If the Gospel Project is examined, will we find:

A. That God did not need to save the world or reveal Himself to it, but deigned to do so ‘for His glory’

OR, will we find:

B. That God ‘SO LOVED THE WORLD’, and that was the reason He reached out to redeem it

I think when the materials are examined, it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out which ‘viewpoint’ is stressed: especially in the works written for the children’s Christian formation.

What image of the character of ‘God’ is given to the children? Is it an image that is in alignment with what we know of God from Our Lord Himself?
That is what will be most telling concerning the Project’s ‘slant’.

Unit 21, Session One, Jesus Meets Nicodemus, John 3:1-21 should give us a little insight as to how passages may or may not be given the calvinist reinterpretation.

Here’s something from their twitter stream that is definitely calvinist-speak:

The Gospel Project ‏@Gospel_Project Apr 23
God’s anger over idolatry should not surprise us. It is the natural outworking of His exclusive love for His people.

“Exclusive” being the operative word.

I’m no Calvinist and share WW’s concern for calvinista hijinks; however, I reviewed TGP materials back when it came out and didn’t see anything objectionable. If a steady diet of Calvinistic teaching has been published since, I’m confident some of the many SBC anti-Calvinist watchdogs would have outed it.

Curricula and authors must be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, and no other. TGP is the most scrutinized SBC curriculum in history.

The slam on NAMB is weak and dated. NAMB had a couple of churches that were in the A29 network. These SBC churches and pastors had to affirm the BFM.

Greear is indeed one of the presidential candidates this year. He has been one of the most visible SBC pastors of the past decade or so and whatever timing his TGP lessons would hardly raise his profile. His church has about 150 people serving with IMB/SBC, more than any other single SBC church which speaks to his theology and vision, I suppose.

This non-Calvinist is familiar with TGP and knows enough to keep an eye on those materials along with any other LifeWay or other publisher’s stuff but I’m not seeing the grand Calvinist stealth conspiracy here.

Gospel Project Curriculum advisory board (11 members)

5 are currect/former Councilmembers and staff of calvinist fraternity TheGospelCoalition:

D.A. Carson
James MacDonald
Juan Sanchez
Collin Hansen
Danny Akin

4 are from the Acts29 organization:

Matt Chandler
J.D. Greear
Eric Mason
Joe Thorn

Kimberly Thornbury is wife of former CCR(9Marks)’Fellow’ Greg Thornbury:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010411184327/http://ccr.bigstep.com/employeebios.jhtml

@ William Thornton:
You went to the dark side a few years ago. Now your job seems to be to visit blogs that discuss this stuff and say; nothing to see here. Old news. Outdated. weak.

I am surprised you did not say the Deebs should have called Setzer or Wax first. That is usually your mantra on other blogs. And it is the party line.

As if they are all men of Integrity. Right.

William Thornton wrote:

The slam on NAMB is weak and dated. NAMB had a couple of churches that were in the A29 network. These SBC churches and pastors had to affirm the BFM.

The problem is no one can get real figures on Acts29/SBC, including financial and you know it. You just repeat whatever the Ezell boys tell you. Then you repeat on blogs and say, call him yourself. Right.

Wow, LYDIA, you must be the same Lydia I used to comment with over at SBCvoices and Wade’s blog years ago. You know where all the bodies are buried. Keep up the good work.
I got banned by David Miller over at SBCvoices, but Debbie K. is still there speaking out against the dark side.

Deb wrote:

Where is the autonomy that Southern Baptists have always boasted about?

Exactly.

Ron Oommen wrote:

And the various bible studies and commentaries we have now?

They don’t make any money from stuff that already exists! Same reason we have to find new ways of teaching all sorts of subjects.

Cui Bono?

@ okrapod:
Could this mean normal functioning adults cannot make choices and be responsible for them? These developments could be more of a disaster for our justice system.

It seems that all Lifeway does these days is sow the seeds of Calvinism in everything one way or another. My Methodist church had a lady who decided to teach Seamless and it sounded to me that there was a slight, subtle bent toward Calvinism if you knew what to listen for. I think for the most part, they’re content with that – knowing that if they bide their time, if their materials are popular then the church might invest in something blatantly Calvanistic and since they’ve gotten the seeds planted, then they will bear fruit.

I have not read the entire Gospel Project.

I have attended Sunday School for 3 or 4 sessions where the Gospel Project was used. We change Sunday Schools 3 times a year, and they are topically based. I have not been in the class using the Gospel Project for the last 2 sessions.

But when I was reading the Gospel Project, I did not detect Calvinism. Not even remotely.

The renewed emphasis in some aspects of reformed soteriology is a broader movement than the personalities in the SBC.

And I note that Thom Rainer is not a 5 point Calvinist, and certainly does not believe in limited atonement.

I think that what we are seeing is natural, and not conspiratorial.

Of course, I do not object at all to churches not using the Gospel project. As I said, we are using it in 1 of our 3 Sunday School classes.

Anonymous wrote:

I think that what we are seeing is natural, and not conspiratorial.

Having an editorial board that is exclusively of one mind set is questionable, if not conspiratorial.

All the quotes and all the “dig for more” references are Calvinists on the Gospel Project. So anyone using the Gospel Project who wants to go “deeper” is sent directly to Calvinists sources such as Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll and all the rest.

@ Deb:
Back when The Gospel Project first launched I think they had both Mahaney and Driscoll quotes and the references to their books on “doctrine” Maybe they’ve removed those since then. Someone actually counted up the number of Calvinist references in the “columns” compared to nonCals and it was like 98.9% Calvinist. There were several blogs that blew up back then. Of course people like William Thornton and those at SBC Voices dismissed those with concerns as being tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. If you know anything about Alinsky tactics you’ll see them displayed against anyone who speaks out about Calvinism in the SBC.

There were ages of time when Christians did not even have the Bible to read for themselves, when they couldn’t even read if they had it because they were illiterate. They were helplessly dependent on others to tell them what it said. And those others very often used that helplessness to set themselves in authority over them, use them and keep them in bondage.

It was through great sacrifice, including the shedding of blood, that the Bible was made accessible to the common man. It was received as a treasure, to be read, searched and discovered.

Today we have so many Bible translations, every person should be able to find one at his/her reading level. There are so many versions, you’d think God had a special Bible for each different walk of life.

Electronic Bibles offer the ability to search, copy, highlight and cross-reference beyond anything in the past, every translation available to compare and contrast.

And there are audio Bibles, you can listen to someone else read it to you.

We also live in a time where most people have been freed from a lot of the mundane chores of life. It doesn’t take us a whole day standing over a washboard to do our laundry, it doesn’t take a whole day to make an uncomfortable foray into town to do our shopping.

And yet, so many believers are not really interested in reading the Bible. So many do not really care what exactly it says. They would rather someone else read it and just fill them in on the gist of it. ‘Just tell us what we’re supposed to do,’ seems to be the attitude.

Is it any surprise that there are those with power motives who are willing to do just that?

And whole churches are unable to figure out what to do with their time unless they have a predigested fill-in-the-blanks program to follow. Why are all these churches, of all different denominations, so anxious to take part in the gospelly gospelized gospel project? Are there none competent to teach from the Bible themselves in these churches?

Christ provided spiritual gifts, including the gift of teaching, for the edification of the church. Where is this gift in the local churches? In the epistles we are all encouraged to learn the word well enough to be able to teach it, and in fact, being ‘able to teach’ is a requirement of elders. And yet, in practice, in the churches I have been a part of, I have not seen evidence of this. It is a rare elder, these days, who is capable of teaching. Without some kind of little paperback book with blanks to fill in, we are apparently lost.

And this is another reason I am done.

Mark wrote:

And they may think a shrinking denomination is good or will find a way to make it all look good.

An obvious spin would be God Refining and Purifying the Church, casting out all the Heretic and Apostate dross and leaving only a Righteous Refined Remnant.

Celia wrote:

Back when The Gospel Project first launched I think they had both Mahaney and Driscoll quotes and the references to their books on “doctrine” Maybe they’ve removed those since then. Someone actually counted up the number of Calvinist references in the “columns” compared to nonCals and it was like 98.9% Calvinist.

“There is no Christ, Only CALVIN.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg7MAacSPNM

Bridget wrote:

This is how you indoctrinate people. Children are highly susceptible. Our former church used children’s sunday school material from Piper’s church.

“Give me your children and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— A.Hitler, cult leader

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That’s exactly the spin. It’s been years ago 2006? maybe that the Founder’s led the movement of “unregenerate” church membership cleanup. There was a resolution passed at one of the conventions. You see if you don’t jump through all the right hoops at a Calvinist church then your considered “unregenerate” Before the megastar Calvinist and I guess even today most Calvinist churches do not have very good Baptism/church growth numbers – the way to explain this is that the church with good Baptism/church growth records are filled with false converts. There used to be quite a few “young” pastors who bragged about going a year without one baptism because he wasn’t going to accept a false convert. The secret that nobody is telling all these young Acts 29 and Acts 29 wannabe church planters is that not everybody is going to be Matt Chandler and their church isn’t going to become a mega church paying them six figures – so the leaders pat them on the head and mock nonCal churches as having “unregenerate” membership. As Calvinism has risen in the SBC baptism have declined.

@ Deb:
I don’t, sorry. The church we were at at that time looked at the material and sent it back. I’d be suprised if someone reading here wouldn’t have a line on it. Has Lifeway pulled all the first editions? I wonder if one of the stores would still have some copies?

@ FW Rez:
LOL! No, no, no, no and that would be no.

Celia wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The secret that nobody is telling all these young Acts 29 and Acts 29 wannabe church planters is that not everybody is going to be Matt Chandler and their church isn’t going to become a mega church paying them six figures

Reminds me of Amway. All recruits believe they have what it takes to be the next big leader. Of course, most crash and burn.

@ Celia:

That's why Mohler has been getting his ducks (err lieutenants) in a row… He has been quite successful in placing the right people in positions of power in the SBC. It's just a matter of time until things are set in stone, as you have surmised.

Max wrote:

Or you might consider just leading students through books of the Bible and praying that the Holy Spirit would teach them!

I second this radical idea, Max!

@ Deb:
Yep! Do you all follow SBC Today? I haven’t followed it real closely but they’ve been blogging about the non Disclosure agreements and gag orders being forced with anyone who wants NAMB money. Also there was the whole IMB debacle where they just cut all the older (which means probably not Calvinist) missionaries and forced them to sign gag orders before they could receive severance. The SBC is becoming an elder RULED convention and people in the pews don’t even know it’s going on. It’s becoming very catholic with a lot of these Calvinist churches now doing “church revitilaztion” – taking over older struggling churches with the “mother church” being in complete charge of the older (and almost always a nonCalvinist church) It’s like there are now local Bishops over multiple church sites now. Power is being concentrated into the hands a very select few.

FW Rez wrote:

For a denomination

BTW: If you inadvertently transpose the first m and n in “denomination” you get an interestingly different root word.

@ Deb:
There’s a lot going on. The Calvinists are getting pretty bold now that they’ve pretty much taken over all the power structures in the SBC. The convention coming up will probably have some questions asked about NAMB and IMB but the Calvinists on stage will be ready with some idiotic non answer answer that the fanbois will hoot and hollar about and brag on the internet about people being “Mohlerized” and such. No one will be forced to give any real answers and those asking the questions of “dear leaders” will be attacked viscously. Asking question is now divisive and hateful.

Siteseer and Ron Oommen, I second both of your posts.

What I see happening is not just the control aspect, but their very jobs being on the line.

Think about it. If in fact the pewpeons did wake up and read the bible as we all should be doing, what need is there for the man in front facing us waving his arms, dripping sweat and spittle on us? There goes the well-off six-figure salary, trips to only God knows where, private lessons for the three kids, the nice cars, the McMansion, the advanced degrees, etc., etc.

Basically, these men and their cronies have made merchandise of the God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Gospel, and the Bible, as well as people.

And trust me, we know from scripture what Jesus thinks of making His Father’s home a moneychanging, den of thieves, merchandising pit. It will no be pretty for these guys when Jesus gets the last word.

I do not wich that on anyone, but rather would see them become like Zachaeus and turn from their ways and make restitution. However, me thinks that the world’s goodies are too good to pass up and will keep the machine going until the bitter end.

siteseer wrote:

Are there none competent to teach from the Bible themselves in these churches?

It does seem a bit lazy, doesn’t it?

My last few sunday school teachers are college professors who specialize in biblical history. That is refreshing.

@ Patriciamc:
Do you mean charismatic? The Calvinists hate Beth Moore – her being a woman who teaches and she hangs out with “heretics” like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer. I read some of her earlier work and she was definately not Calvinist nor is her church down in Houston.

Patriciamc wrote:

The big deal is that there’s a subtle undermining of the gospel message from God so loved the world that he provided a means of salvation to God created some to be saved and created others to burn for all eternity.

