Marie Notcheva’s Story of Church Abuse Featured in Sentinel & Enterprise News

Religion is a very scary thing, because a pastor is in a position of power. And if you use that power badly, you ruin people's lives, and you ruin your own life. -Eugene H. Peterson link

A few weeks ago, I cold called the city editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise News. It is the local newspaper that covers the region in which Heritage Bible Church is located. After describing the situation, I asked him if he might be interested in covering the story. He remarked that if my narrative proved true, any newspaper would be interested in publishing it. (Take note church leaders.)

With Marie's permission, I forwarded all of the relevant documents. The rest is history. It is my hope that church leaders will begin to understand that church abuse and harassment (which they term *love*) is not conducive in representing the gospel which they claim to serve.

Here is the link to Irreconcilable differences — with her church. Here are a couple of quotes.

Despite her break with the church — and even after her lawyer sent two cease-and-desist letters asking church officials to stop contacting her — she received a letter from the church's elders that said, in part, "if you will not re-engage in conversation or repent of your own sinful response then we are called to continue to pursue you."

Two weeks later Cochrell responded saying the church would not accept her resignation. 

"The covenant that you entered into when you became a member does not permit you to resign during circumstances such as these," he responded in an email Notcheva provided to the Sentinel & Enterprise. "We hope it is plain for you to see that the reason we don't permit resignation under duress is so that we don't get thwarted in helping people who need help."

Marie's story is getting the attention that it deserves. Churches with ill trained, authoritarian and legally naive pastors would do well to take notice.

TWW is so proud of you, Marie!

Comments

Marie Notcheva’s Story of Church Abuse Featured in Sentinel & Enterprise News — 293 Comments

  1. I was very pleased (having a BA n print journalism myself) to see how well Peter researched and explained the beliefs and movement of Neo-Calvinism. When he interviewed me over the phone, he joked, “Ma’am I didn’t really pay much attention in Sunday School.” He covered the no-divorce-for-abuse issue well. I texted him my appreciation for a job well done – the Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

  2. Marie – I pray that because you have led the way in this issue, never backing down once, that other churches will begin to see the error of their ways. That more and more women will be able to stand up for themselves for what has been done to them in the name of "God", by these so called men of "God". Your story needs to be printed in every major newspaper in the country. Marie, you have my heart.

  3. I keep waiting for the national news media to do a feature on the aberrations of New Calvinism … such as an expose on 20/20 or 60 Minutes. When a religious group steps back into the 16th century for its theology and retrieves archaic practices of female subordination, shunning and excommunication, it is worthy of widespread media coverage.

  4. Marie Notcheva wrote:

    the Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

    This is great news. Please be careful with the terminology because it makes a difference. Technically, the Young, Restless, and Reformed (YRR) movement is not Neo-Calvinism because that term describes a different branch of Calvinism. Neither is it hyper-Calvinist (all of the YRRs will deny that they are hyper-Calvinists). Some people say that Neo-Purtitanism is a better term (from TGC: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/whats-the-difference-neo-calvinist-vs-neocalvinist).

    The main point is to not give the new-Calvinists any room wiggle out due to a technical detail. If the article uses the wrong word they will deflect the attention away from their abuse theology by highlighting the fact that the wrong word was used. New-Calvinism might be the best word to use for this movement. Or they should call it the Young, Restless and Reformed movement. But in any case, this movement needs to be exposed for what it is – abusive.

  5. Didn’t this Rabbi from Nazareth say something about “And what you keep secret shall be shouted from the rooftops”?

  6. Ken F wrote:

    New-Calvinism might be the best word to use for this movement. Or they should call it the Young, Restless and Reformed movement.

    We would not be talking about New Calvinism, if the Young, Restless and Reformed had not put it on the map. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is often referred to as ground-zero for New Calvinism because it is indoctrinating a generation of young and restless “pastors” who are rebelling against mainline Christianity to believe and practice the tenets of reformed theology. While there are various threads of New Calvinism (Driscoll is different from Piper … Piper is different from Keller … etc.), they all have the same mission in mind: “reform” the American church under the banner of New Calvinism.

