First…No way

At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.

Lydia wrote:

At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.

I’ve been asking myself lately—How do strict Calvinists deal with the children’s song “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”?

Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?

Ted wrote:

Lydia wrote:
At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.
—————–
I’ve been asking myself lately—How do strict Calvinists deal with the children’s song “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”?
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?

Mark Driscoll once sang “Jesus Hates Me” during a service. It is mentioned here:
The Sinner’s Guide to the Evangelical Right
https://books.google.com/books?id=7I460CymIUQC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=mark+driscoll+%22jesus+hates+me%22&source=bl&ots=GUDASITcDb&sig=pFzZ5bK5wx5OJ2STPUqq_-rUZeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzz46x8cnOAhVKwiYKHXm3AScQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=mark%20driscoll%20%22jesus%20hates%20me%22&f=false

From the Patheos blog “Unreasonable Faith,” whose author quoted Driscoll as saying (taken from a You Tube video or some video sermon of Driscoll’s):

… [In order to be a real Christian] you need to know who the real God is, and how the real God feels. Some of you … God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you.

God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you.

He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny.

He doesn’t think your excuse is “meritous” [meritorious]. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you, He hates them too.

God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you. He has had enough …

Daisy wrote:

Ted wrote:

Lydia wrote:
At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.
—————–
I’ve been asking myself lately—How do strict Calvinists deal with the children’s song “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”?
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?

Mark Driscoll once saved “Jesus Hates Me” during a service. It is mentioned here:
The Sinner’s Guide to the Evangelical Right
https://books.google.com/books?id=7I460CymIUQC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=mark+driscoll+%22jesus+hates+me%22&source=bl&ots=GUDASITcDb&sig=pFzZ5bK5wx5OJ2STPUqq_-rUZeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzz46x8cnOAhVKwiYKHXm3AScQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=mark%20driscoll%20%22jesus%20hates%20me%22&f=false

From the Patheos blog “Unreasonable Faith,” whose author quoted Driscoll as saying (taken from a You Tube video or some video sermon of Driscoll’s):

… [In order to be a real Christian] you need to know who the real God is, and how the real God feels. Some of you … God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you.

God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you.

He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny.

He doesn’t think your excuse is “meritous” [meritorious]. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you, He hates them too.

God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you. He has had enough …

Mark Driscoll is a nut, a depraved lost soul. Why anyone gives this creep the time of day is beyond me, but oh well.

roebuck wrote:

Mark Driscoll is a nut, a depraved lost soul

What does that say about the theology he and his associates sell?

So consider the case when a Christian family has a child who is profoundly autistic. Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes. Traditionally, the Armenian says no. Since this was one of the fundamental disagreements between the two positions historically, it seems odd that you would ignore it in this treatise. (reference: see the Canons of Dort)

dee wrote:

Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”

And there are still adherents to this sick and twisted religion?

@ Muff Potter:

Hurting a baby is just plain wrong and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.

I have posted a new update on the open discussion thread. Thank you.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-7/#comment-276397

If we do not have free will, we are not made in God’s image and likeness.

dee wrote:

Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”

This must be at the root of the Pearls’ wicked teaching about beating infants to ‘break their spirits’.

Bill M wrote:

dee wrote:
I think it was invented to irritate the Calvinists.
I’ll give five points a try:
Life
Opportunity
Variety
Every
Day
LOVED

Are there explanations of each point?
I don’t think you will find a lot of contention, but that is because there isn’t a lot of meaning expressed in definition.

Ted wrote:

Lydia wrote:
At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.
I’ve been asking myself lately—How do strict Calvinists deal with the children’s song “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”?
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?

To be theologically consistent, they would have to prohibit their children from singing such a song. After all, God just might have predestined any or all of those children to be damned before they were ever born.

me wrote:

So consider the case when a Christian family has a child who is profoundly autistic. Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes. Traditionally, the Armenian says no. Since this was one of the fundamental disagreements between the two positions historically, it seems odd that you would ignore it in this treatise. (reference: see the Canons of Dort)

Wait a minute. It’s the Calvinists that will say God could send your child to hell, not the Arminians. Their reasoning is that if that child was not among the elect, God would be just in sending them to hell. Finally, the stance of most Calvinists in this matter – whether the child is an infant or autistic – is that one cannot know for sure if this child elect – only God knows. So they are left with trusting that God is just in all that He does, even if he predestined your child to everlasting torment.

dee wrote:

me wrote:
Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes.
Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”

Hmmm….I’d never read that quote before, or if I did, I don’t remember it. But I do know then that some Calvinists have departed from this rigid concept of Calvin’s. I’ve read many posts and followed various threads on Calvinist sites where this subject is discussed.

Nancy2 wrote:

Divorce Minister wrote:
if humans do not have a meaningful free will, then that logically would make God the author of evil as God would be damning or directing people to do evil.
Exactly. A common phrase when someone does something bad is, “The devil made me do it!” Would a Calvinist say, “God made me do it!”? If there is no free well, then temptation and Satan have no influence on us – God controls and causes every thing we do.

Calvinists believe in Compatibilism as opposed to Libertarian free will. If you’re interested, here’s an amusing link.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/whatisit.html

PaJo wrote:

there isn’t a lot of meaning

That was likely the point, I’ve never been accused of putting forward a systematic theology.

Christiane wrote:

PaJo wrote:
If we do not have free will, we are not made in God’s image and likeness.
This is true.
And if we did not have free will, you wouldn’t find this in sacred Scripture:
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed” (from Deuteronomy 30:19)

Exactly. Why would God give people the opportunity to choose life or death if He didn’t mean to give them a choice? The offer wouldn’t be made in that case. Furthermore, if God really doesn’t give human beings a choice, then offering them a choice would be like a hoax.

If I would have to take a guess, I think a Calvinist would say that the offer was made to God’s people who do have the ability to choose right or wrong. Of course, I would then have to wonder why they would think such a thing while still believing in God’s eternal decree.

Darlene wrote:

If I would have to take a guess, I think a Calvinist would say that the offer was made to God’s people who do have the ability to choose right or wrong. Of course, I would then have to wonder why they would think such a thing while still believing in God’s eternal decree.

THIS Calvinist would say that this kind of fine-detailed Theo-philosophical abstraction was never intended to be addressed by the Bible, so I would hold any formulation of how that works very lightly.

dee wrote:

@ Celia:
I wonder how many of them believe that their kids are the ones who are not among the elect?

Uh, you mean like Reformed Baptists?

Steve Scott wrote:

^^^speaking of…
dee wrote:
me wrote:
Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes.
Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”
Dee, be careful here. Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy. Although Calvin may have believed that babies are wholly inclined to evil, this does not mean that he believed that they all go to hell. God’s covenant, it is viewed, makes salvation an actuality for children inclined to evil. “Me” asked about children of Christian parents, while you answered regarding unelect children. Traditional Calvinists generally point to family as an institution that aids and nourishes faith and that God gives elect children to elect Christian families. Timothy was helped in the faith by mother and grandmother.

So, I suppose the difference in belief regarding children stems from the Classical Reformed perspective which the Presbyterians who believe in paedobaptism hold to, and the Calvinist (Reformed Baptist) camp that believe in credobaptism.

Many Arminians believe that, until a child has achieved the ability to discern right from wrong (love from hate?), the child is an innocent not worthy of condemnation. That salvation is a gift that must be accepted by faith and condemnation is the result of rejection of that gift. So the young child (or one mentally incapable) is not condemned.

BTW, there is an interesting idea here that an aborted fetus was predestined to be aborted, if one is a true Calvinist.

Theology has never made much sense. Whether Calvinist or Arminian. For example, Arminian points on conditional election. If God already planned to save certain individuals right from the get go, then free will is blown out of the water. Or I have to join a church because they will be saved. But which one? A church that believes in transubstantiation? A church that believes in a 6000 yr old universe? Or can I call up some friends and say ‘ hey, we’re a church!’
Both these views still are focused on correct thought to the exclusion &/or condemnation of all others.

@ Nancy2:
This has always been my question. Sadly, the only answer I would get is that I don’t believe God is Sovereign and just can’t understand it.

Eeyore wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Well, the Calvinist will say that the will is only free to do evil because man’s heart is desperately corrupt.

Give us some credit… there is a LOT of empirical evidence to support that assertion. :-/

The question is choice. Can humans choose not to do evil?

Lydia wrote:

At least Arminians believe our Lord loves everyone.

This and free will are my chief sticking points with Calvinism I think.

I’m not mad about total depravity but I think it depends on how ‘total’ you really think it is. It was described at my Calvinist church as simply that we have all sinned…I do believe we are all made in the image of God and have the capacity for good or evil. We make choices. That sticky will again!

dee wrote:

I hope to have some fun with this when I dispute the use of Hosea in divorce situations.

That should be very interesting…

We don’t use the term ‘total depravity’ in my Church. But we sure do believe that we humans are ‘wounded’ and weakened by the Fall. We still believe in choice and in the workings of moral conscience as a guide. We most certainly believe that there is evil in the world, and that human persons are prone to temptation and to sin. We do not see temptation as the same thing as sin, no.

And we do not believe that God is the author of evil. No way.

So I suppose my Church adopts a more ‘Arminian’ view of human proclivity towards sin , without calling it ‘total’ depravity. If it WERE ‘total’, I imagine we wouldn’t have a conscience able to make moral decisions and abide by them.

I’m not sure WHY the term ‘total’ depravity is used in Arminianism, but I do understand that the term is defined differently from the way it is understood in Calvinism.

Bill M wrote:

I’ll give five points a try:
Life
Opportunity
Variety
Every
Day

LOVED

You may be a lot closer to the reality than the highly-systemitized Calvinist is. ISTM that a big part of the problem is that they have wrongly defined the fundamental relationship of a Good Father to his sons/daughters. Yes, a Good Father has authority over his children, but he does not prescribe every action a child does or every thought a child thinks. But authority is not the essence or glue of that relationship. The essence of that relationship is the love of the Father who first loved the child.

A Good Father provides everything which the child has and desires good for the child. However, there is no guarantee that the Good Father’s love will be reciprocated or that the child will desire to follow the Good Father and imitate the Good Father. The child has a separate will and can choose to run away into self-destruction rather than blessing.

The Good Father of a faithless child will never stop desiring for the faithless child to repent and return, but that does not mean that the Good Father will coerce the child into repenting and returning. If and when the child does repent and return, the Good Father rejoices and forgives the errant child and receives the child back into the household.

I do not recognize the Father as at least some Calvinists portray him. I had a good father, and he was pleased to see me develop into an adult. I stumbled in our relationship, as did he, but we never, ever stopped loving one another. That was the essence of our relationship, not his authority or his desire/ability to micro-manage my life and thoughts.

Arce wrote:

until a child has achieved the ability to discern right from wrong (love from hate?), the child is an innocent not worthy of condemnation.

We believed this, too.

Before I typed a comment about imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness I googled the phrases. I had no idea this is a Methodist theology. Anyway, we were taught that God imputes righteousness to us until that age of accountability when he imparts it to us. So, a baby or child would be imputed with Christ’s righteousness.

Gram3 wrote:

Dee, I love the quote from Tozer. The Calvinist view of the nature of the sovereignty of God is, I believe, the root of the problem of Calvinism. It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit. That control-freakery is based in fear, as Tozer says, and I just do not see how the Calvinist view of sovereignty does not actually *diminish* God’s glory by, in effect, making God look like a Very Large and Powerful Human Being Who Is Very Disturbed.

I agree. It’s always seemed to me that Calvinists have made God in man’s image, and that’s literal man and man as in human.

Steve Scott wrote:

Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant

But if you weren’t born to a Christian family you’re out of luck because god doesn’t care about you? I can’t believe that.

Gram3 wrote:

It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit.

Which maybe explains their crazy authoritarian bent? Or they are control freaks themselves, and thus make god into that.

God is not diminished because he gives choice, to me. People who are secure in themselves do not require everyone else to be puppets of their will. I think a secure and sovereign God would not either. The angels had choice (or maybe Calvinists don’t believe that either?). Did god preordain Lucifer to lead a revolt for his glory?