I don’t think it’s subtle at all. It’s a stark contrast to the god I grew up believing in. It’s so stark that I can’t even process it.

Celia wrote:

@ Patriciamc:
Do you mean charismatic? The Calvinists hate Beth Moore – her being a woman who teaches and she hangs out with “heretics” like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer. I read some of her earlier work and she was definately not Calvinist nor is her church down in Houston.

I got this from a Methodist publication a couple of years ago. I don’t remember the publication’s name. Anyway, a minister was writing on Beth Moore and noted that his church started to closely look at her writings when one woman came to him distraught at what she thought was Moore saying that God caused evil for his glory. This woman had had a traumatic experience and was upset that God might have deliberately caused the event. This minister also noted that Moore had begun quoting Piper and from The Desiring God site. I myself remeber her saying how much she liked Desiring God. Anyway, the article said that this particular church and others were not going to use her materials anymore.

okrapod wrote:

And yes, we value good curricula, especially the professional teachers on that list. Just in case anybody wondered, of course. Teaching is not just a spiritual gift, it is also a learned skill utilizing learned content. IMO, if the church cannot offer me and mine, including the grandchildren, something comparable at least with what they get at school and at home, then the church has to step back and rethink whether it really understands the world we live in. Fortunately, my current church is full of people like us and the church goes for quality and content in its teaching functions. It is not possibly that we are the only church on the planet that does this.

Lydia, out of a whole church there are none who have time to become competent teachers on their own?

Do they have time to watch tv?

As long as people look to someone else to do the thinking for them, there will be those with ulterior motives who are glad to do it.

Lea wrote:

Unless by subtle you meant THEY are being subtle bringing this in, in which case I agree except I would label it deceitful rather than subtle.

Exactly, and both subtle and deceitful.

Celia wrote:

The Calvinists are getting pretty bold now that they’ve pretty much taken over all the power structures in the SBC.

Yep, no need to come in the back door by stealth and deception any longer. The New Calvinists have successfully taken over most SBC entities, with hardly a whimper from SBC’s non-Calvinist millions. They now control SBC’s leading seminaries, mission agencies, church planting program, and publishing house. There’s not much point in non-Calvinist messengers traveling to the upcoming SBC annual meeting to complain about Calvinization of the denomination – that window is now closed.

@ Patriciamc:
I think she’s moved more toward an ecumenical anything goes as long as you say you love Jesus theology. The Calvinists blogs that I read call her a heretic and I knew a church locally where there was a fight because some of the women were doing one of her studies and the new Calvinist minister wasn’t having it. A lot of Calvinists don’t like “women’s ministry in general because they think “women’s ministry” shows that men aren’t doing their job.

Patriciamc wrote:

It’s Satan subtly perverting the message in order to make people reject Christ.

… and it’s working, too…

@ Max:
It would take years to undo the Calvinization of the SBC. A lot of these young Calvinists don’t actually realize that it’s taken years to get to this point. They think it just naturally happened. It all goes back to the CR which the Calvinists think didn’t go far enough – the CR didn’t Calvinize the SBC. What’s that guy Resinger? He’s the one who started handing out Calvinist literature at the seminaries way back 35 years or so ago. One of these blogs had letters between him and Patterson where he was complaining about the lack of emphasis on Calvinism in the CR.

@ Celia:
The Stalinization of the SBC is complete. The time to have opposed ‘dear leader’ is long past. He has control of the entities and even Paige Patterson is getting on the gravy train as did others.

It is about celebrity, legacy and money. They believe the determinist God is rewarding them. After all, God is in control of all the deception, celebrity and appointed them into their current positions.

Celia wrote:

“And I note that Thom Rainer is not a 5 point Calvinist, and certainly does not believe in limited atonement.”

This is a way the leaders of the SBC are being deceptive “So and so is not even a Calvinist.” The fact is in the SBC today that those who disagree with the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election are not allowed to serve anywhere in the SBC.

But that doesn’t seem to make sense? If the theory is that everyone is a Calvinist, but then everyone turns out not to be a Calvinists, it’s a trick because they are Calvinists anyway?

FW Rez wrote:

Deb wrote:

Absolutely not! Complementarianism is an essential doctrine with this crowd.

For a denomination that built its brand on being “Cooperative”, they don’t seem to want to play well with others.

Well, on that point, the BFM has been adopted as the Convention’s doctrinal confession. So it would make sense that people who are going to write denominational material agree with the doctrinal statements that the denomination has adopted.

@ Gram3:
I ran into a member of my former church a few weeks ago who queried me about my long absence. I gave her some honest reasons with sincerity and professionalism. She pulled out her iPad and made a list. She asked me what and who to Google. :o)

Celia wrote:

@ Deb:
Yep! Do you all follow SBC Today? I haven’t followed it real closely but they’ve been blogging about the non Disclosure agreements and gag orders being forced with anyone who wants NAMB money. Also there was the whole IMB debacle where they just cut all the older (which means probably not Calvinist) missionaries and forced them to sign gag orders before they could receive severance. The SBC is becoming an elder RULED convention and people in the pews don’t even know it’s going on. It’s becoming very catholic with a lot of these Calvinist churches now doing “church revitilaztion” – taking over older struggling churches with the “mother church” being in complete charge of the older (and almost always a nonCalvinist church) It’s like there are now local Bishops over multiple church sites now. Power is being concentrated into the hands a very select few.

Celia:

I agree with you completely on this point.

Autonomy is a critical doctrine that says much about who Baptists are as a people and the Priesthood of the Believer.

I don’t like multi-site campuses, but I really don’t like the fact that SBC has apparently received a church that explicitly does not agree with autonomy. That is a bad precedent. I hope it is addressed.

@ Lydia:
Do you think Southwestern’s going have a Calvinist President after Paige? The problem is too much apathy in the pews. Calvinism is seen as an ivory tower discussion to a lot of people which is where it was traditionally going back 30 years or so. This neoCalvinism affects every aspect of the church and a lot of people are not able to connect the dots between “home groups” that are actually used as enforcement and thought control to having to sign membership covenants. I expect a mass exodus from the SBC over the next many years as the abuse increases.

@ Max:
Oh my! Are we dating ourselves if we remember going to The Baptist Bookstore? LOL!

Celia wrote:

A lot of Calvinists don’t like “women’s ministry in general because they think “women’s ministry” shows that men aren’t doing their job.

That reminds me of one of Driscoll’s ridiculous quotes where he said that the men in his church need to be teaching their wives theology at home, which is a massive misunderstanding of Paul talking about women who because of their culture, were not allowed to study. I think we should rename Driscoll Wackadoodle.

@ Anonymous:
The theory is that some people are Calvinist enough to cooperate with for the time being. Al Mohler would tell you that you cannot accept the U in Tulip and reject any of the other four points and still be consistent. At some point in the future things will get purified even more so that even the four pointers won’t be accepted. But to reject the U completely is to be seen as a semi Pelegian (heretic) and semi Pelegianism leads to liberalism. Just recently over on the Founder’s blog Calvinist idol Tom Nettles wrote about how non Calvinism always leads to liberalism which eventually leads to Universalism yada, yada, yada.

siteseer wrote:

Lea wrote:
“If a child were to ask you what it means to be a man or woman, would you be able to biblically respond?”
I have yet to be asked that of any of my children or grandchildren….

I know! The vast majority of us don’t wonder; we just get on with life. Sure there are questions and debates about roles (which are man-made in my opinion), but not about the meaning. Or, if anyone does ask, just say that what it means to be a man or woman is to reflect the image of God.

@ Celia:
They just got my former church…which is debt free. They tried for years. It has happened all over Louisville.

Celia wrote:

@ Max:
Oh my! Are we dating ourselves if we remember going to The Baptist Bookstore? LOL!

I grew up there. My mom was in there buying sheet music 2-3x a week. :o)

Celia wrote:

Pulpit and Pen

I think that’s the one I went to where about half of the articles on the front page were cattily making fun of female author/preacher types. It was very offputting.

@ Celia:

I have something I have to tell you guys. I have been wanting to talk it over with Dee on the phone. I noticed something when I was researching Redeemer Arlington for my post that I did last week. Redeemer partners with SendDC. Send DC apparently is the church planting organization for the NAMB. Over the last few years Send DC has been involved in planting roughly 20 churches in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from Frederick, MD to Fredericksburg, VA. I looked at the profiles of several churches and it appears that Send DC is only planting Neo-Calvinist church plants in the DC area. There are a couple that don’t appear to be Neo-Cal but they are ethnic congregations and African-American. And given the history of the SBC and its problems with racism I can’t imagine the NAMB would turn down an ethnic church plant.

What I would like to do in the near future is do a profile of all 20 churches, research who is sponsoring them and how. Then I would like to contact and ask questions.

If this is true then it begs the question if the NAMB only has a Neo-Calvinist agenda.

@ FW Rez:
Fortunately, the average Southern Baptist doesn’t do any extracurricular “religious” reading. Heck, you can’t get most of them to read their Bibles regularly! Therein, is the SBC dilemma – little spiritual discernment in the pews developed and exercised by knowing the Scriptures; thus, easy pickins’ for theological takeover. The New Calvinists know this and use it to their advantage.

@ Lydia:
This time of year I remember having to make the trip after finishing up a morning VBS because we needed more of this or that for VBC. I’d be exhaused and my kids would be sleeping in the back seat meaning I didn’t get any rest that afternoon.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Send DC apparently is the church planting organization for the NAMB. Over the last few years Send DC has been involved in planting roughly 20 churches in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from Frederick, MD to Fredericksburg, VA.

To control the corridors of power!

Lydia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
Autonomy for the “elders”? :o)

In my view it isn’t Baptist unless the congregation votes (those that want to) at the business meeting for a new faucet in the men’s restroom. :o)

Heh.

To me, Baptist churchs should at a bare minimum have things like congregational votes and non-infant baptisms…so it blows my mind to read above about a proponent of infant baptism joining the Baptist church. IT’s in the name! Gah.

okrapod wrote:

@ siteseer:

You quoted me and then addressed Lydia apparently on a different but related topic. I am not sure what is going on there.

Oops, sorry about that, correction noted. The old eyes get boggled at times. I wish there was a way to edit. Please forgive me.

@ Dave (Eagle):
Someone did that at Peter Lumpkins blog for St. Louis a few years ago. Look at the church plants in DC and cross reference if you can to Acts 29, 9Marks, and Founders list of churches. The NAMB will not give out any information. The most they’ll say is that the churches affirm the BFM. It’ll be hard for you to prove they’re neoCal churches because more and more the Associations that are Calvinists have stopped putting up information. Even the churches themselves are not specific anymore about their doctrine. But good luck trying.

Celia wrote:

It all goes back to the CR which the Calvinists think didn’t go far enough – the CR didn’t Calvinize the SBC.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that some leaders of SBC’s Conservative Resurgence were indeed looking beyond conservative to a Calvinist Resurgence (e.g., Al Mohler). I don’t believe non-Calvinist architects of the the CR expected the CR pendulum to swing back 500 years and pick up John Calvin; they probably still have their mouths open on that one. Mohler et al. took advantage of the opportunity after SBC non-Calvinists and Calvinists linked arms to rout those rascal moderates and liberals from the denomination under the inerrancy banner.

Celia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
The theory is that some people are Calvinist enough to cooperate with for the time being. Al Mohler would tell you that you cannot accept the U in Tulip and reject any of the other four points and still be consistent. At some point in the future things will get purified even more so that even the four pointers won’t be accepted. But to reject the U completely is to be seen as a semi Pelegian (heretic) and semi Pelegianism leads to liberalism. Just recently over on the Founder’s blog Calvinist idol Tom Nettles wrote about how non Calvinism always leads to liberalism which eventually leads to Universalism yada, yada, yada.

I don’t agree with that. And I like Tom Nettles. But I don’t agree with that.

Lydia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
Here we go….again.

And Russ Moore is a 4 pointer and Kevin Ezell, it seems was a 3 pointer back when transitioning Highview to stealth Calvinism and elder rule and then he was a 4 pointer. And Akin. 4 pts, right,? But in the end, it is Points with Mohler that got them in the club.

So not sure why points have any bearing on the situation. Did you see the link the watchdog had on Rainer’s side business of answering questions about church to young ignorant pastors for the low price of 259 bucks? And he is one of the highest paid entity presidents. Some were saying almost half million a year.

We have Setzer, the LifeWay church planting expert, double dipping with all his church plant fails…over and over. Who pays? The donors? Oh, and Barnabas Piper hired at LifeWay despite being Presbyterian and paid 6 figures as strategic content manager or something like that. When he was hired I was reading an article on his website of him promoting infant baptism. I have not checked back to see if it was still there and I believe he joined a Baptist Church after getting his six figures appointment.

We are not discussing honest men of Integrity… . so why play pretend?

I could go on all day with examples of the celebrity Christian High Life. Just like Jesus, right?

