heard one young reformed pastor at a church plant near me say “WE are the gospel” while never delivering the Gospel message of Christ and his atoning sacrifice for all men.

Max wrote:

My point being, they (the old guard) needed the energy and militancy of the New Calvinists to pull it off.

Definitely. The old guys use the young guys’ enthusiasm and social media expertise and the young guys get a channel to their own fame and fortune in exchange for their loyalty and feeding the egos of the old guys. Win-Win except for the pewpeons and the purity of the Gospel message.

@ Darlene:
This makes entirely too much sense.

refugee wrote:

Velour wrote:

*I will NOT join a church again run by elders in which church members have no vote. We are a priesthood of believers and we should all have a vote in the running of our churches. These corporate structured churches can be quite dangerous. (It’s not to say that everybody in a voting congregation wouldn’t go along with some fool plan, but I would trust a congregational vote and input over elder/pastor rule.)

In the church that a part of my family has chosen to attend, the congregation does vote. However, you have to sign a membership covenant in order to vote on anything.

My backup plan is: to form a Sunday morning bowling league! I just need a good name for a team.

Velour wrote:

Calvin sounds like he played all kinds of mind games with people.

I’m sticking with ‘stark raving psychopath’. Destroying people’s lives, literally by having them killed and figuratively by exiling, denouncing, and otherwise ruining them, is not ‘playing mind games’.

And his behavior and teaching has nothing to do with Christ as far as I can tell. There is so much that I don’t understand in a lifetime (I’m 60) of trying to understand Christianity and the Bible, and I surely don’t understand how anyone can reconcile the teachings of Calvin with Scripture. Seems more like Satanic control-freakery to me than anything else.

@ Max:
I have family who are confessional Lutherans, an very conservative group. They have issues with Calvinism, which I don’t totally understand. I have a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod version of the Book of Concord and an ESV Lutheran Bible. I would like to understand this tradition. Then I have relatives who are ultra conservative Calvinists. Their sect is considered to the right of Orthodox Presbyterians. They aren’t very militant, but I have a copy of the Heidelberg catechism and I have discussed the Doctrine of Grace with a pastor at my relative’s church. He doesn’t believe Baptists such as myself understand the Doctrine of Grace, but this is ok as far as he is concerned. I believe the two traditions I described are just a valid expressions of a Christian witness within the broad tapestry we call the Christian Church. Now we come to myself. I am a traditional Baptist who admires EY Mullins, a person neo Calvinists blame for the Southern Baptists slide away from Calvinism. I also admire Hershell Hobbs who I believe was Mullin’s student. Looking at the militant neo Calvinism I see with modern Evangelicalism makes me feel it is time to practice some separation. These people are not to be trusted. They just want to take over which concerns me.

Velour wrote:

My backup plan is: to form a Sunday morning bowling league! I just need a good name for a team.

Gramp3 suggests “Holy Rollers.” Only the “Gutterball Turkeys” would have me, however.

Since this post is, in part, about The Gospel Coalition having the right (and responsibility) to “police” its own membership according to its own standards, I believe that raises in important issue that comes up periodically in spiritual abuse survivor communities. And that’s about the need for some way to identify abusive Christian leaders and organizations — or the opposite — and make that known. For those denominations, associations, networks, franchises, etc., that fail to (or refuse to) police the toxicity level of their members, maybe that needs to come from somewhere else. Some kind of certification system with very specific issues and indicators, with people who are trained to apply it with consistency and care and who aren’t, as the New Testament says, “respectors of persons” who will cave to christianish celebrities.

Conversations about this problem come up all the time with my survivor friends and blogger colleagues. But I’ve also had half a dozen conversations in just the past week about the related need for a radically revised system for evaluating church planting leadership candidates. That’s a huge topic that I’ve been researching for the past 15 years, as I got involved with church planting in the mid-1990s and also served as a church planting assessor in the early 2000 decade. I’m convinced a lot of candidates who are narcissistic, perhaps even sociopathic, can fly through the current typical assessment system and get recommended. There just are too many things the system doesn’t screen for, in terms of toxic tendencies, that it needs to.

Anyway, FWIW, I think the curriculum I’ve been developing could provide a base for both certification and candidate assessment systems. I just posted a four-part series that captures the essence of what my material is about and what real-world questions it helps people wrestle with. If that’s of interest, you’ll find Part 1 in “Building Blocks in a Certification System for Healthy Leaders and Holistic Organizations” here:

http://wp.me/p8nAv-1Ji

Here are the four parts:

1 – Introducing “Do Good Plus Do No Harm”

2 – Top 20 Problems I’ve Encountered in Organizations

3 – Top 10 Dimensions Our Systems Need to Equip Participants and Counteract Abuse of Power

4 – Leadership Certification Checkpoints and System Trustworthiness Checklist

GovPappy wrote:

If God saves who he will save and there’s no free will, then our job is just to find those who are already saved and “Reform” them!

Governor, that’s essentially the Calvinist mission … to harvest the elect, to rescue the predestined. Of course, they have no way of knowing who is who … and aren’t even assured that they are one of them! I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU … Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do that.

Dave A A wrote:

And a memory of a care group Bible Study of Ist John. It must have been in my last couple months at a YRR, Acts 29, 9 Marks church. And very first thing, the study leader went into a lengthy denial of any possibility of an assurance of salvation

At which point, “Why Bother?”
May as well just get drunk, get high, and get laid while you can.

@ Max:

We may have some hope here. Some within SBC are not going to let this issue die no matter what Frank Page and his group says:

https://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/28790-traditional-southern-baptists-counter-calvinism

I looked up the term “traditional baptist” after my rant yesterday and this is what I found, I really think Neo Calvinism is a concern, not only in the SBC, but in broader evangelicalism. Roger Olson has written it is rearing its head in the unlikeliest places such as Pentecostal churches and traditional Wesleyan denominations. It is also devastating the Evangelical Free Church. This is a serious issue in so many ways: views of the Bible, Salvation, and spiritual freedom are at stake. I am glad some aren’t apathetic about this.

  __

“From The Horse’s Mouth…”

hmmm…

“Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” -Jesus [Matt. 7:12].

…”it is not sufficient merely not to do evil and not to do harm, but rather that one must be helpful and do good. It is not enough to ‘depart from evil’; one must also ‘do good…'” [Ps. 37:27]. -Martin Luther

***

Our gracious Lord Jesus , who dwells far above the great circle of the earth, who sits in heaven, who always interceeds for us, let Him be forever praised !

ATB

IHS

Sopy
  __
Inspiration : https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?list=PL67CE54F745D573F7&v=N5h5Qi5iimk

🙂

—

Max wrote:

The primary battleground for reformed theology is in the mind. It’s a battle of Intellect vs. Spirit.

In another article on the Examining Calvinsm website, the author describes I Cor 1&2 as the values chapters, contrasting God’s values with those of the world. And one good passage there is,”and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

Max wrote:

GovPappy wrote:
If God saves who he will save and there’s no free will, then our job is just to find those who are already saved and “Reform” them!
Governor, that’s essentially the Calvinist mission … to harvest the elect, to rescue the predestined. Of course, they have no way of knowing who is who … and aren’t even assured that they are one of them! I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU … Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do that.

Amen! Calvinism = despair

Max wrote:

Your observations about the spread of New Calvinism in other denominations are worrying. I’ve seen firsthand what has done to the SBC and wouldn’t wish that on anyone. We are losing a generation to this aberration. … Calvinism has been attempting to snuff out the free-church and whosoever-will-gospel for the last 500 years!

Sounds like the Communists of the last century with their Inevitable Marxist-Leninist Dialectic.