@ Lea:

A person can be a non-calvinist baptist without being a Free Will Baptist. That is to say, believing in ‘free will’ can take various forms. Free Will Baptist folks are specific denominations of Baptist.

@ Gram3:
Best description I have seen yet.

okrapod wrote:

@ Lea:
A person can be a non-calvinist baptist without being a Free Will Baptist. That is to say, believing in ‘free will’ can take various forms. Free Will Baptist folks are specific denominations of Baptist.

This was why I said “many” and didn’t capitalize “free will”. I was not referring to the denomination, but the belief.

Gram3 wrote:

It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit

The picture in my mind: God is like a child, and humans are the plastic toy soldiers with which he plays.

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Bible supports the points that both the Cals and the Arms make.
People have been trying to sort this out for 2 millenia. We should believe all that the Bible teaches, even when it appears to teach inconsistent things. God will resolve this in eternity.
And we should not speculate about things we do not know.

While I totally agree with you, I think many people feel like they “have” to know exactly how God works.

I like to tell people who annoy me too much on topics like this that if God had intended us to know everything about how God works, He would have given us a 200 volume systematic theology. Instead, He gave us Himself as a person, and a book about people.

So I think we’re supposed to trust God and invest ourselves in others (much like the two greatest commands!).

dee wrote:

me wrote:
Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes.
Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”

I had a dear friend in a NeoCal church before NeoCal churches became the trendy movement. She had miscarried; her pastor thought it important to spend an entire service (barely hiding his glee, she said) sharing in his intellectual superior way that a miscarried fetus, aborted fetus, and infants that died would be in hell with no hope of salvation. (Piper tweeted recently “there are no innocent children”.

She was in despair, but I used the example of David and Bathsheba’s first son, (David said I will go to him, he will not come to me) , and an appeal to the character of God and His love to help her through. When she was past that time a few months, I asked her what would motivate a man, knowing the likelihood that there would be mothers in all three circumstances with the death of children, what possibly could make him think it appropriate to share that, even if he believed it personally. There is a sickness, a type of sadism, for someone to delight in proclaiming that in the midst of people who have suffered.

I am amazed at what liberty some of these men feel to make cruel statements such as these. Does not sound like Jesus–ought not to be said.

@ Anonymous:
We should not speculate on whether God loves everyone?

The truth is people have not been debating/discussing this for mist if post resurrection history. Most were not allowed to disagree with prevailing doctrines within the church state structures.

When they were allowed to disagree the debate was mainly within theological Academia. It wasn’t really until the internet that the now literate pew Peasants took it to the public square.

Lydia wrote:

Can humans choose not to do evil?

From what I see, yes, non Christians, even atheists are able to choose good over evil.

ishy wrote:

The idea that God could be sovereign and allow choice completely stumped them, so they won’t even entertain it.

Their god is not sovereign then, he is made in their own fallen image 😉

Anonymous wrote:

And we should not speculate about things we do not know.

Good advise for female subordinationists!

ishy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Bible supports the points that both the Cals and the Arms make.
People have been trying to sort this out for 2 millenia. We should believe all that the Bible teaches, even when it appears to teach inconsistent things. God will resolve this in eternity.
And we should not speculate about things we do not know.

While I totally agree with you, I think many people feel like they “have” to know exactly how God works.

I like to tell people who annoy me too much on topics like this that if God had intended us to know everything about how God works, He would have given us a 200 volume systematic theology. Instead, He gave us Himself as a person, and a book about people.

So I think we’re supposed to trust God and invest ourselves in others (much like the two greatest commands!).

Great comment. It is very human to be too certain about things we cannot know.

Lydia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
We should not speculate on whether God loves everyone?

The truth is people have not been debating/discussing this for mist if post resurrection history. Most were not allowed to disagree with prevailing doctrines within the church state structures.

When they were allowed to disagree the debate was mainly within theological Academia. It wasn’t really until the internet that the now literate pew Peasants took it to the public square.

Yes, see my response to Lea.

Anonymous wrote:

And we should not speculate about things we do not know.

In practice, add “Unless those speculations work to our personal advantage.”

Lea wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit.
Which maybe explains their crazy authoritarian bent? Or they are control freaks themselves, and thus make god into that.

Make that “Both/And”.
God as Control Freak in the Sky and Me as Control Freak looking for Cosmic-level Justification go synergistic to the point you can’t find a dividing line.

Bridget wrote:

ishy wrote:

The idea that God could be sovereign and allow choice completely stumped them, so they won’t even entertain it.

Their god is not sovereign then, he is made in their own fallen image

At which point, they’re over the line into Socratic Atheism.

God is not God, Predestination and Omnipotence are God and God is just the puppet on the strings.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I asked her what would motivate a man, knowing the likelihood that there would be mothers in all three circumstances with the death of children, what possibly could make him think it appropriate to share that, even if he believed it personally.

Egomania and Righteousness Counting Coup.

Steve Scott wrote:

Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy.

So it’s only the babies of “those other people” that go to hell…

siteseer wrote:

So it’s only the babies of “those other people” that go to hell…

Yes. That’s why covenant theology . . .

Gram3 wrote:

I believe, the root of the problem of Calvinism. It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit.

A gentlemen that worked with abused women noted those who sought relationship with men who oversaw every aspect of their lives, exhibiting “control-freakery”, found the men were very often abusers. Abuse was part of the package. Extrapolating, I can see why some would prefer not association with such a deity and would rather go poof when their existence here ends.

Darlene wrote:

Well, the Calvinist will say that the will is only free to do evil because man’s heart is desperately corrupt.

Again, Jeremiah 17:9 is the premier clobber verse Hueyed (helicoptered) out of context and widely used to advance this doctrine. Many other verses come into play and we’ve all heard them. No wonder the authors and signers of The Chicago Statement (which reads like a who’s who in the reformed world) were careful to disallow the use of hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture.

Bill M wrote:

WATCH what is happening. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in Total Depravity, this include leaders. Don’t blindly trust them.

Yes. Thankfully, Arminians don’t define Total Depravity as Total Inability as Cals do.

Still, I don’t subscribe to Augustine’s dualistic Original sin theory either.

Steve Scott wrote:

Although Calvin may have believed that babies are wholly inclined to evil, this does not mean that he believed that they all go to hell. God’s covenant, it is viewed, makes salvation an actuality for children inclined to evil.

Reformed theologians are the ones who need to be careful Scott. Inclination is not the same thing as default condition, which is what they teach in the larger picture.

Bill M wrote:

dee wrote:
I think it was invented to irritate the Calvinists.
I’ll give five points a try:
Life
Opportunity
Variety
Every
Day
LOVED

Are there explanations of each point?
I don’t think you will find a lot of contention, but that is because there isn’t a lot of meaning expressed in definition.
Bridget wrote:

siteseer wrote:
So it’s only the babies of “those other people” that go to hell…
Yes. That’s why covenant theology . . .

And to follow up: It’s only those other PEOPLE that go to hell…because obviously _I_ am “in” on the Heaven Plan.

Again, if you read the Calvinist forums, you will read things like “God hates sinners.” And, “You can’t tell people God loves them…because YOU DON’T KNOW.”

This belief system has so many bad consequences, and it raises some pretty interesting questions, as well.

–You say God is never changing, always the same. So: Did God love Adam and Eve? (Yes, but their sin … well, He had been so offended by their sin that He hated them.) So: Man’s actions are powerful enough to change an unchanging God.

–You say God hates sinners. That He can’t even look up on them. So: How did Christ, then, come and look upon them, love them, heal them, die for them? Is the Trinity disunited in its relationship with man? Or is Christ not God so He is exempt from hating the sinner?

–You say God is love, yet God hates sinners. “Is” is ontological–so: how can Love hate?

I can go on, and others could go on further…but the answers I came to led me to run away from Calvinism. It makes no experiential sense, and it makes no scriptural sense.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hi HEADLESS,
I have wondered how much of the control-freak version of God that is purely deterministic is an outgrowth of pagan determinism

like the old Norse concept of ‘fate’ ….you could not control what happened to you, so accept your ‘fate’

The closer a theology comes to determinism, the more it seems to resemble pagan thinking on ‘fate’

siteseer wrote:

Bill M wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And we should not speculate about things we do not know.

Speculation is fine, just don’t cross the line to pontificate, legislate, and enforce things we do not know.

This is the gist of it.

“Si comprendis, non est Deus”

PaJo wrote:

One of the things I love from the Eastern Orthodox is their definition of a theologian: one who prays. And indeed, this is how we come to know God, not just know _about_ Him.

Yes … the ‘kneeling theologian’…. one who prays 🙂
and I have heard from my godmother (of Ukrainian descent) how the eastern Christians are more at peace with ‘mystery’, and more in awe of what is sacred as a result

we in the West want to ‘know’ with our God-given reason more than we are able to comprehend in our present state, and the impatience sometimes leads to assumptions and constructs that rely too much on ‘our own understanding’ for that which is ‘far above our understanding’, hence we create ‘god’ in our own image …. and then, sadly, the sacrifices begin, as in the cults of patriarchy where women and children are at the mercy of male idolatry

Nancy2 wrote:

You can truly love someone, and yet hate some of the things they do.
IMHO, God loves us all, yet he hates the sins we commit.

this is in line with what the Church has taught from early days as a part of what was handed down from the Apostles:
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Bridget wrote:

Good advise for female subordinationists!

I agree, but the Female Subordinations go even further than speculation (thinking about how things might be) into outright Making Stuff Up and declaring it God’s revealed Truth.

About speculations and assumptions. I have, of course, an opinion.

If first one speculates and then proceeds to take it further and forms an assumption from that speculation, and then proceeds to investigate and gather evidence to either uphold or eliminate the assumption, and one then forms conclusions from the evidence, that is called the scientific method.

Theology was called the queen of the sciences in the past.

If one only speculates and then stops at that point, no harm is done if no conclusions are drawn, and the speculation can just lie around for some future time when other thinkers can proceed to assumption (hypothesis), investigation and conclusion.

If one speculates and tries to pass that off as the entire thinking process-well, bless him is all I can say.

That would be the southern ‘bless him’ not a statement of affirmation.

@ roebuck:

I don’t know if I agree with every point on this guy’s blog, but here is his critique of Driscoll’s views (I do like the name of his blog: “Cognitive Disco Pants“):

Driscoll and the God of Hate
https://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/driscoll-and-the-god-of-hate/

Snippet:

3) Where is God the Father?

If you’ve listened to Driscoll enough, you’ll know that he frequently draws upon his experience as a father to explain God’s relationship with us.
Strangely, we don’t hear any of those analogies here.

We don’t hear Pastor Mark explaining how he hates his children when they rebel. He doesn’t mention that his hatred towards his rebellious children is only assuaged by pouring out his wrath on them (or someone in their stead).

…but both together…

Daisy wrote:

To this, I still don’t have a satisfying answer. I don’t think I ever will. The reason for that is probably because there isn’t a satisfying answer. It’s irrational to believe it’s just for God to burn babies. Period. He kept pulling the same “We’re not in the position to judge God” card.

One thing I wanted to add to that quote (by the guy at the blog).

There was a part of the Old Testament where God wanted Israel to wipe out some pagan nation precisely because they were sacrificing live infants to their deity by burning them alive.

If God was not cool with some pagan nation burning kids alive on earth, why would God himself be dandy about burning kids himself in Hell for eternity?

@ Gram3:

I can’t count the convos I have had with Neo Cals on the fact Jesus came preaching: Repent and believe. Why would Jesus tell people who don’t have the ability to repent and believe— to repent and believe as if they had a choice?

They try and present this sort of trickster god that tells people to do something he already knows he has not chosen some of them to be able to do it?!. IMHO, its like they are reading the Odyssey and not scripture.

Gram3 wrote:

I think control-freakery is abuse of the personhood of the people being controlled.

Well said, GRAM THREE

to have a basic respect for the ‘other’ as a person made in the image of God is something that transcends all of the divisions satan has engineered to divide our kind one from the other

I reached a point in my life 15-20 years ago, in my 40s, where I was tired of all the shenanigans that the Deebs highlight here (again, kudos for their work), and of all the doctrinal fights among even well-meaning Christians. I was especially demoralized by the view of God – a god who had to constantly be apologized for. I had a lot of questions, including “Why do human beings even exist?”