Wow. I would really like that info about Stetzer, if you can find it. If you do, send it to Dee or Deb.

I don’t like financial shenanigans, as you know.

I can’t keep up with all of the points either. I am told by Calvinists all the time that I am not a Calvinist, which is fine by me.

Anonymous wrote:

I won’t deny that for a second.

Thanks for your confirmation from a Calvinist perspective.

Max wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I won’t deny that for a second.

Thanks for your confirmation from a Calvinist perspective.

Welcome. But I am not a Calvinist.

@ Celia:

Tell me about it! Another thing- the older churches they take over are where they send SBTS grads to pastor. Some have familiar last names. A sort of stepping stone where they can be paid by the program and build their online brand at the same time as a “pastor”. Usually Seminary students are directed to attend.

Then you also have paid staff at Boyce and SBTS double dipping as pastors, music Ministers, etc. Burk and Moore have done this. As have Ware, Schriener and others.

@ Anonymous:
That still does not explain Driscoll, Mahaney, James “congregationalism is from Satan” McDonald, etc….

Anonymous wrote:

But wouldn’t that make them full fledged Calvinists? Why would Baptists wanting to flee Calvinism become Presbyterians?

In the first place there are presbyterians and then there are presbyterians-complicated just like everything else. There are ‘liberal’ presbyterians as well as conservative presbyterians. The neo-cals are not liberal, do not baptize infants and do not seem to have the same ideas about covenant theology as the presbyterians. At least that is what it looks like from the outside. We have one presbyterian church in this county which has become a go to place for a number of lesbian couples, so that would be different from SBC mega here. So, Calvin this or that is not the whole story it seems.

For those who join us, well we are a whole different cup of tea both in faith and practice. Not everybody wants to make such a radical change.

Anonymous wrote:

SBC has apparently received a church that explicitly does not agree with autonomy.

??? You mean like Presbyterian non-autonomy?

Lea wrote:

I talked to a lady at the Presbyterian church and she said she thought maybe half the church was former Baptists..

Well, if you accept Reformed theology, then the most consistent thing to do is to join a real Reformed church that teaches covenantal baptism. I have heard young pups say that they would rather attend a “deep” Presbyterian church than an “Arminian” Baptist church. That makes some sense if the overriding concern is the 5 points and not so much the entire Covenantal framework.

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t agree with that. And I like Tom Nettles. But I don’t agree with that.

If I read him correctly in BHGAFHG, Nettles believes that the Atonement is sufficient *only* for the elect. That used to be considered a form of genuine hyper-Calvinism. I hope I am wrong because Baptists have already done the hyper-Calvinist thing.

Max wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

There are no consequences for “leaders”

… until Judgment Day.

They figure they’re immune —
They’re Gods’s Speshul Pets, The Predestined Elect(TM)!

Lydia wrote:

@ Max:
Stealth Calvinism that took over churches was never blatant. They were very careful. They used the same biblical words but just did not give THEIR definition. Who disagrees with grace? Sovereignty? Sin is bad?

My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, specifically the redefinition of words into their “diabolical meanings”.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape

WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

@ Celia:

I remember. It wasn't nearly as flashy as LifeWay is now (or was 8 years ago when I last made a purchase there). Gotta love Amazon!

Anonymous wrote:

Since when? I thought Baptists did that all the time when they wrote Sunday School material.

Some of them were not even Baptists at the time they worked on GP.

Deb wrote:

Celia wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The secret that nobody is telling all these young Acts 29 and Acts 29 wannabe church planters is that not everybody is going to be Matt Chandler and their church isn’t going to become a mega church paying them six figures

Reminds me of Amway.

And all other Pyramid Schemes.

All recruits believe they have what it takes to be the next big leader. Of course, most crash and burn.

While the Big Dogs who started at the top of the Pyramid laugh all the way to the bank.

“Gonna jive my way
To the Top of the Pyramid,
The Top of the Pyramid;
Gonna get my Name on top of that List…”
— Some classic Dr Demento song that never made it to YouTube

okrapod wrote:

And yes, we value good curricula, especially the professional teachers on that list. Just in case anybody wondered, of course. Teaching is not just a spiritual gift, it is also a learned skill utilizing learned conten

This is so true. I heard NT Wright say that each generation must study the historical Jesus. The more I thought about that and church history, the more convinced I am this is crucial.

And what a rich topic with so many subsets! It would take years to dive into it.

ION:

England’s friendly against Portugal tonight is, by all accounts, one of the worst games of fitba’ ever played. Wembley is full and you can still hear the players shouting to each other.

Supporters are emailing in to the BBC website’s text commentary with suggestions (some of them accompanied by photographs) on the best way to arrange one’s DVD collection. On the pitch, there’s only marginally higher action-density than during a Superbowl. Though England have just made two substitutions.

IHTIH

I’m also getting to grips, at least at a qualitative level, with the mechanics of radiation-driven shockwaves in dense media such as occurs in, for instance, supernovae.

okrapod wrote:

That whole baptism thing is a huge issue, if people are actually looking at the theology behind the differing opinions.

It makes me want to crawl in a hole.

Lydia wrote:

The entire resurgence is built on deceit and conning people.

Spot on.

K.D. wrote:

there’s one thing they have in common Trads and the Neo-Cals, it’s the belief that the CR was good, no matter who got hurt

It is never right to do wrong. Other believers, particularly those who took a “moderate” position on certain Scripture, were chased from the SBC in an un-Christlike manner. Traditionalists are now finding themselves on the receiving end of that sort of behavior as the Calvinist Resurgence continues.

Lydia wrote:

The entire resurgence is built on deceit and conning people.

Oh, but Lydia, it’s OK if you behave that way since you have been called into the world for such a time as this to restore the true gospel that Christendom has lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Why would Baptists wanting to flee Calvinism become Presbyterians?

Actually, it would have been much better if SBC’s New Calvinists had simply joined Presbyterian ranks, rather than aggravating SBC’s non-Calvinist majority. It would have been a much easier row to hoe for all concerned without any weeping and gnashing of teeth. Of course, they wouldn’t be enjoying all the assets they have captured in the form of seminaries, mission agencies, countless church facilities taken over, and a huge bank account called the Cooperative Program financed by millions of trusting and unsuspecting SBC non-Calvinists.

William Thornton wrote:

Deb wrote:

Regarding Greear, you wrote:
I am pretty confident that if you asked the average person at the Summit whether we were “Calvinist” or “non-Calvinist,” they wouldn’t know what to tell you.

That quote is not mine but Greear’s.

I am still wary of Calvinists, which is why I always read WW.

Would they even know if they are SBC? Perhaps that came as a shock to find out, too. :o)

Is Greears Summit using “Great Commission Baptist” after all that name change hullabaloo?

I think it was the Louisville convention where Greear flew home on a donor friends private jet after doing his humility shtick on stage.

Deb wrote:

Do you all follow SBC Today?

I’ve never followed them, but I might based on just a bit of searching I did just now. Check out these two link relating to The Gospel Project:
http://sbctoday.com/demoralizing-doctrinal-discrimination/
http://sbctoday.com/the-gospel-project-a-birdseye-view-from-the-blue-ridge-mountains/.

I searched the archives on Calvinism are there are quite a lot of recent articles speaking against it. I did not have time yet to dig very deep, but so far it does not appear that SBC Today is a fan of the YRR crowd.

@ Ken F:
You might like Peter Lumpkins site also. He has a lot and the Calvinists hate, loathe, and despise him as well as SBC Today.

Max wrote:

Lydia wrote:

The entire resurgence is built on deceit and conning people.

Oh, but Lydia, it’s OK if you behave that way since you have been called into the world for such a time as this to restore the true gospel that Christendom has lost.

“Whatever would God do without MEEEEEEEEEEE?”

Muff Potter wrote:

pot-lucks and social events

The old phrase for that is “bread and circuses.”

Ken F wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:
pot-lucks and social events

The old phrase for that is “bread and circuses.”

Not that I think people shouldn’t pay attention to what their church is doing and teaching, but I think fellowship with other Christians is one of the main reasons to attend church in the first place, and potlucks and so on are a better opportunity to really get to know people than a church service.

Ken F wrote:

The old phrase for that is “bread and circuses.”

A Capitol idea … like in The Hunger Games.

Gram3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

SBC has apparently received a church that explicitly does not agree with autonomy.

??? You mean like Presbyterian non-autonomy?

I may be wrong, but I’m guessing it’s Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville?

Bridget wrote:

This is how you indoctrinate people.

Maybe I am missing something here, but what is the point of this indoctrination? What is the end game here? Why go to all the trouble of devising these schemes, when our Lord set the foundation and put out the plan for the Church in the first place? Isn’t it easy enough just to follow what Jesus initiated, and the Holy Spirit then engenders?

@ Jack:
Not trusting oneself is a biggie in Neo Cal circles. They don’t want you paying attention to your gut or that little voice that is telling you to question. They most certainly don’t want you to be guided by your Advocate. You would not need them anymore.

I always think of 1st John when this comes up. We already have the best Teacher. And He is saying listen to your gut and walk away! :o)

This stuff really wrecks havoc on teens. In several ways. Neither is good.

Hi All,

Long-time TWW poster Jeannette Altes has received $420 from several contributors toward her June rent that is due $565.

She has fallen on hard times, has had a tumor that is being treated, lost her job and is looking for work.

Is there anyone else, or a few folks, who could donate $180 so she could make her June rent? (Gofundme takes out some small fees.)

Thank you.

Max wrote:

As I’ve noted before, I’m a long-time Southern Baptist (60+ years). I’ve worshiped alongside “old” Calvinists within SBC and found them to be civil in their discourse; they have provided good perspectives on certain Scripture. This “new” Calvinism is an entirely different beast … it is arrogant, militant, and aggressive.

Yes, Max, that sums it up. Many NeoCalvinists could use a round of rabies shots!

Muff Potter wrote:

so long as the pot-lucks and social events continue as always, the serfs don’t give a rat’s rip.

That sounds about right. I have to confess that there were times when I was in that frame of mind as well.

JYJames wrote:

Maybe I am missing something here, but what is the point of this indoctrination? What is the end game here?

Answer: money and power (sometimes sex too).

Velour wrote:

Answer: money and power (sometimes sex too).

That is very raw and very low.

Velour wrote:

While we pewpons had perfectly fun times eating together, I know see it for the manipulation that it was by the leaders. Baiting the trap.

Sorry your experience has been dreadful in that regard. I remember the soup suppers of my childhood in Lutheranism with fondness. Quite a panoply of soups to choose from. And the Danish rye (still warm) from Sorensen’s bakery? The best!
Things were much simpler and less confused back then. No “love bombing”, no manipulation, just real folks enjoying fellowship, good soup, and good bread.

okrapod wrote:

That whole baptism thing is a huge issue, if people are actually looking at the theology behind the differing opinions.

I think I read somewhere awhile back that infant baptism was a big thing in olden-olden times because of the infant mortality rate. It was considered a seal of approval of sorts, so that their little souls would not be cast into hell on account of Adam’s imputed guilt.

Legend? Folklore? What’s the real skivvy on this?

JYJames wrote:

Velour wrote:
Answer: money and power (sometimes sex too).
That is very raw and very low.

Celia wrote:

The fact is in the SBC today that those who disagree with the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election are not allowed to serve anywhere in the SBC.

I hope they all close their wallets and don’t donate any money. If they have left money to any churches, I hope they change their estate plans as well and leave out these churches.

JYJames wrote:

Velour wrote:
Answer: money and power (sometimes sex too).
That is very raw and very low.

Many of the church leaders doing the indoctrinating are low and raw. They are ruthless.
Scandal after scandal. Church implosions. Abuses all over, all kinds. Damaged Christians and lives. More, sadly, to come in the years to come.

Velour wrote:

Glad you had fond memories of your church suppers.

And thanks go to you as well. I go back far enough to remember when Lutheran pastors still wore the Cassock on high holy days. You couldn’t tell Pastor Sorensen from Father Doyle the Jesuit on high holy days.

Muff Potter wrote:

I think I read somewhere awhile back that infant baptism was a big thing in olden-olden times because of the infant mortality rate. It was considered a seal of approval of sorts, so that their little souls would not be cast into hell on account of Adam’s imputed guilt.
Legend? Folklore? What’s the real skivvy on this?

Here’s one website from the Russian Orthodox Christians who explain their view
on the importance of infant baptism:
http://3saints.com/baptism.html

@ Celia:
Oops, missed this earlier. I don’t know about SWBTS. On one hand, the Neo Cals have been in your face bold with some horrible things and gotten by with it. So nothing surprises me. They literally laugh at a joke by Mohler aimed at victims of child molestation who dare tell their stories online.

On the other hand, Patterson is speaking at some TGC conference. And his brother in law, Kelly, (also older) is Prez of NOBTS.

I think it is probably inevitable. What Mohler wants, Mohler gets.

If anything really changes at this point, it will be because autonomous churches withhold funds. And I think apathy works against that happening. Although the big names were not giving much anyway. Like Platt and others. Yet they reap power and position. That equation is untenable.

As an example, I used to pay attention to CP giving in KY. When Ezell was pastir of Highview, CP giving was very low. (Mohler taught there). I would look at rural churches under 100 members who gave 3-5x more than the cosmopolitan Highview!

Yet Highview had the biggies.Ezell, Mohler, Russ Moore, and some local celebs and politicians. That just says it all to me. Platt church was even worse.

The people running the show were never really committed to the reason for the SBC’s existence. It’s about something else not good.

JYJames wrote:

Velour wrote:
Many of the church leaders doing the indoctrinating are low and raw.
Can’t even wrap my head around this.

I’m glad for you that it seems you haven’t experienced these abusive leaders. But they are spreading like cancer, including in NeoCalvinism. And they are wicked and evil men.

@ Lydia:
I know they didn’t give money when people not like them were in charge but I’ve been assuming they’ve been a little more supportive now that they know the Calvinists are in charge. The vitriol against “anti Calvinists” at SBC Voices seems to be increasing. Every time Rick Patrick posts over there they go insane. I’m wondering if some of his questions are starting to cause some issues.

I’m thinking the rise of neo Calvinism is due to
– Christianity no longer being a dominant voice in wider society
– secular society has continually rejected attempts at political influence (you don’t hear anything of the Moral Majority or Christian Coalition anymore).

Fundamentalist Christians want someone to tell them what to do, take them back to a golden age that never was. Gays back in the closet, women back in the kitchen, everyone back in their racial stereotypes.

Calvinism seems to be a ” we’ll take our toys & go home” sort of attitude.

K.D. wrote:

Can you give us some links on this baptism controversy….I have heard it is occurring, but have not read anything in detail concerning it…..thanks!

I will try, but (a) this morning I am going to be tied up with an awards ceremony at the school and (b) I don’t know where to start looking for links. I will however try to find something after I do all my g’mother duties this AM.

Here is how I remember it and maybe you can find the information. It had to do with the appointment of missionaries by the IMB. Apparently some of the appointees had originally been baptized by some other denom than SBC-some by immersion and some not. So the question is who needs to be re-baptized. They were requiring immersion for those who had not been immersed, and the question arose well what about those who were duly dunked but in some church that thought baptism was perhaps necessary for salvation or else thought some other idea that was not SBC idea. So the emphasis was on doctrine, not just procedure, and the emphasis was on the denom, not the guy doing the baptism. Then IIRC the issue was what if the actual person doing the baptism had some unapproved ideas at the time, regardless of what denom the baptizing church was with. And somebody said how would anybody know what somebody else thought at the time of the baptism, especially some little kid getting baptized who was perhaps supposed to furnish that information??? or not????

Now, I don’t have any idea who all said what. Of those who spoke to the issue I do not know how many were actually making decisions for the IMB vs how many were just pontificating about the issue.

That is how I remember it. If that information is incorrect then I plead senility.

My thought was: how did I ever get involved with this chicken outfit?

Good luck with the hunt. Please post the link(s) if you find something. It was a while back–back when I still had some vague hopes for both SBC and IMB.

Jack wrote:

I looked at the preview guide.

– 99 essential Christian doctrines
– special revelation (whatever that is)
– Everything is numbered – lot’s of truncated bible verses to make the authors point.
– This material will reveal everything.
– emphasis on obedience.

@ Christiane:
Hi JACK,
That ‘obedience’ emphasis … do they specify anything about obeying your conscience, or is it obedience to their ‘authority’ ?

Gram3 wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:
I may be wrong, but I’m guessing it’s Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville?
I did not think of that. Is SGL still governed by SGC? The whole thing surrounding Mahaney’s flight from Maryland is just really stinky.

Yes. Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville, according to its website, is part of Sovereign Grace Churches (formerly SGM). Sovereign Grace Churches has a website that explains how a church becomes a member of SGC, and it includes commitment to a Presbyterian form of government, not autonomy.

@ Anonymous:
What about James MacDonald. Harvest? He actually wrote that congregational polity is from Satan. He also was asked to preach at SBC pastors conference

Yes, he got lots of pushback so then said, “sorry” but considering that, horrible corruption despite being asked by the Neo Cals to advise on GP, how did his churches pass the polity smell test for SBC? Why are these charlatans fleeing to the protection of Mohlers SBC?

lowlandseer wrote:

Mortification of Spin drives a coach and horses through the New Calvinists’ argument for the Eternal Subordination of the Son!
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/node/40032?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=18864180f3-Mortification+of+Spin+combined&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-18864180f3-119263361#.V1Fkv5B4WrU

This is an excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.

The best part of the article, in my opinion, is the rejection of the idea of relations within the Trinity setting the pattern for human relations. I see no warrant for that.

@ Anonymous:
Nice try. You are protected here so I can’t show what a clever brain gamer you are.

This is the same tired old game that’s been played for years by the more clever of that movement. So what difference does doctrinal minutia make when it is really about power and authority….such claim isn’t power and authority… when explained by the clever in shadows.

Why anonymous for a lofty person like you who is protected?

@ Anonymous:
Then be a man since such men are actually listened to in the SBC and speak up. You know Mohler. Go public.

@ Celia:
He is the only non Cal who disagrees they will allow to comment, it seems. I keep hearing about others who are banned. Of course, I was banned long ago.

But first, I recieved a very creepy email from Miller trying to convince me of something JD Hall was pushing a few years earlier that was totally bonkers about Peter Lumpkins. My guess is they are used to thinking women are stupid and that sort of rumor works for them in their bubble. It really is creepy that grown men in ministry circles behave this way.

I don’t interact with these guys on email. I just say thanks for the info. I want nothing to do with them anymore. These are not the sort of people you reconcile with. Their normal is deception and who can trust that?

@ Celia:
@ Anonymous:
Aimee is trying real hard but scared to death her arguments will promote mutuality so her comp Doctrine becomes the default theme, sadly.

Perhaps she needs to study more about mutual submission and stop ignoring Eph 5:21, as one example

For another view on the serious problems with ESS check out Kevin Giles. He takes on Ware with a scholarly approach.

lowlandseer wrote:

Mortification of Spin drives a coach and horses through the New Calvinists’ argument for the Eternal Subordination of the Son!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing this! I have not check MOS this week yet. This summarizes my problem with the “eternal subordination of the Son”: it is a heresy and stands in opposition to the historical orthodox teaching of the Church.

Clearly, heresy is taking root in the SBC/Neo Cal churches: the eternal subordination of the Son is a Christological heresy, and the leaders of the Neo Cals (Mohler, Dever, et al) are adding to the Gospel (see Galatians 1:6-8, anathema) by adding requirements such as church covenants, tithing, etc., to the simplicity of salvation. I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:23-26:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices— mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law— justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

@ Lydia:
Miller has never allowed a woman to disagree with him or any of the fanbois at Voices. If a woman is allowed to post there it’s because she agrees enough with him mostly and on the really important things like Calvinism. He really comes off as someone on the verge of mental collapse.

@ Lea:
Ah! Thank you. I was having hard time deciphering what was written by whom.

@ Celia:
It truly is sad the way women are treated in the SBC. Before the CR women were given the opportunity to do what they are “biblically” not allowed now. I am not even sure the current administration would allow someone like Lottie Moon to be a missionary.

Lydia wrote:

Why anonymous for a lofty person like you who is protected?

Liability.
Or Plausible Deniability for his Milords.
Whispering/smear campaigns are always Anonymous or a generic “Concerned People”.

Paula Rice wrote:

In my opinion the ESS isn’t a theological basis for anything other than the live-in relationship between Neo-cals and Catholics.

Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) is NOT a Catholic doctrine, I can assure you.
ESS attacks the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I would say ESS is a fairly modern invention of fundamentalist-patriarchists and has no other purpose than to shore up their teaching of ‘submission’ of wives to their husbands. It’s a shame they have tried to mess with the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but in the end, it works out that their ESS proposals further discredit their ‘submission’ teachings that demean the dignity not only of women, but also of the men who practice patriarchy and make themselves ‘gods’ in a religion that places ‘manhood’ as receiving some kind of divine right.

No, PAULA RICE, Catholic teaching does NOT embrace ESS. Never has. Never will. It was the early Councils of the Catholic Church that defined and defended the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against a lot of heresy, in fact.

Lea wrote:

A lot of this stuff I’m reading blows my mind. I feel like my religion is being hijacked by the kind of cultish people who should be living in a compound. Why are women putting up with this?

Lol! Mohler as Warren Jeffs.

Why do young women raised in America convert to Islam and start covering?

Ever since the advent of the self help genre, people are actually drawn to rules, roles and formulas they don’t see society promoting. And there are plenty of charlatans and cultists quite willing to oblige.

This is one reason I harp on personal responsibility, free will and independent thinking. People are selling off their most prized possession: themselves.

Celia wrote:

@ mot:
The SBC I remember was a woman couldn’t be Pastor but she did everything else in the church and men were encouraged to get with the program and help out at home and with kids etc. None of this nonsense of “women’s work vs men’s work” It was “complementarian” lite. Of course those were the days when Baptist didn’t smoke, drink, dance or have private prayer language. Also a man wouldn’t be considered qualified to be the head Pastor until he’d put in some years as youth minister or some associate minister position. Not like today where these kids come out of seminary and believe themselves to be qualified to boss around people old enough to be their grandparents. I could go on a rant about how things used to be.

I feel the same way and I’m not that old. You should read this MoS sunday school article and all the effort and twists and turns put into trying to decide what women can and can’t do on sunday school. Do you really think Jesus would be worried about such things? Such nonsense to me.

http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/what-is-sunday-school-what-does-it-appear-to-be-and-who-can-teach-it#.V1GF5jZf3yA

@ Lea:
God gave us the 10 Commandments to show us that He values Himself and us!
https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2016/05/25/gods-acknowledgment-of-self-and-the-full-circle-of-the-ten-commandments/

Lea wrote:

Why are women putting up with this?

I have said before that women in bondage to New Calvinism may very well prove to be the Achilles heel that brings the movement to a halt. When NC “girls” (that’s what Chandler calls his female members) rise up en masse, proclaim “Wait just a darn minute here!”, and drag their sorry husbands/boy friends out of the mess, we might just see this thing end. It will take some strong girls to make that stand, to challenge the patriarchy of New Calvinism and be willing to experience shunning and excommunication. But Jesus will come looking for them.

Max wrote:

The ease of entry of both MacDonald and Mahaney into SBC without a challenge are clear signs that a once-great non-Calvinist denomination has surrendered to the reformed movement.

I think it shows that the SBC leadership has succeeded in making the ability to garner a following *the* criteria for acceptance. The *only* think that disqualifies a Great Man from leadership is sexual misconduct that has been discovered. Honestly I think that the lust for power is behind all of this, and Calvinism is a more hospitable framework for that right now among Baptists, so that is their messaging. Founders are true 1689 believers, but the others I think are more pragmatic.

@ Lea:

From the article:

” However, Todd isn’t so much looking for an ordained person, or someone who may be called to ordination in the future. He wants someone who is equipped to teach and who is a man, as to not cause confusion.”

Women cause confusion?

The rest is bizarre as in, ‘the problem of sunday school in the same building as the worship’. Huh? Since when do buildings have spiritual and gender significance? Is there sacred furniture, too?

Lydia wrote:

ESS just blew my mind.

Me, too. Jaw dropped and eyes became saucers. Seriously? The Trinity is a social hierarchy?

Grudem, Ware, Piper and the other Usual Suspects are obsessed with hierarchy, and *nothing* is beyond being used as a means toward that end. As you and I have discussed before, the essential and eternal subordination of women to men cannot be found in the texts and their formulation of “equal in dignity, value, and worth” cannot be squared with “eternally ordained to be subordinate.” So they have to re-write the Doctrine of God in order to try to make sense out of nonsense.

Lydia wrote:

Women cause confusion?

Apparently this is because of ‘authority’. If you just accept that true authority rests with god, not man, you don’t have these problems.

@ Lea:
I laugh at the disconnect some of these women have. Beth Moore is a heretic because she teaches and men can go to her conferences are whatever so she’s “assumed authority” over men. Don’t these women realize that men can wander into any ol’ public blog on the internet and read what women are writing? How is that different than what Moore is doing? Women can teach on the internet and proclaim they only teach to women but a woman can’t teach at a conference because men who don’t know any better might go and listen to a woman teaching.

Gram3 wrote:

Their mantra is “ESS has *always* been the orthodox teaching of the Church.” Millard Erickson does a good job refuting that claim, IMO.

Gram3, thanks for calling attention to that. I used Erickson’s Christian Theology in a course and found it very readable. I just peeked at his book Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? over at Amazon and it looks good too.
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Tampering-Trinity-Assessment-Subordination/dp/0825425891

@ Gram3:
Yes. The current Holy Place is scripture and the church building. Never mind Jesus rebuking the temple.