My questions led me to the works of some faithful Protestants: Dallas Willard, Robert Webber and N.T. Wright. Willard’s “Divine Consipiracy” made me believe God is truly good. Webber’s “Ancient Future Worship” encouraged me to delve into the world of the first 8 centuries of the Church, when it was still one. Wright’s Christian Origins series (his “big books”) gave me the Jewish worldview from which Christianity was born – which was really different than most Christians believe it was, and interpret Scripture as upholding. Over the next few years, reading them and others, particularly some of the early Christian writers, led me to reject the interpretation of Scripture that supports belief in a place called “heaven” and a place called “hell,” the Augustinian dualistic view of Original Sin, all of Calvinism and most of Arminianism. Most importantly, I found a God who is not the tyrant torturer, but who is revealed in Jesus Christ, his “exact image”.

I never wanted to be anything else but a Christian, but I was certainly in a pickle. There was no room for me in any Western church. Thanks to the Internet, I began finding out about another way that came at me out of left field – totally a surprise, on many levels. I had to work through a couple of issues, but in most things I was already there. I am still a Christian, a part of the second largest body of Christians in the world – mostly unknown in the US, unless one has ethnic ties to it. Dee knows what it is. She might think the Gospel – the good news about Jesus – is not there, but it is – in all its glory, and I’m sorrier than I can express that it wasn’t made more evident to her, for all the unfortunately true reasons that I know about. We’re a mess – but we can admit that 🙂 and this is where I was led and am at home, far and away because of its view of God as truly, completely, always GOOD, who always acts from Love and whose will it is for all of humanity to ultimately be appropriately united to Him – whose “photograph”, if you will, is the Crucified One.

Steve Scott wrote:

Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy.

I wanted to add a P.S. to this.

For years, I have heard that a lot of Jewish people think that kids born to Christian parents are automatically Christian. I found that to be a really weird understanding of Christianity.

Now I’m thinking, maybe these Jewish people have heard about this Reformed/Calvinist ‘covenant family’ stuff, and that’s why they hold this view?

My take on the Bible is that it says you are not a believer until you personally make your own choice as to accept Jesus as Savior.

You don’t get to be “elect,” forgiven, saved, or a Christian, just because your mom and/or dad were Christian.

That is just totally foreign thinking to me. You don’t ‘inherit’ salvation or Christianity from your family or by being baptized as a kid; it’s something left up to each individual. There is some personal choice or responsibility involved.

@ ishy:

I don’t consider myself either Arminian or Calvinist, which has really confused a lot of Calvinists I’ve spoken with before. A lot of Calvinists think there can only be those two options, not a third or more.

ishy wrote:

The idea that God could be sovereign and allow choice completely stumped them, so they won’t even entertain it.

That’s funny because that’s how I’ve long understood God’s sovereignty – he can even rise above human free will or whatever choices people make. Nothing stumps him.

Daisy wrote:

That’s funny because that’s how I’ve long understood God’s sovereignty – he can even rise above human free will or whatever choices people make. Nothing stumps him.

Indeed. I think they don’t allow for any mystery in their lives. God has to make perfect sense, or is not real. It’s something I can’t even comprehend.

Gram3 wrote:

I really think that fear is one driver of it and a deficient concept of love is another driver of it. Either one of those is problematic, both both together are absolutely toxic.

“There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18)

‘Be not afraid’ and ‘Fear not’ are often said by the messengers of God to calm the human person in the presence of the angel. The fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost took away the dread and fearfulness of the huddled Apostles in the Upper Room and they ‘went forth’ into salvation history freed from their terror and strengthened to serve Our Lord even unto martyrdom which most of them eventually endured

When people touched by grace speak of the ‘deep peace of Christ’, they aren’t being ‘poetic’ or ‘over spiritualized’, no. In the presence of what is holy, ‘awe’ is not fear, and peace is a given.

dee wrote:

Steve Scott wrote:

Dee, be careful here. Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy.

Thank you for this correction. In fact, *me* may have meant something like this. How, then, do the baptist Calvinists who do not believe in infant baptism, apply this?

In most of my experience, they see a great advantage in being in a Christian family because the children will grow up hearing the gospel, etc. Mainly the difference is that the Calvinistic Baptists see children as unbelievers until they profess faith (faith can happen earlier, of course, such as John the Baptist in his mother’s womb), whereas the paedobaptists see their children as believers until they prove that they are not. There are nuances to all of this within various groups.

@ Gram3:
I think this is why so many Neo Cal churches are so toxic. Goodness, the Puritans were toxic! In defense of mainline Cals, they tended to go frozen chosen or social gospel and were usually quite delightful. Determinism is exhausting.

One thing I found that Neo Calvinism does not tolerate is any sort of wisdom, reason or logic. There is no consideration for “logical outcomes” to certain beliefs. I contend that God invented reason and we often see it revealed in wisdom. :o)

For example, when they speak of evil babies, most Neo Cals in the SBC insist they are elect/chosen if they die in infancy so they don’t need covenant baptism like the Presbyterians. So were they predestined to die, too? It was all worked out before the world was formed. it is fatalism.

All this boils down to one thing. They take humans OUT of the salvic equation. And when we do that we end up with a one way relationship that is no relationship at all.

Daisy wrote:

There is some personal choice or responsibility involved.

The ‘confirmation’ of a young person in my Church involves a formal affirmation of faith. I believe this is the same in the Lutheran Church, as my husband was also confirmed.

I think Southern Baptist ‘baptism’ combines holy baptism and a kind of traditional confirmation of faith together as one single celebration. (this is what it appears to be to an outsider)

Lydia wrote:

For example, when they speak of evil babies, most Neo Cals in the SBC insist they are elect/chosen if they die in infancy so they don’t need covenant baptism like the Presbyterians. So were they predestined to die, too? It was all worked out before the world was formed. it is fatalism.

“In’shal’lah… Eh, Kismet?”

ishy wrote:

Daisy wrote:
That’s funny because that’s how I’ve long understood God’s sovereignty – he can even rise above human free will or whatever choices people make. Nothing stumps him.

Indeed. I think they don’t allow for any mystery in their lives. God has to make perfect sense, or is not real.

Like Calvin, they have to have God All Figured Out.

Steve Scott wrote:

Mainly the difference is that the Calvinistic Baptists see children as unbelievers until they profess faith (faith can happen earlier, of course, such as John the Baptist in his mother’s womb), whereas the paedobaptists see their children as believers until they prove that they are not. There are nuances to all of this within various groups.

The Neo Cals don’t believe in “professions of faith” so I am stumped here.

They way it was approached in my Non Reformed SBC childhood is that you were responsible for what you believed and your behavior toward others and each child was different when that was obvious. I had never seen any one turned away from baptism whether 6 or 90. I know it sounds corny but I cannot even imagine JTB turning away a little child who wanted the baptism of repentance. Children often get it. We build on that, hopefully.

ishy wrote:

It’s always puzzled me that they can focus so much on just a few verses, while leaving out all the others. If they were really “biblical”, they’d be confronting passages on God’s love often.

I think this may come because I have read that people assume the words of the Apostles speak ‘for Christ’, as though Christ were speaking;
rather than taking the words of the Apostles and reading them in the light of Christ.

The difference between the two approaches can be catastrophic when a saying of Paul’s is interpreted by a theologian in a way that violates the Royal Law of Christ; as was the case when Dr. Klouda and her family were made to suffer at the hands of those who overlooked one simple thing: you cannot do evil that good may come, a teaching that was sealed by the Royal Law of Christ.

Take something an Apostle said, and give it a man-made spin that is contradictory to the teachings of Christ,
and you’ve got a real mess, with all the ‘justification’ of abusers trying to say that they are being ‘biblical’, all the while disrespecting the Great Commandments of Our Lord.

This way of biblical interpretation doesn’t work for these ‘Calvinistas’, and it certainly doesn’t work for their poor victims. Without the Light of Christ, there is only the darkness.

Daisy wrote:

Yes, I have encountered that many times (in the past when I used to discuss or debate Calvinism with Calvinists, and when I lurk in Calvinist debates, I see many Calvinists still pulling this).
Even if you quote from a known Calvinist author, or quote from another layman Calvinist, the Calvinist to whom you are currently speaking will say you have misrepresented Calvinism.

i.e. “Heads I Win, Tails YOU LOSE!”

Muff Potter wrote:

Again, Jeremiah 17:9 is the premier clobber verse Hueyed (helicoptered) out of context and widely used to advance this doctrine

With Ride of the Valkyries blasting on the Hueys’ loudspeakers…

Gram3 wrote:

Ted wrote:
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?
That song was not on the playlist at my most recent former church. The saddest example of the toxicity of rabid or feral Calvinism is a young couple we know who had multiple miscarriages. They worried about the eternal status of those little children they lost.

Yes…this! When I first encountered this mindset I was shocked.

Lydia wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Darlene wrote:
Well, the Calvinist will say that the will is only free to do evil because man’s heart is desperately corrupt.
Give us some credit… there is a LOT of empirical evidence to support that assertion. :-/
The question is choice. Can humans choose not to do evil?

Exactly, Lydia. Calvinists will say that humans will always do what is natural to them according to their corrupt human nature. But my question is: Do humans still have the imagio dei since the Fall? I would posit that they most certainly do.

To build upon that idea, Calvinists will posit that even after a person is born of God’s Spirit, any good works that they do will be tainted with evil, i.e. – selfishness, vain glory, greed, etc. Their view of the child of God is quite depressing and has the potential to lead a person to discouragement and even giving up on faith altogether.

Lydia wrote:

@ Darlene:
That link is a perfect example of reason, logic and wisdom missing from Calvinism. Compatablism is something I have gone hundreds of rounds on. It is total cognitive dissonance.

Calvinists are good at redefining terms, such as love, the gospel, free will, justice, etc.

@ Christiane:
I think the neo-Cal claims of being ‘biblical’ are very perverted.

Lydia wrote:

@ Darlene:
That link is a perfect example of reason, logic and wisdom missing from Calvinism. Compatablism is something I have gone hundreds of rounds on. It is total cognitive dissonance.

doublethink, comrade, doublethink.

Lydia wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
Ted wrote:
Or is it not allowed in Sunday schools?
That song was not on the playlist at my most recent former church. The saddest example of the toxicity of rabid or feral Calvinism is a young couple we know who had multiple miscarriages. They worried about the eternal status of those little children they lost.
Yes…this! When I first encountered this mindset I was shocked.
I first encountered it on Challies blog about 11 years ago. I was stunned. His commenters were even declaring that God is glorified when he throws babies into hell. I thought I had stumbled onto an Islamic blog talking about infidels.

TELL ME ABOUT IT! I first encountered Calvinism after I had been a Christian for 18 years. I could not fathom that God could be so void of goodness and kindness. If He instructs us to have the fruits of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control” – then why would He not be the One in which these virtues originate. Why would He tell us to cultivate these virtues if He is lacking in them? That would make God hypocritical.

Gram3 wrote:

Dee, I love the quote from Tozer. The Calvinist view of the nature of the sovereignty of God is, I believe, the root of the problem of Calvinism. It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit. That control-freakery is based in fear, as Tozer says, and I just do not see how the Calvinist view of sovereignty does not actually *diminish* God’s glory by, in effect, making God look like a Very Large and Powerful Human Being Who Is Very Disturbed.

BINGO!! This is why some people who have encountered Calvinism and are unable to reconcile love with this kind of god, will say that the Calvinist god is a MONSTER.

Darlene wrote:

They get around it because God’s sovereignty (as they understand it) supersedes His love, compassion, grace and mercy. In their system, God decides that some deserve everlasting torment, (actually *many*), all because of the *guilt* they have incurred from Adam’s sin. How can a child in the womb, not yet born, have committed any sin?

I was taught and this makes sense to me, that Christ’s death removed Adam’s sin, no one carries that sin on their shoulders:

1 Timothy 4:10
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That’s just a Christianese way of saying “He’s Bigger Than Us so What He Says GOES!”

Might makes right.

I.e., is God good or do we just call him good because he is the ultimate power and will crush us if we don’t?

siteseer wrote:

I actually heard a pastor preach that Jesus wept not out of empathy but because he was so disgusted with their unbelief.

Wow!

It occurs to me, reading through these posts, that it is not necessarily as clear as the difference between these two systems of thought. I have a friend who is a staunch Arminian who sees God in much the same way as these Calvinists and we seem to end up debating these same issues about God’s character frequently. I wonder if it comes more out of a perspective of God that is most defined by his power and his ‘right’ to inflict torture on those who fail to honor him? When this aspect of God is pulled out of balance, love ends up redefined. One ends up constantly having to come up with complicated explanations for God and apologize for him, basically.

I just cannot see God this way, instinctively I recoil from it. God created us with natural instincts for love and connection that he uses as an example for us to understand him; father and son, mother and child… if these examples of our natural affections can’t be trusted, then what is the use of him describing himself to us in that context?

We all -even non-believers- can recognize what is good in a human being. The heroes of our stories are rich in the qualities we instinctively know are good and right: honesty, kindness, mercy, strength against injustice but gentleness otherwise… how is it we then imagine God more like the villain in our stories? The powerful monarch on a throne who mercilessly crushes his enemies, enjoys making his subjects suffer, and sees the slightest disloyalty as an excuse to inflict suffering?

mirele wrote:

That’s because I don’t believe in a god sending people to hell forever and ever for wrong belief.

I don’t either. Does that put me outside the household of faith? I’ll stand outside with Edward Fudge.

ishy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like to tell people who annoy me too much on topics like this that if God had intended us to know everything about how God works, He would have given us a 200 volume systematic theology. Instead, He gave us Himself as a person, and a book about people.
So I think we’re supposed to trust God and invest ourselves in others (much like the two greatest commands!).

Well…this is where Piper, and Grudem, and Ware, and Hodge, and Warfield, and Owen, and Edwards, and Challies, and Keller, and Chandler, and Platt, and Mohler, and Pink, and M. Lloyd-Jones, and Spurgeon, and Boyce, and Bunyan, and Newton, and Gill, and MacArthur, and Boettner, and Sproul, and Baucham, and Boyce, and White, and Turritin, and Watson, and Bavinck, and Horton….and…..and…..come in. Feel free to add to the list. 😉

siteseer wrote:

The powerful monarch on a throne who mercilessly crushes his enemies, enjoys making his subjects suffer, and sees the slightest disloyalty as an excuse to inflict suffering?

As far as I can tell, THIS IS THE CALVINIST GOD. As for me, it was the goodness, compassion, mercy, love, kindness, patience, gentleness of God, all those virtues which we honor and respect as human beings, that drew me to Orthodoxy. I could no longer abide the idea that God sends people to hell in regions where the gospel has never been preached, where they have never heard of Christ. Now, my understanding from Romans, is that these people are judged according to a different system.

@ dainca:

Wrapping Up “Why I Am an Evangelical, Arminian Christian” (Final: Part 10)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/08/wrapping-up-why-i-am-an-evangelical-arminian-christian-final-part-10/

siteseer wrote:

I don’t either. Does that put me outside the household of faith? I’ll stand outside with Edward Fudge.

Nor do I (referencing mirele’s quote). I think it makes us dissenters, but not outside the household of faith, although there are many in Christendom who would contest it, saying that to remain in the household of faith you must believe this, that, and the other in order to be ‘saved’.

Lydia wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The problem is that the Bible supports the points that both the Cals and the Arms make.
Depends on the filter one brings to the reading. One problem I think Calvinist have is that their interpretation of God looks nothing like Jesus Christ.

The Calvinists, when they do speak of Christ, which is much less than the Old Testament scriptures depicting God, love to quote the verses where He is rebuking the Pharisees. Their “filter” is one that is inclined toward rebuke and authority. They “filter” God through a lens that makes him very much like a despot.

siteseer wrote:

The powerful monarch on a throne who mercilessly crushes his enemies, enjoys making his subjects suffer, and sees the slightest disloyalty as an excuse to inflict suffering?

And whom the Elect want to suck up to and become Court Favorites.

siteseer wrote:

It’s when human beings start trying to define and codify exactly how God works in areas beyond our understanding -like these- that we show how meager our understanding is. I think it comes out of a desire to bring God down to our level, a desire to feel in control is what leads people to put the thoughts and actions of God into definitions that our own brains can grasp.

It’s also when people with their rigid formats of God condemn others to hell for not believing as they do. While I reject Calvinist theology/soteriology, I don’t subscribe to some notion that Calvinists are going to hell because they don’t believe the same things I do. The same goes for any number religious systems.

Irene wrote:

This misrepresents Calvinism by not including the fact that we believe the call goes out to all. THEN because people are too depraved to turn on their own, God sends His Spirit to open blind eyes.

Which part doesn’t fit of this explanation:

While God calls all without distinction to faith in Christ (the general call), he only calls those he has chosen unconditionally in a way that cannot be resisted (the effectual call).
• Those God has not chosen will reject the gospel call of their own will and cannot do otherwise.

PaJo wrote:

Lydia wrote:
@ …
I don’t subscribe to the typical Augustine/Protestant construct so ‘what we don’t know’ doesn’t bother me as much. I think He is pleased we seek to know Him.
I get a bit testy when someone says we should not speculate on what we don’t know. I am not looking for proof but more understanding. …
The kind of theology which focuses on what one can know is called cataphatic theology. The kind which allows room for what we don’t know is called apophatic.
They work together beautifully:
Cataphatic: God loves mankind.
Apophatic: When we talk of God’s love, we do not know exactly what this means, because our language and experience cannot fully comprehend the love of God.
Learning from both of these allows us to stay “on the reservation” without making stuff up, and still seek to know God more and better.
One of the things I love from the Eastern Orthodox is their definition of a theologian: one who prays. And indeed, this is how we come to know God, not just know _about_ Him.
Interesting thread.

Yes, Pajo. Eastern Orthodoxy makes use of cataphatic and apophatic theology. The latter is actually very freeing. For example, there is no compulsion to declare upon hearing of the death of another person that apparently was not a Christian, “He is in hell” or some such thing. That would be considered presumption. Rather, we continually pray for others and ourselves, “Lord have mercy!” = actually trusting in His mercy.

@ Irene:
What about irresistible grace? Regeneration? Calvinism teaches that God has to regenerate them so a person can even have faith. The human cannot have faith without God’s regeneration first.

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
I can’t count the convos I have had with Neo Cals on the fact Jesus came preaching: Repent and believe. Why would Jesus tell people who don’t have the ability to repent and believe— to repent and believe as if they had a choice?
They try and present this sort of trickster god that tells people to do something he already knows he has not chosen some of them to be able to do it?!. IMHO, its like they are reading the Odyssey and not scripture.

Well…He only expects the Elect to hear and repent. So the Good News is abbreviated. 😉

ishy wrote:

I would think Catholics don’t quite fit into either box?

Catholics have their own history of disputes over determinism. At one time, the ‘Thomists’ who were at the ‘determinist’ edge of the continuum and the ‘Molinists’ who were at the ‘free will’ other end of the continuum were arguing so much that it threatened the unity of the Church, so the Pope told BOTH groups they could conjecture on what they wanted as long as it did not deny the teachings of the Church, but they were to STOP the verbally over-aggressive debating and blatant ill-will towards one another. Dialogue was permitted but it had to be respectful. The two groups complied.

The concept of determinism pre-dates Christianity and goes back into pagan times.

As for the Jewish people, the rabbis have always taught that God is BOTH ‘sovereign’ AND permits free will. Our Lord doesn’t seem to have changed this teaching or altered it.

Actually the first time I heard about TULIP was on a Baptist blog, and when I found out what it stood for, I was shocked to the core, not understanding how people could accept such teachings.

As for ‘assurance’ of salvation, there is a great trust in the mercy of God and in the Person of Jesus Christ who showed compassion for those without a shepherd. In that regard, we don’t have the same ‘fearfulness’ as some about salvation,
but we do believe that a person can make shipwreck of their faith and IF they do not repent and seek the Lord, they are at risk, but only God can judge their circumstances and their hearts, so we leave them to His mercy. I think there is a great amount of peace in our belief in the power of Christ to save. And we use the term ‘mercy’ continuously in our liturgies and prayers. The trust in Christ is strong among the people of my Church, yes.

ishy wrote:

Most of the Calvinistas I know have personalities which are very controlling. They define God like them, and they exhibit that controlling behavior over others.

Makes sense, sadly. If they see God is the Grand Puppet Master, then when they strive to be Godlike, they must become Puppet Masters, too!

Aaahh. A. W. Tozer–a hero to those of us who attended Christian and Missionary Alliance churches. In a biography of Tozer, a man named Cliff Westegren asked Tozer a question prior to going to seminary:

“I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, “Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?”

And I’ll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, “My son, when you get to college you’re going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I’ll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you’ll be way down the line and they’ll still be where they started, because [b]greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions.[/b] Instead, learn to know God.” (emphasis mine)

Thank you for this presentation on soteriology with SEA, Dee. I’ll read it more deeply as soon as I can.

@ Christiane:

Well, C S Lewis suggested that paganism was not *entirely* wrong (I stand open to correction here if anyone believes otherwise). Certainly it’s a different bag from the Baal/Asturah paganism that surrounded Israel.

But I think the Norse style of paganism with its idea of “fate” is still a long way from the idea of Somebody actually behind that “fate”. But as I’ve quoted before, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, although Calvinists themselves as far as I can see, disliked theological determinism (most notably instanced in the idea they heard in the 30s that one should not bother with intercessory prayer because God had already decided/knew the answer). Whether it’s “fate” or “don’t bother praying”, it’s still a sort of determinism.

I find elements of truth in both camps, but usually in their less extreme exponents. Most orthodox Calvinists, for example, would reject hyper-Calvinism, while most Arminians would probably be unhappy with the idea that one false step and you’re halfway to losing your salvation.

Thank you Becky Hill for that Tozer quote – that is a pithy one! (And helpful).

Kolya–I agree with your “elements of truth in both camps” totally! Thank you for a summary that promotes unity and truth.

siteseer wrote:

how is it we then imagine God more like the villain in our stories? The powerful monarch on a throne who mercilessly crushes his enemies, enjoys making his subjects suffer, and sees the slightest disloyalty as an excuse to inflict suffering?

I suppose Calvinists are not familiar with verses such as,

Ezekiel 18:23
“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

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

@ Irene:

I have been searching for some bridge between free will and determinism when it comes to human responsibility and accountability. Compatablism just does not make sense to me. It is basically God allowing you to think you have free will.

@ Becky Hill:
I think what has happened since Tozer days is that they took it from seminary and brought it into many non Cal churches through deception. That is why we peasants discuss it. It is also a very good way to think through what one really believes about God and why.

Ted wrote:

Sorry I asked about Jesus Loves Me. I’m not really a troublemaker.
I’ve been wondering too about the adults singing Blessed Assurance.
I think a lot of reformed people would say, “No, that’s HYPER-calvinism.”
But…but…but…

Hee Hee.

But, but, but no one questions Fanny Crosby!

I thought it might be interesting to bring in something from the Eastern Orthodox on the subjects of determinism and free will, from the Orthodox Study Bible, this:

“Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son….”

Orthodox Study Bible:
“God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all. For God is free and man is free. God freely offers salvation to all, and man freely responds to it. All are called, but all do not respond. Those who refuse to love God are not forced to change; God compels no one. “God does not will evil to be done, nor does He force virtue” (St John of Damascus).
Based on His foreknowledge, God assures or predestines that those who choose to love and obey Him will be fulfilled, being conformed to the image of His Son. The model for the creation of man is the Son incarnate, and the eternal goal of man is conformity to the incarnate Son. Thus, everything the Only Begotten Son is by nature we become by the grace of the Incarnation. ”

We can see the emphasis is a bit different in Eastern Christianity, but definitely worth considering; as the eastern Church also received the Apostolic traditions that spread out of Jerusalem into the world.