I wonder if women can teach other women there? They can deceive their own kind (wink). Oh, and children. I wonder what the cut off age for women teaching boys and it becoming sin time?

I am not sure what denomination they are but the convo on this blog brought out that within their Ecclesiastical judicial process (oh my) women can be witnesses but not judges.

(Even though Paul says they will judge the angels. Wait! That must mean the angels are all female! :o)

My sinful grandmother, grad of Moody back when they welcomed women ministers, taught mixed classes for decades. Her specialty was Romans. My mom and aunts grew up in that world and knew no different. It was just not a big deal. It was about gifting, not gender.

@ Ted:
I have read it multiple times. I recommend reading it along with Ware’s Father, Son and Holy Spirit to see how their arguments and references compare.

Lea wrote:

let’s put you behind a table instead of a lectern.

Well, you know, that lectern/pulpit is holy ground. I’m sure you have heard how important it is to be at church on Sunday morning to hear the preaching of the man of god . . .

Wow. Just scanned through the Gospel Project’s Twitter account. While their curriculum “examines how all Scripture gives testimony to Jesus Christ”, Christ is frequently supplanted by scripture in their tweets:

Today: “The Bible is the inspired Word from God and is the ultimate standard of authority for the Christian.”
May 28: “From generation to generation, God’s Word is clear and His Word is to be received with joy and gladness.”
May 25: “Our churches must be built on and sustained by the Word of God.”
May 25: “Without Scripture, we would not know what God is like or how we can live in relationship with Him.”

Lydia wrote:

But she was a hot ticket in the seeker mega world in those days.

People LOVE some Beth Moore. I don’t really read that sort of thing, so I never got it. I might have gotten one of her or Joyce Meyers books as a gift, but didn’t read them.

Jack wrote:

I’m thinking the rise of neo Calvinism is due to
– Christianity no longer being a dominant voice in wider society
– secular society has continually rejected attempts at political influence (you don’t hear anything of the Moral Majority or Christian Coalition anymore).
Fundamentalist Christians want someone to tell them what to do, take them back to a golden age that never was. Gays back in the closet, women back in the kitchen, everyone back in their racial stereotypes.
Calvinism seems to be a ” we’ll take our toys & go home” sort of attitude.

Jack, this is spot on–when I was an elder it amazed me how many people in the congregation wanted what I can best term as kicka$$ elders. We would get criticism for not being authoritative enough, being invitational rather than imperative. Sad…

Lea wrote:

Celia wrote:

@ mot:
The SBC I remember was a woman couldn’t be Pastor but she did everything else in the church and men were encouraged to get with the program and help out at home and with kids etc. None of this nonsense of “women’s work vs men’s work” It was “complementarian” lite. Of course those were the days when Baptist didn’t smoke, drink, dance or have private prayer language. Also a man wouldn’t be considered qualified to be the head Pastor until he’d put in some years as youth minister or some associate minister position. Not like today where these kids come out of seminary and believe themselves to be qualified to boss around people old enough to be their grandparents. I could go on a rant about how things used to be.

I feel the same way and I’m not that old. You should read this MoS sunday school article and all the effort and twists and turns put into trying to decide what women can and can’t do on sunday school. Do you really think Jesus would be worried about such things? Such nonsense to me.

http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/what-is-sunday-school-what-does-it-appear-to-be-and-who-can-teach-it#.V1GF5jZf3yA

No, it’s all about them, Jesus has little to do with their decisions and heaven forbid you question them on it….I found that out when I was banned from SBC Today.

Celia wrote:

@ Lea:
I laugh at the disconnect some of these women have. Beth Moore is a heretic because she teaches and men can go to her conferences are whatever so she’s “assumed authority” over men. Don’t these women realize that men can wander into any ol’ public blog on the internet and read what women are writing? How is that different than what Moore is doing? Women can teach on the internet and proclaim they only teach to women but a woman can’t teach at a conference because men who don’t know any better might go and listen to a woman teaching.

That reminds me of Piper’s ridiculous logic about men reading theology books wriiten by women. I don’t remember the specifics since it was so absurd.

Gram3 wrote:

The *only* think that disqualifies a Great Man from leadership is sexual misconduct that has been discovered.

Emphasis on HAS BEEN DISCOVERED.
“If nobody knows of my sin, I Am Not Shamed. I Have Not REALLY Sinned.”

Lea wrote:

FW Rez wrote:
May 25: “Without Scripture, we would not know what God is like or how we can live in relationship with Him.”
This one is just flat out wrong. According to scripture! Wish I could remember the exact verse(s). Ahhhh.

Rom 1:20

Lydia wrote:

Did no one tell them in Seminary the “Word of God” is Jesus Christ?

There seems to be some conflating going on.

@ K.D.:
K.D.

I also offered to be banned and they banned me. I stand by everything I said because I believe it is the truth. The CR destroyed the SBC.

mot wrote:

@ K.D.:
K.D.

I also offered to be banned and they banned me. I stand by everything I said because I believe it is the truth. The CR destroyed the SBC.

And Mot, we’re better off…and you are correct, the CR destroyed the SBC…

Bridget wrote:

Hence the issue with making scripture the ultimate authority. Too often is not what scripture says that is considered authoritative, but what someone says it says.

Bridget wrote:

Lea wrote:

FW Rez wrote:
May 25: “Without Scripture, we would not know what God is like or how we can live in relationship with Him.”
This one is just flat out wrong. According to scripture! Wish I could remember the exact verse(s). Ahhhh.

Rom 1:20

That’s definitely one I was thinking of…there are more I think but that one seems to get ignored a lot.

FW Rez wrote:

Hence the issue with making scripture the ultimate authority. Too often it’s not what scripture says that is considered authoritative, but what someone says it says.

Years ago within SBC ranks there was a debate about ultimate authority. Did it rest in Jesus or the Word? I had to chuckle when I first heard that, since Jesus is the Word! Within SBC ranks following revision of the Baptist Faith & Message in 2000, there has been a gradual shift away from a Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture. Calvinists mistrust personal Christian experience in which the indwelling Christ teaches believers through the Holy Spirit (priesthood of the believer, soul competency) … that’s a major reason why I mistrust them! The Bible, and man’s interpretation of it, should never be elevated above Jesus! He is Lord of the Bible! There is way too much emphasis on Calvin and his systematic theology of the Doctrines of Grace in reformed ranks, to the point of diminishing the very person and ministry of Christ! If you listen closely to New Calvinist sermons, you will hear a lot about “God”, very little about Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit.

@ Christiane:
Come back and talk to me about this when the Catholic Church is no longer a male hierarchy, which is exactly what the ESS was devised to support.

I said the ESS provides the substructure for the live-in relationship between Catholics and Neo-cals because of the similarity they share between them in how they structure what they both call “church.” It’s not a marriage marriage, but over time it’s become, shall we say, a common law.

@ Serving Kids In Japan:
Of course! I forgot about “sanctified testosterone” taught at T$G.

mot wrote:

@ K.D.:
K.D.

I also offered to be banned and they banned me. I stand by everything I said because I believe it is the truth. The CR destroyed the SBC.

The Neo Cal takeover was made possible by the CR.

Paula Rice wrote:

Confusing.

IIRC, early on in the 70’s there were egalitarians who grounded the idea of equality in the Trinity or at least tried to use the Trinity to fend off objections to egalitarianism in the mirror image of what Female Subordinationists do nowadays. I do not have a reference for that and am going off memory (!) but I believe that is what they are talking about when they say that egalitarians have misused the intra-Trinitarian relationships to support egalitarianism. IMO neither side has a good argument on that ground.

Lydia wrote:

The Neo Cal takeover was made possible by the CR.

That should be obvious to all at this point. Once thought to be nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” in the blogosphere, the cat is out of the bag now and the New Calvinists are entrenched. The “Conservative” Resurgence opened the door for The “Calvinist” Resurgence.

Gram3 wrote:

IIRC, early on in the 70’s

Before my time, then. It doesn’t seem to be common now, I think.

But you know, humans aren’t god or the trinity. Half the problem with these guys is that they take metaphors in the bible WAY too seriously. Christ is not literally married to the church, men are not literally Christ…maybe they should take a lit class before they get to theology.

@PaulaRice, I second what Chriatiane said in a previous thread. If you want to bash the Catholic Church, fine. But please, I beg you, bash it based on what it actually teaches. And to find out what it actually teaches, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is the authoritative source for Catholic Teaching. Hearsay, rumors, old wives’ tales, and anti-Catholic websites are all irrelevant. The Catechism is where you will find what we believe. Thank you!!

__

Celia wrote:

All the quotes and all the “dig for more” references are Calvinists on the Gospel Project. So anyone using the Gospel Project who wants to go “deeper” is sent directly to Calvinists sources such as Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll and all the rest.

Bingo!

—

  __

Election® : “The Mission Of God?”

hmmm…

Deb,

hey,

  Make no mastake,  Lifeway’s  ‘The Gospel Project’® material is apparently a very unique optimum combination of calvinista ‘stealthy doctrinal craft’ (R)  projecting itself in steady, consistent progression out onto Jesus Christ’s mission for His church.

So what else is new?

huh?

  All Calvinist faithfully subscribe to John Calvin’s “Institutes Of The Christian Religion” , right? 

What?

That ‘valuable’ resource is also presently available online for free. [1] 

(There appears to be no need to sign-up for anything,  one can just download it and read it today!)

Please remember: “Calvinism is Christianity”…  [2] 

hahahahahaha

ATB

Sopy
__
[1] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html

[2] quote from Charles Spurgeon.

—

Max wrote:

I have said before that women in bondage to New Calvinism may very well prove to be the Achilles heel that brings the movement to a halt.

If not, it will be the kids who grow up in it.

Joe2 wrote:

I think the same women who disagree with the pastor were at a supermarket and given poor service wouldn’t think twice before complaining to customer service.

Unless, of course, for example, the store manager were to explain to the women the price of the item available for purchase on his shelf was different from the price of the same item that was advertised at a lower price in the paper, which was what the women had come in to complain about.

All the store manager needed to do was tell the women he had the authority to determine the value of the items in his store, and that what was advertised in the circular was irrelevant. “The items on my shelves,” he explained, “are considered male in value and their prices are set. One of the shelf items may be advertised at a lower price in the circular, but when that happens they become “female” and therefore subjugated to the value I place on them. So, you must purchase the item at the price listed on the shelf. There are no discounts.”

Then some of the women were like, “Oh! That explains it!” whereas others felt a little hoodwinked!

FW Rez wrote:

On a lighter note, while I have issues with BFM2k, I have always maintained that I would gladly sign it – if that is what my wife told me to do.

Ha! Wouldn’t that be in direct violation of Article XVIII, therefore making your signature invalid???

Paula Rice wrote:

Paula Rice

I thought you would appreciate being informed about ESS not being a Catholic doctrine. There are a host of folks who pass on errors about my Church, and most of the time, I take a minute and let them know they had the wrong info. I think that is appreciated, if the people are honestly misinformed and are of good will.
Most people are of good will, I have found.

ESS is an offensive attack on the very orthodox Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, PAULA. So I can confirm this for you with no qualms. Some years ago, I wanted to find out about my Southern Baptist grandmother’s denomination, so I went to Southern Baptists to do it. I started, with the grace of God, at Wade Burleson’s blog, and was helped tremendously by many good people there.
I recommend going to the ‘source’ for correct info, especially these days. It’s a good practice AND it is a respectful thing to do when interacting with people of faith from different traditions.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Some of the strongest, gutsiest women I know are nuns. If you gave them this bunk about complementarianism, they’d bite your head off.

True, that. I was taught by nuns and trained as a teacher by nuns . . . those ladies don’t play. I owe a huge debt to their guidance and their good example.

Celia wrote:

Women can teach on the internet and proclaim they only teach to women but a woman can’t teach at a conference because men who don’t know any better might go and listen to a woman teaching.

Hmm. Maybe that is related to this:
Lea wrote:

“If a child were to ask you what it means to be a man or woman, would you be able to biblically respond?”

FW Rez wrote:

Wow. Just scanned through the Gospel Project’s Twitter account. While their curriculum “examines how all Scripture gives testimony to Jesus Christ”, Christ is frequently supplanted by scripture in their tweets:

Today: “The Bible is the inspired Word from God and is the ultimate standard of authority for the Christian.”
May 28: “From generation to generation, God’s Word is clear and His Word is to be received with joy and gladness.”
May 25: “Our churches must be built on and sustained by the Word of God.”
May 25: “Without Scripture, we would not know what God is like or how we can live in relationship with Him.”

They teach these things, then assert their own authority to define what the scriptures say, thereby trapping the unwary.

Paula Rice wrote:
In my opinion the ESS isn’t a theological basis for anything other than the live-in relationship between Neo-cals and Catholics.