@ Darlene:
Darlene wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Dee, I love the quote from Tozer. The Calvinist view of the nature of the sovereignty of God is, I believe, the root of the problem of Calvinism. It seems that God cannot be sovereign without exercising meticulous control-freakery similar to what a seriously mentally disturbed human being might exhibit. That control-freakery is based in fear, as Tozer says, and I just do not see how the Calvinist view of sovereignty does not actually *diminish* God’s glory by, in effect, making God look like a Very Large and Powerful Human Being Who Is Very Disturbed.
BINGO!! This is why some people who have encountered Calvinism and are unable to reconcile love with this kind of god, will say that the Calvinist god is a MONSTER.

That is exactly what drove me away for YEARS – taught you have to “Love God with all of your heart, mind and soul” but how God was depicted – I could fear (arbitrary, indiscriminate and vindictive) but not by any means love or even respect……

I find it ironic that what people generally view as poor leadership traits (micromanaging,arbitrary, looking to punish, demanding loyalty, not providing adequate information)…..and there are words for that type of “leader” are considered good traits for God. To me that is a major disconnect.

One story that really got me thinking was Jesus on the lake in the storm – bringing the storm to prove his power over it and to show the disciples they should trust them. I equated that to scaring my kids with the fear of death – so I could show them I would keep them safe……..that is evil – plain and simple.

It took 25 years or so, but now I look at things differently – and glad I do

Daisy wrote:

I suppose Calvinists are not familiar with verses such as,

Ezekiel 18:23
“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

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

DAISY, they may have these Scriptures, but they certainly don’t emphasize them enough to include them in their theology, which they say is ‘biblical’, go figure.

Velour wrote:

Whom do these guys think they’re kidding?

That is a good question. There is a lot of craziness going around, and delusions of grandeur, or election, or what have you. The whole predermination notion just short-circuits everything. Why bother about anything, if it’s just kismet?

To me, the whole reason for God’s creating humans, from His point of view, is free will. He didn’t want automatons – could easily have made automatons. Who wants to be worshipped by beings that do it automatically?

He gave the Law to the Hebrews, but they couldn’t keep it. They were given multiple chances, prophets and all. Did He know they would not, could not, live up to it? Was He trying to prove a point to us all along?

Sure, God hates sin. He also hates human misery, which is where sin inevitably leads. Hence, from love, mercy, and grace… Jesus. And the free will of everyone who hears the Good News to sign on…

@ roebuck:

That was maybe more than I wanted to say. I think there is a LOT of Mystery surrounding it, and no amount of Systematic Theology is going to box God in…

roebuck wrote:

That was maybe more than I wanted to say. I think there is a LOT of Mystery surrounding it, and no amount of Systematic Theology is going to box God in…

hence there is much wisdom in the definition of a theologian as ‘one who prays’ 🙂

About two years ago I could not give a good explanation of reformed theology and could not describe the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, even though I had been an active Christian for more than 30 years. That changed a couple years ago when my sons started asking tough questions (they were attending a TGC-listed SBC church in their college town). I spent more than a year in an almost OCD-like obsession digging into the details. Diving into Calvinism was a pretty depressing journey for me. I discovered that Arminianism is not that much different in the basic assumptions, but the conclusions are very different. It was this research that showed me these are not the only choices. The Eastern tradition of Christianity did a much better job in retaining the teachings of the early church – they did not go down the path of the Augustinian/Aristotelian/Platonic view of God that is the foundation of both Calvinism and Arminianism.

I highly recommend going back to the early church. There are many great resources available for free. One of my favorites so far is “On the Incarnation” by Athanasius. I’ve read quite a lot of articles and a few books by Eastern Orthodox teachers. That has been very eye-opening.

I’ve been very encouraged lately by the ministries of Baxter Kruger and Paul Young (author of The Shack). Baxter Kruger has discovered the early church and seems to be doing a great job of unpacking what the early church believed. Here is a link to some of his lectures and articles: http://perichoresis.org/free-lecture-series/. I am currently working through the series called “The Shack Revisited: Orama Great Barrier Island 2014.” All I can say is Wow. If you need a break from Calvinism and the related Western arguments, Kruger offers another side. He grew up Presbyterian and Calvinist, so he does a great job in very graciously showing where Calvinism misses the mark.

okrapod wrote:

@ Christiane:

Do I understand correctly that this has not been declared heretical? Somebody on a previous comment thought it was ‘heterodox’. I believe that is what they said. Did the Church take an official position on this?

well, the term ‘heterodox’ is defined differently in Catholicism than in the Protestant tradition,

a philosophical opinion that explores what is not known for sure, but MIGHT be possible, can be called ‘heterodox’ if it doesn’t condemn Catholic teaching or claim to formally add to it

so in the arguments between the Thomists and the Molinists, there is a whole range of possibilities that MIGHT be true, but are speculation into what is truly mystery, and which also do not deny any existing Church teachings and therefor are not ‘heretical’ . . . .

‘scientia media’ would fall into a philosophical theological construct that doesn’t deny anything the Church is teaching, but yet is not a formal part of what the Church is teaching in the formal Cathechism . . . the Church would say it is ‘possibly’ true, but it is not taught formally in Catholicism, no.

I hope this makes a little bit of sense. If not, since I know you are a logical person, the problem is likely in my own inability to express myself clearly. Hope this helps some. 🙂

Ken F wrote:

The Eastern tradition of Christianity did a much better job in retaining the teachings of the early church – they did not go down the path of the Augustinian/Aristotelian/Platonic view of God that is the foundation of both Calvinism and Arminianism.

I highly recommend going back to the early church. There are many great resources available for free. One of my favorites so far is “On the Incarnation” by Athanasius. I’ve read quite a lot of articles and a few books by Eastern Orthodox teachers. That has been very eye-opening.

Best advice I’ve read all day. I agree with you. In the realm of sacred mystery, the Eastern Christians have got an advantage way over Western Christianity: it’s not that they both are so ‘opposite’, so much as they emphasize from different viewpoints, all in the end providing insight to the whole Church.

Athanasius is a GREAT resource from the early Church to learn from, as are the Cappadocian (sp?) Fathers.

Great comment, very thought provoking, yes.

Michael wrote:

I am not a Calvinist but their summary of the way of salvation appears closer to what I read in the Bible.

The filter makes a big difference. I was the same until I expanded my filter by reading Eastern Orthodox and early church theology. I was reading those verses with the wrong assumptions, which is why Calvinistic ideas had made some sense to me. But the more I read the more I am convinced Calvinism is a false gospel. False because of how it portrays the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Max wrote:

It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before Him.

That’s what I was trying to say in my last couple of comments, alas, with less economy of verbiage 🙂

Max wrote:

With my understanding of the message of the Cross of Christ, I can go anywhere on planet earth, look any man in the eye, and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do that and stay true to his theology. If I’m wrong, I will stand before God and declare “Well, I guess I just loved everyone too much and tried to lead as many to Christ as I could.” If a Calvinist is wrong …

This will henceforth be known as “Max’s Wager” (pace Pascal). 🙂

okrapod wrote:

For me it is slow learning because I have not really delved into the philosophy of the relationship between God and time which is necessary to consider in this concept. I

Exactly. Time is the big unknown. Not familiar with Craig.

roebuck wrote:

Christiane wrote:

it helps to remember that the simplicity of faith is most celebrated in our joyful sense of wonder and awe;

Amen and amen! I’m with Anne LaMott.

Isn’t she a Presbyterian?

Lydia wrote:

Jesus did not invite them to the upper room to explain atonement but to share a meal.

This is a lost thought to many.

Lea wrote:

Isn’t she a Presbyterian?

I have no idea. She expressed a sentiment that I can agree with.

Lydia wrote:

@
All this boils down to one thing. They take humans OUT of the salvic equation. And when we do that we end up with a one way relationship that is no relationship at all.

It’s called Monergism.

Lea wrote:

Irene wrote:
This misrepresents Calvinism by not including the fact that we believe the call goes out to all. THEN because people are too depraved to turn on their own, God sends His Spirit to open blind eyes.
Which part doesn’t fit of this explanation:
While God calls all without distinction to faith in Christ (the general call), he only calls those he has chosen unconditionally in a way that cannot be resisted (the effectual call).
• Those God has not chosen will reject the gospel call of their own will and cannot do otherwise.

You said it better than I, Lea. So, the call to those who God *has not chosen* is deceptive. It is a call that is not a genuine offer, because the one not chosen is unable to respond in faith to it.

Ken F wrote:

If you need a break from Calvinism and the related Western arguments

You have had some very good thoughts and references in the last month and it is going to take me a while to catch up. You probably are not stopping though, so much for catching up, so keep them coming.

@ roebuck:
Meet Annie LaMott
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Freida+Lee+Mock%27s+1999+documentary+Bird+by+Bird#id=2&vid=6ecf096d5a95e09df44a4d2c552a42da&action=view

Lydia wrote:

NT Wright. He briefly mentioned some atonement theories and then said Jesus did not invite them to the upper room to explain atonement but to share a meal.

Wonderful. About ten years ago I dropped out of church organizational strategy meetings, I was interested in how to build better relationships but it was always about something else. I followed up by reading through the new testament with an eye for relationships.

There are threads of ideas that run through the bible, I found relationships was more of a strong band running through the story. It is one of the reasons I am mystified there is so much dissension over arcane doctrine, it is as if those leading the charge are missing compassion.

<a href="#comment-276636" title=

They’re coming to take me away, ho ho he he ha ha, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time. And I’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats. And they’re coming to take me away, ha ha.

Max wrote:

Deb wrote:
I guess there are a number of wonderful Christian children’s songs that kids in the Calvinist camp will never learn.
One of my favorite hymns to hear SBC Vacation Bible School children sing over the years is “Whosoever Meaneth Me.”
Well, that precious song can’t be found in LifeWay’s new Baptist hymnal. Songs referring to Christ’s death as an atonement for everyone and not just the elect – like “Whosoever Will” and “Whosoever Meaneth Me” didn’t make the cut. Neither did “Oh What a Wonder It Is”, with its “all who would believe in Him, He’d save them every one” or “Holy Bible, Book of Love”, which proclaims that Christ “died for everyone.” Calvinist influence?

Max, what about this one? Is it in the new LifeWay hymnbook? ‘The Love of God’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnvmKoLWUU&spfreload=10

PaJo wrote:

It seems to me that one could not go too far wrong in understanding how God loves us if s/helost every last page of the Bible but kept the story of the Prodigal Son/The Story of the Father with Two Sons, and meditated on that.

Right. If anyone is old enough, they know someone who has a prodigal adult child. Or maybe they have one themselves. That story speaks powerfully to those grieving and sometimes angry but always loving and hopeful parents or grandparents.

Christiane wrote:

we’re talking about some really serious darkness when we talk about folks thinking that God would burn an infant in hell …

I am happy that limbo is no longer a thing. Very disturbing as is purgatory, IMO. Not as disturbing as throwing infants into hell, but still disturbing. Purgatory is disturbing because it seems to me to limit the effectiveness of the Atonement. That said, any incidental contact I had with CCD was a very long time ago.

I think this might wander OT, but it is interesting to think about how much Augustine’s thinking influences the church. That’s all I have on the topic and do not want to derail the topic of TULIPS vs. FACTS.

Gram3 wrote:

Daisy wrote:

God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you.

Driscoll: “God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you.”

So much for the impassibility of God.

Bingo!!

Bridget wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Jesus did not invite them to the upper room to explain atonement but to share a meal.
This is a lost thought to many.

Hmmm….I’m wondering what a Calvinist would say about that. Me thinks he could write an entire volume on systematic theology about the upper room and the discourse that took place.

Darlene wrote:

Me thinks he could write an entire volume on systematic theology about the upper room and the discourse that took place.

It would all be speculation taken too far, way too far. 😉

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

My hope is in Christ alone. There is no amount of suffering that I can add to what he did that would count for anything or achieve any further purpose.

siteseer wrote:

My hope is in Christ alone. There is no amount of suffering that I can add to what he did that would count for anything or achieve any further purpose.

To draw from some comments up-thread, purgatory strikes me as one of those speculations that should have remained mere speculations.