Christiane wrote: Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) is NOT a Catholic doctrine, I can assure you.

The Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy is a semi-Arian heresy proposed by Wayne Grudem to justify his Complementarism beliefs.

Here’s more information that I posted on Sept 15, 2015, at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab on the topic:

Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, The Wartburg Watch’s EPastor on Sundays, on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/eternal-subordination-and-sbc-divorce.html
“Here’s the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominate–be it the husband or the wife– “the curse.” The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call “the norm” what the Bible calls “the curse.” When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).
Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that “the Gentiles lord over others” and “exert authority,” but “it shall not be this way among you” (Matthew 20:24-26).
Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”
Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9
ReplyReply w/Quote (select the text to quote then click this button)

This is a sincere question: Do Calvinists stop every five minutes to ask for forgiveness for their cold and carnal hearts? I know that I’m a sinner, but I get this vibe from these books, leaders, and believers that we’re all so deprived that we can’t make a decision about lunch without sinning.

Not only that, but do people like JD Greear, Al Mohler, Piper, Ligon, etc., really follow this? I listen to these people preach and I’m literally depressed afterward because I begin analyzing my life and start wondering what I’m not doing right. Is JD Greear depressed after he preaches because if he’s not, I don’t fully understand why he’s not.

Lydia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
Nice try. You are protected here so I can’t show what a clever brain gamer you are.

This is the same tired old game that’s been played for years by the more clever of that movement. So what difference does doctrinal minutia make when it is really about power and authority….such claim isn’t power and authority… when explained by the clever in shadows.

Why anonymous for a lofty person like you who is protected?

Thanks!

I understand you to say it’s about power and doctrine.

I get what you are saying. So if people are demonstrably not Calvinist, they still are Calvinist because they are in the inner circle.

Lydia wrote:

@ Lydia:
Oops, how did that happen? That response was to lowlander.

It happened because you allow me to live in your head – rent free! 🙂

Unepetiteanana wrote:

This is a sincere question: Do Calvinists stop every five minutes to ask for forgiveness for their cold and carnal hearts? I know that I’m a sinner, but I get this vibe from these books, leaders, and believers that we’re all so deprived that we can’t make a decision about lunch without sinning.

Not only that, but do people like JD Greear, Al Mohler, Piper, Ligon, etc., really follow this? I listen to these people preach and I’m literally depressed afterward because I begin analyzing my life and start wondering what I’m not doing right. Is JD Greear depressed after he preaches because if he’s not, I don’t fully understand why he’s not.

It’s a good question, one I’ve wondered about before myself. Do these men depress themselves as much as they rain depression on their listeners?

I believe there is a reason for the mindset. They have traded the person of Christ for the rule of law. The newness of life we are called to is the life of Christ, not the death of law. The law brings sin and death (Romans 7-8). There is no blessing inherent in the law. Is the fruit of law any surprise then?

We are blessed and lifted up when we focus our attention on Christ, when we think on his attributes and all he has done for us. Focusing our attention on ourselves and the law brings only darkness.

siteseer wrote:

Focusing our attention on ourselves and the law brings only darkness.

This preaches!!

Lydia wrote:

@ Lydia:
Oops, how did that happen? That response was to lowlander.

Hello. Can you point me to the response that was meant for me? (Smileyface- I don’t know how to get the emos to work!)

@ Christiane:
You’d have to begin by first understanding what I was saying in order to work in clearing up any misinformation. You’re not understanding me. That’s not my problem. If you don’t agree with me, just ignore me and move on.

Christiane wrote:

I owe a huge debt to their guidance and their good example.

I remember some mean nuns and drunk priests. Not all peaches from my perspective.

@ Velour:
Great. That’s your opinion. But your opinion doesn’t serve as the basis for my opinions or my beliefs. So deal with that and back off. You don’t see me trying to force you to agree with me, either, whereas you’re behaving like like a bully, calling for reinforcements from your gang. Ideas can be divisive. Some people have difficulty dealing in a mature manner with differences, and seek to silence descending voices them as if free speech wasn’t a thing. And because this is my impression, and free will is also a thing, I’m choosing to no longer interact with you because you’ve lost my respect. So, peace out.

@ Velour:
again, yep.

@ Paula Rice:
wow. she’s disagreeing to censor you.

they are not the same thing.

@ numo:
should have said ‘not trying to censor you.’

my bad; weird editing function here.

@ Paula Rice:

Sorry, Paula, I have no clue what you’re referring to. I don’t know the other posters here, haven’t called for “reinforcements” from anybody, don’t have “a gang” here.

The topics you’ve raised, like ESS, are well-documented and were proposed by Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, both Protestant evangelicals.

It is strange that ESS supporters try to pin ESS as an ‘orthodox’ teaching. I had noticed this over at SBCvoices and commented on it there as inaccurate. Apparently the word ‘orthodox’ is used to put a stamp of approval on a man-made doctrine to try to sell it as something that comes from ancient Church. But a little study of Church history, especially about the working of the early Councils in the areas of ‘Who Christ was’ and ‘the Holy Trinity’, really can help someone who is ill-informed.

Paula Rice wrote:

You’d have to begin by first understanding what I was saying in order to work in clearing up any misinformation. You’re not understanding me.

Well, let me give it a shot. You seem to be saying that if people arrive at positions that seem to have some similarities, then there must be some link or similarity in how they got to those positions. You may be limiting that to the similarities themselves or not, I can’t quite know if that is the case.

So let me observe, as one whose mother tongue is ‘baptist’ and who has spent an enormous amount of time and effort trying to learn ‘catholic’ as a second language, you all are speaking different languages. Baptist thinking processes as well as Baptist presuppositions are quite different from Catholic thinking processes and presuppositions, even when the same or similar words are being used. I am thinking that you all are not going to be able to understand each other in any way that is really understanding. Now, either of you could learn to more or less think in the same paradigms as the other, but unless that happens there may be no hope for meaningful communication.

Likewise you and the RC people are using different approaches to argumentation and that seems to me to be typical of your all’s respective religious training. Your approach is confrontational and rather in your face, similar to what one of my children was taught at Liberty U to be an appropriate stance in apologetics. In my experience Catholics are more apt to not argue with that approach, and in fact tend to shy away from apologetics per se when possible. When these two approaches encounter each other sometimes unpleasantness results, in my experience.

So, as to paragraph one, is that what you are saying?

Speaking of Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem’s semi-Arian heresy, The Eternal Subordination of the Son, Ken F. made this insightful post on May 25th here:

““Let me see if I understand Ware’s logic. Woman was made from man, which makes woman lower than man. Man was made from dirt, which makes man lower than dirt? No, wait, that won’t work. Ok, lets try this. Man was made after all the plants and animals, which means man has dominion over all of them. Woman was made after man, which means woman has dominion over man. No, wait, that doesn’t work either. What’s a poor complementarian to do?”

Paula Rice wrote:

@ roebuck:
It’s my opinion. I don’t think it’s unfounded. Please ignore me if you are sympathetic towards a particular church that would lead you to conclude my opinion is “rude.” Would you like me to say I think you’re “biased?” No, probably not.

Paula,

I don’t know where the chip on your shoulder is from, but it’s very obviously there.

I don’t have any particular sympathy or antipathy towards the RCC – I was just pointing out a serious flaw in your logic.

I think you’re being both biased and rude, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t think it’s unfounded. Just ignore it if you don’t like it.

Christiane wrote:

It is strange that ESS supporters try to pin ESS as an ‘orthodox’ teaching. I had noticed this over at SBCvoices and commented on it there as inaccurate. Apparently the word ‘orthodox’ is used to put a stamp of approval on a man-made doctrine to try to sell it as something that comes from ancient Church.

Spot on. And they’ve equated their Complementarian teaching as part of The Gospel, i.e. if you don’t believe Comp you don’t believe the *real God* and the *real Bible*. Comp was heavily promoted in the 1990’s.

Christiane wrote:

@ Paula Rice:
Paula, when people try to help clear up misinformation, they are ALWAYS coming from a position of strength. You did not know this?

That depends on the “misinformation” and the person trying to clear it up. Sorry, but have had too many YRR say the same to me. Sounds like Mahaney and his favorite proverb about presenting a case until another comes along.

I don’t agree with Paula’s position of ESS/Catholicism/male hierarchy.

I knew too many seeker megas that were authoritarian. They just hid it well and it wasn’t inherent in their doctrinal stance. Their polity? Yes.

roebuck wrote:

1) NeoCals made up ESS to justify their complementarian position.

I think that the Calvinistas seized on George Knight III’s work and Grudem popularized it through his ST which is inexpensive. Thus the cancer spread. Let’s give Knight his due, however, because he was and is not YRR. He was old-line PCA/OPC before the current crop of YRR were a gleam in their mothers’ eyes.

You are exactly right that Knight contrived ESS to justify the “equal in being but unequal in role” formulation for gender relations. The reason that was necessary was because the PCA was being pressured to ordain women who were being ordained in the PCUSA. And the PCUSA still had a *lot* of relatively conservative folks who could be won over to the brand spanking new (1973) PCA if the PCA could solve the woman question while *also* reassuring women that we are “equal.”

@ Velour:
Yep. Ware teaches that women are not made in the “direct” image of God. They are a derivative.

Ken F does a good job of processing the outcome of Wares teaching!

Velour wrote:

Her husband was quite ill at the time as well and she was forced to sell her blood to raise funds to pay bills, receive charitable donations from churches.

I remember Dr. Klouda’s story. It broke my heart.

@ Christiane:
This is all true, and true of most Episcopalians and many (not all) Lutherans as well. It works so much better than telling people that they’re flat-out wrong (among other things).

Though I do know Catholics who are the next thing to tradddies, who would profoundly disagree with you and others who espouse your views. (Mine, too, but since I’m not Catholic…)

@ Christiane:

I’m not sure we can generalize that much. I’ve had run ins with pretty pushy Catholics (and ones who liked to ‘joke’ that women shouldn’t vote). Maybe it is more of a fundamentalism pushy argument scale?

Not on this board though.

@ Christiane:
I wish their leaders had done more dialoguing when the priest pedophile situation started to come out.

numo wrote:

the next thing to tradddies

LOL …these ‘Catholics’ have a thin veneer of Catholicism and are fundamentalist-evangelicals to the core
P.S. Francis just side-lined Cardinal Burke for his far-right politics and extreme views; everyone understood what Burke had been up to as he made no secret of it. 🙂

@ Lydia:
We make no excuses for the horror of what happened. That is why I support blogs like this one, LYDIA. The trouble in the whole Church ain’t over yet. There is still much work to be done to protect innocents from abuse.
Power to the Deebs!

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:

Her husband was quite ill at the time as well and she was forced to sell her blood to raise funds to pay bills, receive charitable donations from churches.

I remember Dr. Klouda’s story. It broke my heart.

Believe me that sort of treatment is a direct result of comp Doctrine.

They keep telling us it is about their caring for and being responsible for women. But what it really does is make them see women as lesser beings.

@ Velour:
These people seem void of love.

Lea wrote:

Over at Aimee’s site, she has an article a few weeks ago about sunday school and whether women can teach it. Apparently Todd doesn’t think so.

In the Greek texts, the Apostle Paul wrote that one woman (singular) was to stop teaching one man (singular) error and to learn correctly. The issue was error, not gender.

Those who believe in denying women the right to use their gift of teaching mistranslated this word for their Bibles (like ESV) to the plural “women”, making it appear the Apostle Paul issued this decree.

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Christiane wrote:
Velour wrote:
Her husband was quite ill at the time as well and she was forced to sell her blood to raise funds to pay bills, receive charitable donations from churches.
I remember Dr. Klouda’s story. It broke my heart.
Believe me that sort of treatment is a direct result of comp Doctrine.
They keep telling us it is about their caring for and being responsible for women. But what it really does is make them see women as lesser beings.
Completely agree.
What kills me is when they come back with some weird argument about some just wanting glory when they want an equal place! Projection much?

It seems like it has more in common with radical Islam and the Taliban than with Biblical Christianity.

Brad/FuturistGuy invented a word for it: “Shehad” (She+had, sounds like jihad) for these Comp Christians’ “War on Women”.

Hi All,

Praise report: Someone donated the last bit of money to long-time TWW poster Jeannette Altes’ gofundme account so she could make her June rent that is due. I had been fervantly praying for this since yesterday!

Jeannette has fallen on hard times, is being treated for a tumor, lost her job, and does not have funds.

She will need additional help $500 starting next week for bills that are coming due.
Oh here is the GoFundMe account: https://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp

Thank you all again!

Christiane wrote:

Yep, ‘dialoguing’ is a Catholic favorite for respectful communication with other faith traditions, and it does yield increased understanding and clarifications.