Bill M wrote:

siteseer wrote:

My hope is in Christ alone. There is no amount of suffering that I can add to what he did that would count for anything or achieve any further purpose.

To draw from some comments up-thread, purgatory strikes me as one of those speculations that should have remained mere speculations.

I thought it was connected to the practice of selling indulgences at one time.

okrapod wrote:

But where is their sufficient evidence to sustain either conclusion?

Maybe someone can think of something else but the only evidence that comes to mind is what Jesus told the thief on the Cross next to Him. Which isn’t much except interesting when you think of the next three days.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Arce wrote:

until a child has achieved the ability to discern right from wrong (love from hate?), the child is an innocent not worthy of condemnation.

We believed this, too.

Before I typed a comment about imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness I googled the phrases. I had no idea this is a Methodist theology. Anyway, we were taught that God imputes righteousness to us until that age of accountability when he imparts it to us. So, a baby or child would be imputed with Christ’s righteousness.

This a pretty strong argument for abortion.

Victorious wrote:

Our debt was cancelled. No?

Yes. And that is the whole story, yes or no? No.

If I am correct…The catholics do not think that the unsaved go to purgatory. They think that purgatory is part of the continuing process of sanctification which for most is not completed prior to physical death. Protestants think that justification is a completed work of Christ applied to the individual instantaneously and that the process of sanctification stops at physical death. The differences lie, as I see it, in several areas. One is whether justification (payment of the debt) is a separate process or whether justification and sanctification are parts of the same process. Another is whether or to what extent persons themselves co-operate with God in sanctification (becoming like God) or whether it is entirely a work of God alone. And yet another is how one views physical death in the light of the life to come-how much of the life to come is a continuation of this life and how much may be a more drastic starting over.

@ Daisy:

God hates us, and through the work of Christ, we become his obnoxious in-laws that He’s forced to deal with. Good news?

Piper is the promulgator of this idea. So I’ve sat in a gospel™ centered church listening to messages like this, and I’ve thought, for the people who actively affirm and consume this stuff, they’re either thinking:

“This is so true about me”, or
“This is so true about everyone else at this dead church.”

There’s no way of knowing for sure, but some people’s behavior is much more consistent with the latter.

@ Michael:

It would help if the evangelical super geniuses like Tim Keller could say they’re sorry for promoting him.

Steve Scott wrote:

Unelect Newborn babies go to hell. Every newborn is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”John Calvin, the father of Calvinism believed:”There are babies a span long in hell.”
Dee, be careful here. Calvinists who hold to covenant theology generally believe that children in Christian families are included in the covenant, and that’s why they are baptized as believers in infancy. Although Calvin may have believed that babies are wholly inclined to evil, this does not mean that he believed that they all go to hell. God’s covenant, it is viewed, makes salvation an actuality for children inclined to evil. ……. Traditional Calvinists generally point to family as an institution that aids and nourishes faith and that God gives elect children to elect Christian families.

So, what happens to a child when one parent is saved and a church member, and the other parent is neither or has made a false profession?
Is that child elect, half-elect, or non-elect?

And what of children who are born to non-Christian families, but is taken to church by a friends, neighbors, or other church members? I was part of a children’s ministry for a few years. We picked up children that ranged in age from 3 to 14. Is a children’s ministry for the “unchurched” a total waste?

Oh, and I would assume 9Marx churches have no children’s outreach, since no one who lives with their parents can be a member of God’s family. I guess if a person doesn’t make it to age 18 and independence, let them burn!

Christiane wrote:

I can understand why Gram3 didn’t like the idea of ‘limbo’ though. It doesn’t make any sense at all when you look closely at the Gospels where Our Lord speaks about children and the Kingdom of God.

No Baptists I know believes in purgatory.
Jesus didn’t say anything about Lazarus and the rich man, nor the thief who was crucified beside him, being in limbo.

Evangelical Arminians is a great site. Glad you discovered it. I found it a few years ago as I was picking up the pieces of my faith post-Calvin. It helped me to figure out just what was “off” about the theology, and lots of light bulbs went off binge reading the site. 🙂

Another helpful resource is this talk by Jerry Walls called “What’s Wrong with Calvinism?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg

In his continuing endeavor to out-do all other Calvinists, John Piper claims to be a 7-Point Calvinist! Instead of your regular run of the mill hyper-Calvinist who holds rigorously to the five unrevisable doctrinal propositions of TULIP, the Pied Piper adds a couple more, making him a super-hyper-Calvinist. His additions to the flower include “double predestination” and “best-of-all-possible worlds.” This guy is such a strange little man.

Darlene wrote:

Is it in the new LifeWay hymnbook? ‘The Love of God’

Nope, not there.

Deb wrote:

I am very familiar with that teaching by Adrian Rogers, one of my favorite preachers.

Adrian, if alive today, would be pretty upset with Southern Baptists for allowing the Conservative Resurgence to merge into a Calvinist Resurgence. He may not have been fond of SBC liberals, but he wasn’t keen on reformed theology either.

Janet Varin wrote:

This a pretty strong argument for abortion.

I don’t think so, because the real question is whether the mother has the moral right to abort her child who is also created in the image of God. That’s a high hurdle to overcome, IMO. Whether God extends his mercy and the covering of Christ’s sacrifice to the child is an independent question, I think. Susan Smith and Andrea Yates drew the wrong lesson from the idea that God receives the little ones.

@ Lea:
Once upon a time, Cage Stage charismatics were the problem in churches. I think the real problem is spiritual elitism, whatever form it takes. That and the apparent fact that those problem folks were converted to something other than faith in Jesus, the Christ, and their behavior shows it. To be clear, I do not mean that they are not believers in Christ but rather that they turn the whole dog into the tail.

@ okrapod:

I am not scholarly enough to know. From the little I have heard from him on this subject, I do know he expressed concern that some beliefs on this issue seem to have been imported from Greek Paganism. I do think there is a reason to believe God will redeem His created earth instead of burning it up. :o) So there is one aspect.

All I know is I can’t wrap my head around limbo or purgatory when it comes to Gods character and Promises.. We have to wonder how much of this stuff has evolved from superstition that once dominated the state church and kept the peasants attention.

@ Nancy2:
Children with one believing parent are considered within the Covenant of Grace, so they are regarded as elect until they demonstrate they are not among the elect. Children with no believing parents have no connection to the Covenant of Grace, so…

9Marks is, I believe, holds to New Covenant theology. All children would be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus until they renounce the faith by word or deeds. This is not much different, practically speaking, than the traditional Baptist “age of accountability.”

I agree with what Okrapod says about thinking about the evidence. The Covenant of Grace is a theological construct just like the age of accountability is. Different people find one more compelling than the other.

If I have misstated something about the Covenantal view, I hope someone will correct me.

Max wrote:

They were prudent to hold onto their 1975 or 1991 issues

Mine is older than that. 🙂 Still in good shape, too. Quality bookmaking.

Lydia wrote:

I don’t think babies are imputed with Adams sin. i think that concept grew in popularity from Augustine and evolved West from there.

Thank you for that. Infertility is a sensitive topic these days. I just can’t fathom telling a woman who miscarried that her baby isn’t “saved.” Never mind that some sources say that half of all fertilized eggs die. That would be a lot of “unsaved” souls.

@ Gram3:
The charismatics just did not have the Christian Industrial Complex. Besides, Patterson rooted them out of the SBC long ago. :o)

The Neo Cals have the CIC, the resources and the gravitas. They can afford a much longer cage stage. Now, it is the normal and we are to be tolerant and keep pay the bills while young Jared matures into his pastoral position.

@ Max:

John Piper is a John Piperist.

Lydia wrote:

The Neo Cals have the CIC, the resources and the gravitas. They can afford a much longer cage stage. Now, it is the normal and we are to be tolerant and keep pay the bills while young Jared matures into his pastoral position.

Great point. You left out all the Jasons, Jonathans, Jacobs, Jeremys and some other assorted J’s. The YRRs do not have to worry about all those Jennifers being cage stage. 🙂

Lydia wrote:

And we don’t have all the answers.

I think there is sort of a sliding scale of important things. And some people assign a ton of importance to things I literally think are not important at all.

What does it matter in your everyday life as a Christian if you think evolution is real? Or this is a 6k year earth? I know others think differently, but this stuff is like angels dancing on a pin to me. It doesn’t help you life a christlike life to hold any specific opinion on these things, and going around being holier than thou about your opinions actually drives people away from God.

Some of the theology stuff is interesting to think about, but about every bit as useless in every day life. Some of it, however, can be toxic. That’s the stuff we need to hash out, I guess. So people don’t go around thinking God hates us or is super annoyed with us or whatever nonsense Driscoll was saying.

I think the basic character of God is important. Believing is important. Loving is important. The rest is just stuff to wonder about…

@ Lea:
I think Jesus agrees with you. :o)

It is instructive to go through the Gospels and see what He spent most of his time talking about that the authors felt most important to write down. Also, what he didn’t talk about much at all and things that he did and things that he did not do. It is really a different picture.

okrapod wrote:

As far as I can tell it was the comment by arce on Thursday at 6:56 am that mentioned abortion in the discussion of infants. Arce did not recommend abortion.

OK. I can see where someone might have followed that train of thought in my comment.

So, for the record, I’m not making an argument for abortion. I hope that clears things up.

Lydia wrote:

We really do have to think through what we believe and why. It often leads to real harm.

I agree. And I’m woefully ignorant of the historical roots of most of this. So, thanks to all of you who spend your time here sharing the Cliff Notes version.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I don’t think babies are imputed with Adams sin. i think that concept grew in popularity from Augustine and evolved West from there.
Thank you for that. Infertility is a sensitive topic these days. I just can’t fathom telling a woman who miscarried that her baby isn’t “saved.” Never mind that some sources say that half of all fertilized eggs die. That would be a lot of “unsaved” souls.

And worse, many believe God determined it to happen because He is controlling every molecule 24/7. It is fatalism.

And because of childbearing and patriarchy women have born the blunt of this thinking throughout history. But our God promised Messiah would come through women. Some of them suffering great indignity. They are listed in the genealogy of our Lord. What a precious Savior we have!

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Never mind that some sources say that half of all fertilized eggs die. That would be a lot of “unsaved” souls.

There has been discussion in religion as to when ‘ensoulment’ happens. That is to say when does one become a soul? Some today think that indeed the zygote is a person with a soul. In the past one idea was that ensoulment happened at the time of quickening, when fetal movement is first detectable by the pregnant woman. Some have said that it happens at the moment of birth. I note that we have no specific answer from either scripture or medicine.

Lydia wrote:

The whole imputed guilt doctrine has serious reverberating consequences that end up in a black hole of ‘yes babies are guilty but God is nice about it’ or ‘yes they are guilty and if not elect, God punishes them’ or ‘yes they are guilty but we baptized them’.

And there is also the question of hell itself. Is it a place of eternal punishment? Is the eternal punishment graded? Is the wages of sin eternal death or eternal punishment? Does a general atonement imply a general salvation? If inclusivism or universalism is true, what about relative sin in this life?

Questions within questions. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right” is my clobber verse for those questions. But that implies a Judge/Lawgiver who acts according to his own law and his own character. Which raises other questions of what the exact nature of God’s character is. So I bring out another clobber verse “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” and “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his nature.” All references are the GSV.

What Did Jesus Do? That is what I think the Judge will do.

okrapod wrote:

I note that we have no specific answer from either scripture or medicine.

It’s a determination that’s definitely above my paygrade. 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

Andrea Yates

Is that the lady in Houston (more the Clear Lake area) who drowned several of her kids in her home?

I had to drive past her house five days a week to get to my job (when I used to live in that area).

Janet Varin wrote:

This a pretty strong argument for abortion.

Do you mean, like for someone who was strongly considering abortion but was only being held back by the fear that the unborn child would be doomed to hell?

Lydia wrote:

I keep wondering when their quasi no girls China policy will kick in and there won’t be enough Jennifer’s to marry. :o)

China’s Brutal One-Child Policy Ruins Men’s Marriage Prospects, Resulting in Human Trafficking
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/23/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy-ruins-mens-marriage-prospects-resulting-in-human-trafficking/

Daisy wrote:

Is that the lady in Houston

Yes. The whole thing is just creepy.

Gram3 wrote:

she was pointing out one implication

…should have said one *possible* implication.

Daisy wrote:

They always hedge it with “God hates divorce,”

But I guess God doesn’t have any feelings, one way or the other, about abuse.

Max wrote:

Deb wrote:

I am very familiar with that teaching by Adrian Rogers, one of my favorite preachers.

Adrian, if alive today, would be pretty upset with Southern Baptists for allowing the Conservative Resurgence to merge into a Calvinist Resurgence. He may not have been fond of SBC liberals, but he wasn’t keen on reformed theology either.

Maybe it is just me but what Mr. Rogers helped do to the SBC just turns me off completely even to his very name.

Daisy wrote:

They always hedge it with “God hates divorce,” “you should separate for a bit with the goal of reconciliation,” etc, type messages, which I think will only confuse an abused wife who is really wanting to leave (divorce) her husband, but these preachers make her feel guilty for even considering divorce as an option.

Verses lifted out of context to derive and advance a particular ideology are all too common in evangelicalism. Calvary Chapel pastors and especially the ones old enough to have been under Papa Chuck’s tutelage, are masters at it. So it’s not just confined to Southern Baptists and their neo-cal variants.

@ Bill M:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

I don’t use specific Catholic sources but this is a quick peek of the connection of indulgences and purgatory.

“In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, an indulgence is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”[1] which may reduce either or both of the penance required after a sin has been forgiven, or after death, the temporal punishment, (not “time,” as Purgatory like Heaven and Hell is said to exist “outside of time,”) in the state or process of purification called Purgatory.”

Martin Luthers 95 Theses were all about indulgences.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

okrapod wrote:

I note that we have no specific answer from either scripture or medicine.

It’s a determination that’s definitely above my paygrade.

Doesn’t stop Mister Know-It-Alls from trying.
(Just ask Job…)

mot wrote:

Maybe it is just me but what Mr. Rogers helped do to the SBC just turns me off completely even to his very name.

He was definitely one of the major players. He didn’t have a very high view of women, either. Oh, he glossed it over with all of the pretty words, but he made it clear that women are lesser beings – men are the creatures that really matter!
Rogers insisted that the WMU be “hard wired” into the SBC, meaning that the WOMEN’S Missionary Union should be controlled by men!
Sometimes I think that the CR’s primary goal was to keep women down and protect men’s egos with “prophets, priests, and kings” status.

Daisy wrote:

Puh-leeze.

He lost me on the “The goal of fleeing should not be escape, but healing and eventual reconciliation.”
No, the goal is escape and protection, full stop.
They cloak patriarchy with the husband looking after the wife, but then turn it upside down and make the husband’s spiritual condition the responsibility of the wife.
In the words of Arte Johnson, “very interesting but also stupid”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EqVdMQtQAU

Lydia wrote:

indulgence is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”

Good to know but while that is what they taught, I’m still inclined to think many of their “students” took an entirely different lesson, play now, pay later.

Nancy2 wrote:

How many points are in a circle?

Good one Nancy2! Straight out of Aristotle’s wheel paradox.

Nancy2 wrote:

Sometimes I think that the CR’s primary goal was to keep women down and protect men’s egos with “prophets, priests, and kings” status.

It ain’t just Rogers either. Much of fundagelicalism is preoccupied with Hueying (helicoptering) stuff out of the way-back-in-the-Bible-times and trying to make it apply in the here and now.
Don’t get me wrong, as far as holy books go, I’m convinced that the Bible has no equal, and that it has timeless truth for all peoples and all cultures. But it must also be read with reason, an eye for pragmatism, and common sense.

Nancy2 wrote:

Daisy wrote:
They always hedge it with “God hates divorce,”
——-
Nancy said:
But I guess God doesn’t have any feelings, one way or the other, about abuse.

Good observation: the sour- on- divorce, or pro- permanence of marriage crowd, appears to think God is very ambivalent or apathetic about wives being abused.

But boy, are they are certain that God despises divorce – on abuse, who can say? *roll eyes*

Bill M wrote:

He lost me on the “The goal of fleeing should not be escape, but healing and eventual reconciliation.”

No, the goal is escape and protection, full stop.
They cloak patriarchy with the husband looking after the wife, but then turn it upside down and make the husband’s spiritual condition the responsibility of the wife.
In the words of Arte Johnson, “very interesting but also stupid”.

I was reading in-between the lines in his advice.

A lot of these preachers who make institution of marriage more important than the people who are in it, are usually okay with the abused wife taking a two- week vacation away from the husband.

They are fine with temporary separation, but they always encourage and guilt trip the abused wife to return to the abuser.

These types of preachers never out-right give a “green light,” or permission, to Christian wives to DIVORCE.
In my opinion, they should tell abused wives that Divorce IS most certainly an option for them.

I have no idea why marriage is made such a little idol. If two people break up, it’s not going to be the end of the world.

People divorce all the time, even over much lesser considerations. But a lot of Christians behave as though it’s a top sin.

I also agree with your notice of their double standard or hypocrisy – complementarian/ patriarchal preachers and systems say the man has full say-so, but mysteriously, in cases of abusive marriages, they suddenly make the women magically responsible for the abuser, his fate, and his behavior.

Lea wrote:

I also wrote something snarky about your comment about God not having feelings about abuse, but it got stuck.

I’ll check back later!

Daisy wrote:

I also agree with your notice of their double standard or hypocrisy – complementarian/ patriarchal preachers and systems say the man has full say-so, but mysteriously, in cases of abusive marriages, they suddenly make the women magically responsible for the abuser, his fate, and his behavior.

In the targeting and abusing of the dignity of women, this strange male idolatry cult has inadvertently fostered situations among husbands and wives that encourage divorce rather than prevent it.

By the time the poor wife has ‘had it’, there is nothing more that this cult CAN do to harm her. They’ve already succeeded in celebrating the effects of The Fall in mandating a domination/submission model over the beautiful ‘either to other’ relationship of sacred Christian marriage which binds two into one through love.

What more do Patriarchists want? They want the wife to stay, and totally collapse psychologically, mentally, or physically? Why so much contempt? And it’s HER fault?
I have one more phrase to say to that, but it is unprintable.

@ Muff Potter:
Actually this was the main points at issue between Calvinists and Armenianists. Armenianists believed that *All* babies that died went to HELL. Calvinists did not believe this for the children of believers.

Of the two positions, I know which one I prefer.

me wrote:

Armenianists believed that *All* babies that died went to HELL.

I have never heard this stated by any Armenianist.

@ siteseer:
I have no doubt that Russell Yates was complicit in the tragedy, by virtue of what he failed to do in ignoring the warnings of people who understood how fragile his wife had become.

I hope some day he comes to be convicted in his soul for his neglect of Andrea in those days. May God have mercy on us all in the face of so much sadness, as many people called for her to be crucified after the tragedy. He belongs to that culture that victimized women and then blamed them when they couldn’t take it any more. God have mercy on all involved in this strange hellish culture.

Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:

The God and Kingdom of Heaven Jesus proclaimed is different from the one that fills their dreams.

Yes

Daisy wrote:

Good observation: the sour- on- divorce, or pro- permanence of marriage crowd, appears to think God is very ambivalent or apathetic about wives being abused.
But boy, are they are certain that God despises divorce – on abuse, who can say? *roll eyes*

Probably because if they didn’t forbid divorce, all their wives would bail out on them.

“Those most worried about Escapism are Jailers” crossed with “Put another log on the fire…”

okrapod wrote:

I forgot to mention something that somebody said earlier about imputed vs imparted righteousness. This is a crucial difference in understanding the differences between catholic and protestant thinking in this area.

I am so excited to comment on this particular point because my search on “imputed vs imparted righteousness” more than a year ago opened my eyes to a completely different way of seeing it. I did an internet search because a few years ago I got into a discussion with our Sunday school teacher about this topic. I was having a hard time seeing the difference (what difference does it make if someone gives me (imparts) $1000 to spend or credits to me (imputes) $1000 to spend?). It seemed like a distinction without a difference. Here’s the link I found when I first searched for this: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness

This is the near the end of that article:
“What we are saved from is the key issue here. Rather than view salvation primarily as a forensic liberation from guilt through imputed or imparted righteousness, we should see it as incorporation, by baptism, into Christ’s death and resurrection, such that we “die and rise” with Him. Thus we are saved from Death. We are freed from this ultimate consequence of sin and guilt—but only as a divinely bestowed gift of God’s ineffable love, expressed in the suffering death of His Son, a gift to which we respond with faith that issues in love. That response, through the action of the indwelling Spirit, enables us finally to share in Christ’s own resurrection and glorification, attaining what the Greek Fathers call theôsis or “deification” (which means existential participation in God’s life, and not ontological confusion between God and His human creatures).”

This opened a window for me into Eastern Orthodox and early church theology. It let me see that Western Christians argue among themselves about fine points of theology that were never even considered in the East. I still attend a SBC church in the deep South, but my faith is coming alive by looking back to the old beliefs. I wish everyone would do some looking to the East and to the past. It’s been a very fruitful search for me.

Gram3 wrote:

And there is also the question of hell itself. Is it a place of eternal punishment? Is the eternal punishment graded? Is the wages of sin eternal death or eternal punishment? Does a general atonement imply a general salvation? If inclusivism or universalism is true, what about relative sin in this life?

In my research over the last 1.5 years I learned that the Eastern Orthodox have a different vision of hell than Christians in the West. They view it more as an experience than a place. The Parable of the Prodigal is a great example. The Father loved both sons. The Father gave everything he had to both sons. The Father sought out both sons. One son (the prodigal) repented of his foolishness and entered the party. The other son (the religiously righteous) had contempt for his Father’s generosity and refused to enter the party. One son entered the joy of the Father, the other son experienced the outer darkness in a self-made pity party of one.

Here’s Colossians 1:19-20 – “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

This passage says ALL thing on earth and heaven were reconciled to God through Jesus. Calvinists freak out at the idea of universalism, but there are several passages that make it pretty clear that Christ died for ALL. There is a very solid case to universal atonement in the Bible (notice that all Calvinists are universalists when it comes to Adam’s sin affecting all people, but not universalists when it comes to the atonement, which makes Adam’s sin more powerful than Jesus’ atonement). But that does not mean universal salvation because some people, like the older brother, will refuse to enter the joy of the Father. To them, the presence of God will be eternal torment.

Here’s the Eastern Orthodox perspective on Hell: https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
“For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ “comes in glory, and all angels with Him,” so that “God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15–28). Those who have God as their “all” within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose “all” is themselves and this world, the “all” of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8.21, et al.).”

My understand right now is that the early church hoped for the salvation of all people, but did not believe that all people will make the free choice to receive it.

Darlene wrote:

And think about it, Ken. The early church theology was around for 1,500 years prior to Calvin being born.

Yes! Calvinist teachers so often teach as if it all started with the Reformation. And they also misquote early church fathers to bolster their support for a theology that is rotten at its roots.

@ siteseer:

I was living in Houston when Yates drowned her kids.

Around that time, there were a lot of articles about the Duggar- Quiverfull- like situation she was in.

It’s been awhile since I read all that stuff, but from what I remember, Andrea Yates reached out for help to her in-laws, I think her husband – she let them know that there were too many kids, and she was falling apart.

They didn’t care. They viewed a wife as a broodmare, her prime responsibility was to breed, look after the kids, and wait on the husband hand and foot.

What the wife needed/ wanted didn’t matter with their religious group – I grew up with that same outlook: what women want and need don’t matter, only what men want/need matters, and I grew up under the “soft complemetnarian” view, not the more severe patriarchal stuff that she did.

Christiane wrote:

The hymn is still sung among Christian people for vespers, at ‘sundown’.

Thanks you for the blessing. Do you know if hymns like this can be found in English?

Janet Varin wrote:

This a pretty strong argument for abortion.

Well, I said nothing about abortion. But feel free to argue for it if you wish.

Eeyore wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Well, the Calvinist will say that the will is only free to do evil because man’s heart is desperately corrupt.