I am not RC, but I have very much enjoyed dialogue with them over the years. I have found the more knowledgeable they are the more they are willing to engage in friendly dialogue. I’ve also had some great dialogue with Muslims. What I found most interesting in my conversations with Muslims is their inability to “prove” what they believe. It’s not that they don’t want to, they just don’t have the background. This is pretty much because Islam has not been not self-critical like Christianity has been over the centuries, so they don’t have a history of apologetics to draw from. I have not found that same willingness to dialogue among Calvinists. I think it’s because they’ve been taught that anything contrary to Calvinism is heresey. So they tend to limit their exposure to non-Calvinistic ideas. But this is just my limited experience. I very much appreciate the respectful dialogue on this site. It’s what gave me the courage to start posting a few weeks ago.

Paula Rice wrote:

I also believe the church was born of the Spirit, and is “a house not made with hands.” Too often what happens is we end up creating and participating in forms of religion we call “church,” but are man-made and we wonder why we’re not experiencing God. Whenever this happens, liberty is lost and the power of the gospel is restricted. This is where my concern lies in the matters we talk about here.

I know how you feel about this religion stuff we all have created. It’s become pretty messy. I posted this link on the last thread, but I want to highlight it again because this lecture series is so applicable to what you posted here. I think you would be blessed by hearing it, even if you don’t agree with it. Baxter Kruger highlights the difference between what he calls the G-O-D “god” who stands ready to smite us in his wrath until he is appeased by some kind of innocent suffering, and the Father/Son/Spirit view of God revealed in the Bible that the early church preached. The contrast is stark. G-O-D scares us, so we do whatever we can to run and hide. This is the “god” of the Calvinists. It’s all they’ve been taught. They are afraid to take another look. But the Trinity has been relational from all of eternity and spares no expense in drawing all mankind (not just a few elect) into that relationship. It’s more like how God is pictured in the parable of the prodigal son – he disregards his glory to run out and seek both of his sons. If you have time I highly recommend listening to this series: http://perichoresis.org/the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag/. I’m sure he has the same info in a book, but I have not gotten around to reading more than one book by him so I don’t know which one to recommend.

Paula Rice wrote:

Hope this helps you understand me a little.

Indeed it does help. You have some good points that you have explained well. Thanks for doing that. I do think that some of us have not understood where you are coming from, and this helps enormously. I think your last sentence about the power of the gospel being restricted where there is a loss of liberty opens up room for lots of thinking about how that happens and what the limits of it may or may not be. I see possibilities for some good interchange of ideas as time goes along.

numo wrote:

ESS is considered a heresy by all mainstream denominations. Based on the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Crred (sometimes rendered as “statement”). The latter is very clear that there is no hierarchy within the Trinity, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal.

Numo, I hope that’s true, but there’s a line in the Nicene Creed that I don’t recite when it comes around–the part about the Holy Spirit. Whether it includes the Western church’s “filioque” (reference to the Son) or not, it subordinates the Holy Spirit:

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

@ Lydia:
Lol. Yes thanks. I will work my way through it over the weekend. I think the MoS blog is essentially complementarian, as I am, but perhaps conscious of the extremes to which the New Calvinists go to try to justify their position.

Patti wrote:

The poor foreign widow, who is fiercely loyal to her dead husband’s mother, catches the eye of a kind and generous man who pursues her and marries her taking her out of a life of poverty. Tell me if that isn’t a script of a romantic comedy that my wife would want me to watch with her.”
I just posted this for a taste of what the Gospel Project leaders teach. Why can’t we just read the Bible for ourselves. It gets so twisted by the time these guys chew it up.

Actually, Ruth pursued Boaz. Talk about twisting scripture to fit their doctrine!

Patti wrote:

catches the eye of a kind and generous man who pursues her

She just happens to ‘catch his eye’ when she sneaks in to sleep at his feet in the middle of the night?

Nancy2 wrote:

Patti wrote:

The poor foreign widow, who is fiercely loyal to her dead husband’s mother, catches the eye of a kind and generous man who pursues her and marries her taking her out of a life of poverty. Tell me if that isn’t a script of a romantic comedy that my wife would want me to watch with her.”
I just posted this for a taste of what the Gospel Project leaders teach. Why can’t we just read the Bible for ourselves. It gets so twisted by the time these guys chew it up.

Actually, Ruth pursued Boaz. Talk about twisting scripture to fit their doctrine!

That too. Did they even read that story???

Nancy2 wrote:

Actually, Ruth pursued Boaz. Talk about twisting scripture to fit their doctrine!

You took the words out of my mouth! They have turned the story around completely backwards!

This reminds me of the way that Driscoll butchered the book of Esther.

Gram3 wrote:

Let me get this straight. These guys are the “serious” ones. Yet they take the book of Ruth which is rich with typology and make it into a comedy? There is something very off-putting about what Trevin Wax approved, and it goes way beyond the condescending remark about his wife (whoever wrote that drivel.)

Did they mention the legal responsibility Boaz had to marry Ruth since he was her kinsman redeemer? He only did what was required of him after Ruth took the initiative to take care of his “cold feet” problem. Sometimes it takes a good woman to get the man to rise to the occasion. It’s a team effort. This explains why “it is not good for the man to be alone.”

@ Velour:

Forced to sell her blood?! Literally? Wow

@ Gram3:

Agree with you, for sure, Gram3.

I also do not think they have a clue what it is like for many women today, even within their own little bubbles, based on the treatment of women like Shauna Marquis and so many others.

@ Velour:
PP is an evil human being who has destroyed many lives.

mot wrote:

@ Velour:
PP is an evil human being who has destroyed many lives.

I’m not in that denomination but I have gathered that about him from what I’ve come across.

Check out this helpful guide on “Talking to toddlers about sin” – https://www.gospelproject.com/2016/02/03/mistakes-or-wrong-choices-talking-to-toddlers-about-sin/.

Really?!?!?!?!?

Ken F wrote:

If we think that it’s ok to resist these other curses, then why would we in any way want to retain the curse of men ruling over women?

Because We MEN Personally Benefit from it, of course.

numo wrote:

@ Christiane:
This is all true, and true of most Episcopalians and many (not all) Lutherans as well. It works so much better than telling people that they’re flat-out wrong (among other things).

Though I do know Catholics who are the next thing to tradddies, who would profoundly disagree with you and others who espouse your views. (Mine, too, but since I’m not Catholic…)

Thankfully I know the RC Rad-Trads only online, not in Real Life. Kinda like some of the converts to Orthodoxy I know online. They can often be really obnoxious, but no one I know in Real Life, either Catholic or Orthodox, is remotely like that. The Internet gives the lunatic fringe a great big megaphone. But believe me, the crazies are not representative of anyone or anything.

Velour wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Velour wrote:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
@PaulaRice, I second what Chriatiane said in a previous thread. If you want to bash the Catholic Church, fine. But please, I beg you, bash it based on what it actually teaches.
As Deb posted on the other thread, the “whose denomination is worse” can take place in the Open Discussion thread (on the right of the page here).
It has no place here.
Thank you.
Hi, Velour! I always love your posts, but I am mystified by this one. Where did I diss someone else’s church? Au contraire, I was merely defending my church from attacks by someone else. Rather gratuitous attacks at that. Surely one is allowed to respond to misinformation? Surely, if anyone should be directed to the other thread, it should be the attacker, not the person offering the rather innocuous response to the attack? Doncha think?

Regrets for the misunderstanding. My post was not directed to you. It was directed to another poster and Deb’s reminder (one of our hostesses/blog queens here) to use the Open Discussion forum for the “who has the worst denomination” topic so the threads didn’t get derailed.

Hope that clears it up.

I enjoy your posts too!

Indeed it does!! So sorry for misunderstanding!!!!

Ken F wrote:

Did they mention the legal responsibility Boaz had to marry Ruth since he was her kinsman redeemer? He only did what was required of him after Ruth took the initiative to take care of his “cold feet” problem. Sometimes it takes a good woman to get the man to rise to the occasion. It’s a team effort. This explains why “it is not good for the man to be alone.”

Yes, Ruth was a very “bold” woman. If the YRRs really read the book, they might even call her brazen. Yet, a descendant of Ruth and Boaz was the Prince of Peace and King of Kings.

@ Patti:
What the Dickens! This is incredibly shallow and leaves out the raw truth she was probably one of several wives and arranged her marriage for protection in that world.

Ken F wrote:

If we think that it’s ok to resist these other curses, then why would we in any way want to retain the curse of men ruling over women? I am so glad that my wife is strong enough to not need me to dominate her like that.

Very true but comps take it further. They claim the “rule over women” is because the woman ‘desired’ to rule man. They add in ‘easily deceived’ which cannot be fixed spiritually for some reason. The cross/resurrection was not enough, it seems.

McArthur calls it war.

It does not occur to them that Eve ‘admitted’ she was deceived while Adam simply blamed Eve and God.

So which is better for leadership? :o)

Just kidding. I am a firm believer in what Carolyn Custis James calls the “blessed alliance” approach.

@ Christiane:
I am related to a few, by marriage. I love them, but their intense adherence to what one calls “Catholic law” seems to cut off a lot of the love of Christ for others. : (

@ Ted:
It still isn’t subordination, Ken. It has to do with confusion over a couple of different passages where Jesus seemingly said somewhat contradictory things about whether only the Father sends the Holy Spirit, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Honestly, i think the Great Schism is a non-starter and a lot of foolish ire over something that cannot be proved either way.

numo wrote:

think the Great Schism is a non-starter and a lot of foolish ire over something that cannot be proved either way.

I think the great schism was not over the particular issue of the creed, but the fact that the Bishop or Rome changed the creed on his own without the consent of the other bishops. He broke the rules.

@ Ken F:
Iirc, that’s not the only thing. About 20 years ago, when the Ecumenical Patriarch visited DC, most area Orthodox were hoping he came eith an olive branch + apology. Instead, he started off by referring to all Catholics as heretics.

He is no longer the EP, and i think things are looking up a bit, what with Pope Francis plus changes re. the EP. the Orthodox have no centralized authority structure, umlike the RCC, but still, when the EP goes sbroad, his words and actions carry a lot of weight.

@ Ken F:
I can’t vouch for the accuracy of everything here, but still…

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

@ siteseer:
And I agree with you, especially the wink wink. I actually think that they believe they are being winsome and have no idea whatsoever how ridiculous that is to others. Even crank old conservatives like me. I want to scream, “Grow up already!”

@ XianJaneway:
Agree totally. I think that Chandler’s Calvinism is not the greatest problem with Chandler’s theology and practice. The travesty/debacle/moral faceplant by The Village ELDERS should have made that plain. I guess he did not lead his elders well…

Lydia wrote:

People have become such lemmings

Some lemmings are expendable if it means saving enough of them to reach the next level. I keep on thinking of the “oh no!” Sound they make when they realize their time is up.

Ken F wrote:

Check out this helpful guide on “Talking to toddlers about sin” – https://www.gospelproject.com/2016/02/03/mistakes-or-wrong-choices-talking-to-toddlers-about-sin/.

Really?!?!?!?!?

I hate stuff like this. I think this is one reason why the older women are to teach the younger- they’ve had time to find out how all these things wash out.

Celia wrote:

Pulpit and Pen is one

Isn’t that the “Pulpiteers” Internet hit squad that hounded 15-year-old Braxton Caner to suicide?

“Well, kids are off limits! Great! You got a verse that says that?”
– JD Hall, Predestined Elect

siteseer wrote:

I have not read much of him, he is a Christian universalist, is he not?

That was my concern when I first started listening to him. Here is what he says about his universalism: http://baxterkruger.blogspot.com/2012/09/universalism_10.html.

It turns out that Calvinism and Universalism are two sides of the same coin. They both stand on the premise that atonement = salvation. So for the Calvinists, since not everyone is saved, it must mean that atonement is limited. For if atonement equals salvation and if atonement is not limited (making it unlimited), then the logical conclusion is universal salvation. The issue hangs on the question of whether unlimited atonement equals universal salvation. I’m seeing how it’s logical and theologically possible for Christ’s atonement to apply to all of humanity, while still leaving individuals with the choice of whether to receive and believe it or to reject it. This is very much how the parable of the prodigal son portrays it. The father had done everything needed for both sons, but the older son (the religious type) refused to enter the party even though it was his.

Gram3 wrote:

And I agree with you, especially the wink wink. I actually think that they believe they are being winsome and have no idea whatsoever how ridiculous that is to others. Even crank old conservatives like me. I want to scream, “Grow up already!”

To me, winsome = fake. The YRRs use it to groom people to never put up a fight. The expectation is for all of us to put on fake smiles and never deal honestly with tough issues. It’s contrary to the spirit of the Bereans. Jesus was anything but “winsome” in his continued rebukes of the Pharisees. This is why they want us all to be winsome, so that they won’t have to defend their bad theology.

@ siteseer:
I have not listened enough to know.

@ Jamie Carter:
So true

@ Ken F:
From your Kruger link:

“That would be to deny, theologically speaking, the authenticity of our personhood and our real freedom to participate.”

This is my thinking when it comes to universalism or limited atonement. It totally takes away recognition of our created ability to respond to God.

Lydia wrote:

@ Lydia:
Btw: my first and last experience with any Moore study was long ago. I just could not take it. A contemplation question at the end of one study was something like this, “what sort of gift would you take to a baby shower for Sarah?”

Arghhh!

But she was a hot ticket in the seeker mega world in those days. People would drive for hours and stand in line to attend. She would sell out a 10 thou seat venue every time.

Hahaha!! I used to participate in a women’s Bible study run by out next-door neighbor, a very nice lady and an ardent proponent of the Prosperity Gospel. She started us out with Beth Moore videos before eventually moving us on to the craycray Name It and Claim It stuff, at which point I decamped. But yeah, that was my impression of Moore, too. Mostly inoffensive but there was definitely something ewww-inducing.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Well, kids are off limits! Great! You got a verse that says that?”
– JD Hall, Predestined Elect

Just more evidence (in my opinion) that fundagelicalism has pretty much done with the Bible what Wahhabi Islam has done with their Qur’an.
Both systems run roughshod over the human conscience, and the only moral compass acknowledged in both systems is the one explicitly spelled out in their respective holy books.

@ waking up:

correlation but I’m not sure there’s causation. A lot of the elements for what is multisite now seem like they were pioneered by Pentecostal televangalists decades ago. Multi-site is in a lot of ways nothing more than a closed-circuit version of a television-mediated church. The YRR may have shown themselves better than average at it but a case like Driscoll can’t be taken as normative because both Mark and Grace got formal education in propaganda techniques and Mark took a keen interest in formal control of integrated media. I think it’s more plausible to propose that megachurch multi-site pastors are not united by any doctrinal position (Driscoll could announce he’s an egalitarian charismatic later this year for all we know) as a commitment to methods–e.g. Jacques Ellul said that propagandists were the aristocrats of our era and I think a case can be made that megachurch pastors fit that profile.

@ Jim G.:
I am glad you are reading here! Before I read your comment I need to ask if you remember the site that had links to some of Calvin’s correspondence online. I thought it was this but now cannot find it there:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin?show=worksBy

It was bookmarked on an old laptop, sadly. I think I first discovered it through you.

Ken F wrote:

But I’m beginning to be convinced that unlimited atonement is more “biblical” (the YRRs have made it hard for me to use that word) and logically consistent. The only problem is its brush with universalism, but I think Kruger offers a good answer on how unlimited atonement is not the same thing as universal salvation.

Ken, I think the problem is simpler that that. I think they both take human ability out of the equation totally.

And quite frankly most strains of protestantism do this to some degree or another. The question is where to draw the line. We can’t stop earthquakes but we can design buildings that withstand them better. We Can’t Stop tornadoes but look at the early Warning Systems we have now. We invented antibiotics. And so on and on.

Human ability is the missing piece as far as I can tell. Which always brings me back to the question of what does it mean to be made in God’s image. I often wish we could discuss that more without accusations of thinking we are little gods.

Lydia wrote:

I often wish we could discuss that more without accusations of thinking we are little gods.

Me too. I’ve been appreciating your insight.

@ Lydia:
I don’t remember the site with Calvin’s writings. CCEL is a good start. I just use ol’ Google.

The Ontological Trinity describes how God is in himself (in se). It speaks to the essence or being of God. The Economic Trinity describes how God relates outward from himself toward and within creation. It speaks to what the Eastern Orthodox call the energies of God, his works, will, and attributes.

While I think there is an obvious connection between the ontological and economic Trinity (the economic depends directly on the ontological), it is a mistake to read back into the ontological what we see in the economic. The correlation from economic to ontological is analogical at best, and not exact. That is the category error in ESS. The ESS proponents see an exact mapping from the their ideal in the created order (hierarchy and submission) to the divine persons. They then map that ideal they have projected onto the ontological Trinity back onto the created order. It’s the first step in the double mapping that is the problem. The ESS folks did not invent this logic. It was used by Jurgen Moltmann to map the absence of hierarchy onto the Trinity and back.

Augustinian determinists do not believe Jesus redeemed human nature; they believe he redeemed only certain human persons. Universalists on the other hand believe that Jesus redeemed human nature, and that “deterministically” extends to all human persons. I think in this terminology the decisive third way seems evident: Jesus does indeed redeem human nature, but it is not mechanical; it is instantiated by human persons. Thus the distinction between person and nature is preserved and becomes theologically helpful.

Jim G.

Ken F wrote:

I’m seeing how it’s logical and theologically possible for Christ’s atonement to apply to all of humanity, while still leaving individuals with the choice of whether to receive and believe it or to reject it.

What is so hard or wrong about this to the Calvinists? This is what I have always believed. It is what I see in scripture.

@ Ken F:
Thanks for this info about 9Marx.

Ken F wrote:

To me, winsome = fake. The YRRs use it to groom people to never put up a fight.

Fake and manipulative. These are the same guys who complain about “altar calls” being manipulative. I have been informed by a reliable source who closely monitors such things that the new word is “robust.” Oy. So much fail, as the kids say.

Gram3 wrote:

Jim G. wrote:

The ESS proponents see an exact mapping from the their ideal in the created order (hierarchy and submission) to the divine persons. They then map that ideal they have projected onto the ontological Trinity back onto the created order. It’s the first step in the double mapping that is the problem. The ESS folks did not invent this logic. It was used by Jurgen Moltmann to map the absence of hierarchy onto the Trinity and back.

There is a quote (often attributed to Anaïs Nin, but may also go potentially as far back as to the Talmud): “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”

Similarly, in *Hamlet*, Shakespeare has Hamlet tell Horatio:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
– Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

We all have gaps and excesses in our paradigm system, which deeply affects how we view the world. Where it goes especially bad is when we project it onto God to give it the clobber-power of a theological covering.

My undergraduate training was in linguistics, and this double-mapping problem reminds me of “back-formation” of new words. You start with an existing word and apply its structure to the root of some other word to create something novel. For instance, elephanted, meaning “to be flattened.” It’s kind of fun to be creative and clever — “Oh, cool! Look, I verbed a noun!” — but the downside is when there is smugness in the cleverosity, and contempt toward those who just don’t get it or weren’t quite smart enough to come up with it first.

With ESS, this view does seem a back-formation concept that starts with human notions of “appropriate” hierarchy, and that gets boomeranged through the Trinity in order to give it “biblical” justification for when it arrives back on earth. Stealtheology, as it were.

Makes me wonder how many doctrines that inherently lead to legalism or licentiousness are the product of double-mapping …

brad/futuristguy wrote:

With ESS, this view does seem a back-formation concept that starts with human notions of “appropriate” hierarchy, and that gets boomeranged through the Trinity in order to give it “biblical” justification for when it arrives back on earth. Stealtheology, as it were.

Brad, everything we learn in bible courses or seminary says “Don’t do this!” It’s eisegesis, not exegesis, cherry-picking scripture to prove a topical sermon.

The first in the list of Mark Dever’s 9 Marks is the importance of expositional preaching. This however is topical, proof-texting eisegesis, the very antithesis of exposition (or, it proves my point that all sermons are topical anyway, but that’s another matter).

Is the ESS crowd taking 9Marks seriously? Are they two distinct crowds with some overlap? The rules keep changing, and all of this would be merely fascinating as ongoing church history if churches we love weren’t getting damaged.

So is there a way one can find out if their pastor, or better yet, a pastor the church is considering, is a closet Calvinist? Are there some questions that could be asked that would shed a clear picture?

Also, for the past ten years, it appears the hip thing to do is drop the name “baptist” from a church name and make it a cool sounding by using a common noun like “journey,” or “crossroad,” or “pathway.” Nothing wrong with any of it, it just seems interesting to me that erasing the denomination name (even if remaining with the denomination) is part of the trend. Not linking that trend to Calvinism or any other dogma, just an observation.

waking up wrote:

erasing the denomination name (even if remaining with the denomination) is part of the trend.

The name change thing away from denominational labels goes back at least to the late 70’s. It is part of the drive to appeal to people turned off by denominational labels. I think a good place to start is to ask what that pastor thinks of Wayne
Grudem’s theology, particularly his views on the Trinity and on soteriology and female “roles.”

Ted wrote:

It’s eisegesis, not exegesis, cherry-picking scripture to prove a topical sermon.

The New Calvinists are masters at this deception. And the unsuspecting pew swallows it hook, line and sinker. I stand amazed at how they stretch and interpret a portion of text in such a way that they introduce reformed presuppositions, agendas, and biases into and onto the text. Dangerous ground.

I watched my neighbor pick cherries yesterday. After a while, he ran out of cherries and quit. Praying that the New Calvinists will do likewise soon.

Gram3 wrote:

I think a good place to start is to ask what that pastor thinks of Wayne Grudem’s theology, particularly his views on the Trinity and on soteriology and female “roles.”

And if Pastor (1) calls him “WayneGrudemGOWAYNEGRUDEM!” or (2) maintains a secret Stalker’s Shrine to him or Calvin…

waking up wrote:

So is there a way one can find out if their pastor, or better yet, a pastor the church is considering, is a closet Calvinist? Are there some questions that could be asked that would shed a clear picture?

Ask the pastors/elders to tell you about John Calvin.

@ Gram3:
A lot of these preacher boys get their ticket punched at whatever SBC seminary and then drift into reformed theology. It’s new and exciting for a young preacher boy, you know, even if they have to sell their birthright for a bowl of stew.

siteseer wrote:

I’ve never looked very hard into these various stances on atonement and am just a beginner at thinking about this, but there are some stances, such as Calvinistic determinism, that are so reprehensible to my spirit, I find it impossible to consider them, so perhaps I am not objective or perhaps it is the Spirit of God guiding me.

You find them reprehensible because you have good instinct. Sometimes I wish I could just rest in the simplicity of what the Bible teaches. But then I realized how badly I was taught, which made me believe wrongly about what the Bible teaches. I determined that was not a good place to rest. So I’m trying to find a better place to rest, but it’s been a bit of a challenging journey. I think it will be worth it in the end.

Celia wrote:

@ Max:
It would take years to undo the Calvinization of the SBC. A lot of these young Calvinists don’t actually realize that it’s taken years to get to this point. They think it just naturally happened. It all goes back to the CR which the Calvinists think didn’t go far enough – the CR didn’t Calvinize the SBC. What’s that guy Resinger? He’s the one who started handing out Calvinist literature at the seminaries way back 35 years or so ago. One of these blogs had letters between him and Patterson where he was complaining about the lack of emphasis on Calvinism in the CR.

I think you mean John G. Reisinger. He preached at the church my husband and I attended back in the early 90’s. A staunch Calvinist for sure.

Velour wrote:

Max wrote:
Actually, it would have been much better if SBC’s New Calvinists had simply joined Presbyterian ranks, rather than aggravating SBC’s non-Calvinist majority.
The branch of the Presbyterians that my relatives were in (1800’s to 2000) weren’t as rabid as these NeoCalvinists. Too bad the NeoCals didn’t just start their own denomination and leave everybody else alone.

They just all should have become Reformed Baptists. That IS a denomination that hs been established for awhile.

waking up wrote:

I guess I can see why the drive to conceal Calvinism and infiltrate SBC

There is another overriding factor for taking over the SBC … it has tremendous assets! A massive organization with seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, 45,000 churches … all financed by SBC’s non-Calvinist majority. It would be a tougher row to hoe if New Calvinism started from scratch. SBC’s YRR may really believe that they have come into the world for such a time as this – to take SBC back to its theological roots – but their leaders have stuff in mind, as well.

Darlene wrote:

I think you mean John G. Reisinger.

Celia was referring to John’s brother Ernest C. Reisinger, a leader in SBC’s Founders Organization of old guard Calvinists. He authored “A Quiet Revolution” to encourage a new reformation within SBC. However, the old boys couldn’t pull off Calvinization of the SBC – they needed the energy of an indoctrinated army of YRR under General Al Mohler to do that.

Gram3 wrote:

I wonder, in my unChristian moments, if the guys who have taken over a large physical plant have the resources to keep it up when the older people like me stop giving?

I fully understand your “unChristian moments.” When I think of the damage these reformed boys are doing to the denomination I have been a member of for 60+ years, I think unChristian thoughts of whooping up on some of them and telling God someone else did it! In regard to the New Calvinist rebels running out of resources to keep the machinery going, I am seeing this on a small scale at a couple of churches taken over by the young whippersnappers. They came in like a bull in a china shop after lying their way into the pulpit, planted reformed belief and practice, and ran off all the “traditionalists.” They subsequently learned that the money also left with those folks and their new membership of 20s-30s ain’t got much dough. So they are left holding the bag on church debt and struggling to keep the lights on. Consequences.

waking up wrote:

I am irresistibly drawn to NOT being a Calvinist.

Calvinism, from the get-go, has never had much a positive reputation. It has always been resisted by those with any spiritual sense about them.