Give us some credit… there is a LOT of empirical evidence to support that assertion. :-/

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:

More like my lack of articulation. The whole imputed guilt doctrine has serious reverberating consequences that end up in a black hole of ‘yes babies are guilty but God is nice about it’ or ‘yes they are guilty and if not elect, God punishes them’ or ‘yes they are guilty but we baptized them’.

I just don’t think they are guilty. :o)

When we get into age of accountability explanation, I just try to think of it as “walking in the light” as in 1 John. But with a lean toward knowing right/wrong.

And then we have Voddie Baucham calling babies “vipers in diapers.”

Bridget wrote:

me wrote:

Armenianists believed that *All* babies that died went to HELL.

I have never heard this stated by any Armenianist.

Ditto! Me either.

Bill M wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Janet Varin wrote:

“This a pretty strong argument for abortion.”

I don’t think so, because the real question is whether the mother has the moral right to abort her child who is also created in the image of God.

I didn’t take Janet’s comment as supporting abortion. I’ve heard similar statements that were merely an ironic extension of the belief that getting people to heaven is the only important thing.

Thanks, Bill. You’re right. I was pointing out the irony that Christians (myself included)tend to be pro-life, yet when pressed we have to admit we’d rather expose the unborn child to torture that never ends rather than a short painful death that ceases, with the guarantee of heaven. Personally, I believe the very real love God has for the embryo and 6-year-old cannot morph into hatred when she turns 14. If we can’t articulate our beliefs coherently to an unbelieving world, we should put our signs down, pray for wisdom, listen, and study.

I’m sorry if I offended and for hijacking the topic! You guys have been my very supportive siblings and I value this community!

Janet Varin wrote:

If we can’t articulate our beliefs coherently to an unbelieving world, we should put our signs down, pray for wisdom, listen, and study.

Since 70% of women seeking an abortion identify as Christians, I’m not sure that having our theological ducks in a row is going to make a difference. I have to think that at least some of those women do believe an infant is going to eternal torment, but the studies don’t really look at that.

Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. This topic was honestly the furthest thing from my mind. I was mere pointing out what I had been taught.

roebuck wrote:

But what I really need to know is… just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

(1) Angels have better things to do than dance on pins.
(2) Since angels are incorporeal beings, they take up no space. Since they take up no space, all the angels in the universe could (if they were 😉 taking a day off, as it were) dance on the head of a pin at once.
However, see: point (1), above.

🙂

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The souls in Purgatory are already saved but they are being purified. The Bible says nothing unclean can enter Heaven, and most of us need that final cleansing.

This is also the reasoning behind Wesley’s teaching about sanctification. I think they are the same, expressed in different language.
And that what Catholics call “purgatory” is the equivalent of taking a bath & changing into your best clothes before standing face to face with the Kings of kings.

@ Jeff:
Lol!

Hi Folks,
Just a note that Shauna and her son Billy in Texas are very low on money. Billy starts school next week and they need to buy him new clothes and school supplies. Additionally, they need food and help with other bills.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

Gram3 wrote:

And there is also the question of hell itself. Is it a place of eternal punishment? Is the eternal punishment graded? Is the wages of sin eternal death or eternal punishment? Does a general atonement imply a general salvation? If inclusivism or universalism is true, what about relative sin in this life?
Questions within questions. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right” is my clobber verse for those questions. But that implies a Judge/Lawgiver who acts according to his own law and his own character. Which raises other questions of what the exact nature of God’s character is. So I bring out another clobber verse “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” and “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his nature.” All references are the GSV.
What Did Jesus Do? That is what I think the Judge will do.

The problem of eternal torture was the primary cause of my faith crisis, beginning two and a half decades ago. Two years ago, when I naively began attending an OPC church plant (whose planting pastor was a former Calvary Chapel church planter turned hard-core Reformed) in hope of getting out of my crisis, being forced to face the logical end of Calvinism set my faith “recovery” back badly. It was that experience that actually led me here! I am so grateful for this place (TWW)—and, in particular, this conversation.

zooey111 wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The souls in Purgatory are already saved but they are being purified. The Bible says nothing unclean can enter Heaven, and most of us need that final cleansing.

This is also the reasoning behind Wesley’s teaching about sanctification. I think they are the same, expressed in different language.
And that what Catholics call “purgatory” is the equivalent of taking a bath & changing into your best clothes before standing face to face with the Kings of kings.

Thank you!!! Yes, that’s it. I love the Wesleys!

zooey111 wrote:

what Catholics call “purgatory” is the equivalent of taking a bath & changing into your best clothes before standing face to face with the Kings of kings

reminds me of Zechariah’s description in ch. 3, this:

“3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. 4 He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.” 5 Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by “

Muff Potter wrote:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire —

something to think about when we go to vote this November, yes

So let use be clear. *Historically* the question about the children of Christian parents who died young, and where they go was the biggest point of contention between Calvinists and Arminians. Leaving out that disagreement seemed very odd to me (and still does.)
I am sure there are people who call themselves people in one camp or the other than don’t hold to the historical positions.

Gram3 wrote:

I understand that other forms of Christianity have a magisterium.

One of the reasons for this was all the splinter groups wreaking havoc. It was decided early on that only the “church” is able to interpret scriptures. Even the apostle Paul went to the elders in Jerusalem to get his gospel approved. Having such a magisterium has its bright sides. But even something good like that can be abused. It’s good that the Bible was put into so many people’s hands. But then we get all the numerous splits and divisions.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Lydia, the most accurate source for What Catholics Actually Believe is the Catechism (instantly accessible online). Not Wikipedia.
Isn’t it just common courtesy to accept what Religious Group A says are its beliefs, rather than relying on external and possibly inaccurate sources?

Yes, but. The catechism talks in its own version of christianese and it takes a heap of listening to even begin to pick up on what is actually being said, or even worse left unsaid. I speak of one who has tackled that task. For a protestant to just read the CCC is rather like asking a seventh grader to read and explain the publications put out by the IRS. These are different styles of thinking and different styles of speaking. To think that even an educated and biblically literate protestant understands what is actually being meant by what is said in written catholicism is a real stretch. (For example, just think the word ‘grace’ and know that catholics and most protestants are barely talking about the same thing.) I feel sure that you have experienced that since you have mentioned many times that you just don’t understand this or that about protestantism. And you are catholic, educated and biblically literate. That is a two-way road.

And there is another problem which I hesitate to address, but now is the time. Catholics do not always agree with each other. Protestants do not know which and what church teaching binds the conscience of the catholic and which and what are just ideas prevalent in catholicism but not defined dogma or doctrine. Many catholics are poorly versed in catholicism which IIRC was an issue addressed by vatican2. And it seems to me that some catholics are perhaps embarrassed by some catholic teachings and don’t tell the whole story in plain english when talking to protestants. Personally I accept what the CCC says that the church believes is what ‘the church’ believes, but I do not even come close to believing that everything some self-identified catholic person says that the church believes. And I learned that a lot of catholics do not know what they are talking about –guess where–in RCIA because they warned us of that. They said, like you said, check everything out in the CCC before you accept that it is catholic belief.

IMO, protestants have no option but to start with some catholic apologetic web sites and yes even Wiki. I said start there, not stop there. Eventually one has to understand what the church (like the IRS) means when it say thus and such, but it takes some explanation to get to that point.

Ken F wrote:

Having such a magisterium has its bright sides. But even something good like that can be abused. It’s good that the Bible was put into so many people’s hands.

In principle, I do not see a difference between an institutional or formal magisterium and something like TgC or 9Marks that acts as one. And I do not see a bright side to it *when people are largely literate* and have access to the Scriptures. It seems to be a fact of human life that an institution becomes its own point and the established beneficiaries of the institution begin protecting the institution more than the purpose for which the institution exists. And history shows that the institution then is largely interested in controlling channels of information and influence and power and money. Which then leads to a call for a reformation.

Ken F wrote:

Many of the most abusive churches and ministries described on this site are completely independent and thus have no controls in place to resist their abuses.

So very true.

Velour wrote:

Ken F wrote:
Many of the most abusive churches and ministries described on this site are completely independent and thus have no controls in place to resist their abuses.
So very true.

How can you be so sure decent non controlling people will be part of the “controls”?

@ Ken F:
You might enjoy Verduin’s “Anatomy of a Hybrid” which addresses the problem from a both a spiritual and historical perspective starting with John the Baptist. More for your reading list. :o)

okrapod wrote:

Catholics do not always agree with each other. Protestants do not know which and what church teaching binds the conscience of the catholic and which and what are just ideas prevalent in catholicism but not defined dogma or doctrine.

Which to me is all the more reason to believe that the conscience exists as a separate and unbound entity. Not subject to councils, creeds, or dogma*.

* dogma here is also meant to mean specific interpretations of Scripture in which all may or may not agree upon.

siteseer wrote:

I spent a lot of time studying the Bible on this subject some years ago. I collected all the passages that appear to support each viewpoint -and there are many for each- and spent a lot of time on them. My own final analysis is that God must enlighten our understanding in order for us to perceive him, but we are responsible to respond, and that no one can define exactly where the line falls between these two things.
It’s when human beings start trying to define and codify exactly how God works in areas beyond our understanding -like these- that we show how meager our understanding is. I think it comes out of a desire to bring God down to our level, a desire to feel in control is what leads people to put the thoughts and actions of God into definitions that our own brains can grasp.

Exactly. I was about to post pretty much the same.

Velour wrote:

Ken F wrote:
Many of the most abusive churches and ministries described on this site are completely independent and thus have no controls in place to resist their abuses.

So very true.

This is true, but if the error comes from on high it can spread quickly to places that never would have done it on their own.

See “Church Discipline”.

@ okrapod:

Oops.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/

okrapod wrote:

It matters not what Piper et al think it takes to maintain God’s glory, seeing that the Glory of God is something which man has not seen (well, maybe John in his apocalyptic vision got a glimpse and then there was Isaiah) and which God has not tasked man with the necessity to understand.

Which, of course, is no bar to Piper and those who think as he does. Thanks for the link. I will check that out.

Lydia wrote:

Molinists from the SWBTS wing of the SBC are making the rounds on some blogs. I think they see it as a path to unity, perhaps?

Unity?! Embracing Molinism within SBC is more like a last-ditch defense against Calvinism! The remnants of anti-Calvinism sentiments within the halls of SBC academia are stretching theology as far as they can to curtail the New Calvinist movement.

The Molinist movement within SBC started a few years ago after publication of Kenneth Heathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Heathley is on staff at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (another bastion of Calvinism). In my opinion, he wrote the book in attempt to provide some neutral ground for Southern Baptists to retreat to, while the New Calvinist movement continues. Paige Patterson has probably found some comfort in Molinism as he sees his beloved SBC crumble around him. I see the Molinist theology more as an effort to keep young pastor wannabes on board at SBC seminaries (particularly SWBTS) who don’t consider themselves either Calvinist or Arminian. At the end of the day, Molinism is more philosophy than theology.

Molinism gets a little strange in its philosophical views of God’s sovereignty and human free will by throwing God’s “middle knowledge” into the debate ring. In the meantime, Christians who believe the simple – yet truthful – Gospel of “whosoever will” keep moving forward as Biblicists without any other label necessary to describe their faith. Southern Baptists are in a real mess right now. They just need to chuck all the popular books and read the Word afresh!

Darlene wrote:

me wrote:

So consider the case when a Christian family has a child who is profoundly autistic. Does this child go to heaven when he dies? How about an infant child of Christian parents? The Calvinist says yes. Traditionally, the Armenian says no. Since this was one of the fundamental disagreements between the two positions historically, it seems odd that you would ignore it in this treatise. (reference: see the Canons of Dort)

Wait a minute. It’s the Calvinists that will say God could send your child to hell, not the Arminians. Their reasoning is that if that child was not among the elect, God would be just in sending them to hell. Finally, the stance of most Calvinists in this matter – whether the child is an infant or autistic – is that one cannot know for sure if this child elect – only God knows. So they are left with trusting that God is just in all that He does, even if he predestined your child to everlasting torment.

Yes. That last bit. And when I say I cannot trust such a god, I get accused of not being a christian.