  7. Kudos to you dee! You make me think of the strike scene in the film Hoffa where Jack Nicholson yells to the strikers:
    “We’re gettin’ to em’ now!!!

  8. Max wrote:

    We would not be talking about New Calvinism, if the Young, Restless and Reformed had not put it on the map.

    I think “Young, Rebellious, and Misinformed” is a better title, but the alliteration is not quite as good. Their strategy is to flood the marked with free material. In some cases you get what you pay for.

  9. @ Ken F:

    How many different veins of Calvinism are there then? It really doesn’t matter to me what name goes with what group because they all claim to be following Calvin. Everyday people, in churches and out of churches, don’t usually know the differences. They simply hear their pastors claiming they follow Calvin, Calvinism, or Calvinists. It seems like you are splitting hairs which won’t be recognized by most people. And I am sure their are good people in all the veins, but with “heirarchial systems” comes abuse of power. And abuse of power can be found in ALL Christian institutions.

  10. Bridget wrote:

    It seems like you are splitting hairs which won’t be recognized by most people.

    The point I was trying to make is that the New-Calvinists will use terminology to deflect people away from the real issue. Look up Neo-Calvinism on Wikipedia and you will not find anything directly related to the YRR movement. If people who do not understand the difference look up that term they will not see any connection with what is going on in the SBC. “Neo-Calvinism” works fine for people who are in the know (like those on this site), but it could send the wrong message to people who are not yet immersed in it. It gives the YRR’s plausible deniability to just state “no, we are not that.” We should not grant them that favor.

  11. Yay Marie! May the darkness be exposed. And if it takes the public press to do it, so be it!

  12. Max wrote:

    I keep waiting for the national news media to do a feature on the aberrations of New Calvinism … such as an expose on 20/20 or 60 Minutes. When a religious group steps back into the 16th century for its theology and retrieves archaic practices of female subordination, shunning and excommunication, it is worthy of widespread media coverage.

    Jonathan Merritt did a piece on it for RNS: http://religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/

    I thought it pointed out some good things, but I wish it had gone farther.

  13. @ Bridget:
    Ken F wrote:

    Look up Neo-Calvinism on Wikipedia and you will not find anything directly related to the YRR movement.

    I should have added that looking up New-Calvinism on Wikipedia does show the connection to the YRRs and SBC. I would think that we would want any news articles to cause people to look at sources like this, which is why terminology is important.

  14. Bridget wrote:

    How many different veins of Calvinism are there then? It really doesn’t matter to me what name goes with what group because they all claim to be following Calvin. Everyday people, in churches and out of churches, don’t usually know the differences.

    This isn’t true. There are a lot of Christ-following Calvinists, and there are Calvinists speaking out against ESS and the way the neo-Calvinists act. I also have trouble with Calvin, his absolute determinism, and the way he did things in Geneva, but there are people who hold his doctrines but still hold Christ supreme.

  15. Marie Notcheva wrote:

    he Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

  16. A label you should wear with pride, girl!
    dee wrote:

    Marie Notcheva wrote:

    he Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

  17. Ha! The controlling “Christian” monarchy has been publicly laid open exposed on TWW and in print! Go, Marie. I’m glad that you are not the type to buckle under. At the risk of sounding like a Trekkie, live long and prosper!

  18. dee wrote:

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

    Putting light on Marie’s story shows neo-Cal victims a realistic way out of hell. To be hated by the bullies for that seems to me a very honorable state indeed.

  19. ishy wrote:

    (ed.) There are a lot of Christ-following Calvinists, and there are Calvinists speaking out against ESS and the way the neo-Calvinists act.

    This is very true. This website is hosted by Calvinists who strongly oppose new-Calvinism: http://www.newcalvinist.com/. It often pops up when I search for new-Calvinist abuses.

  20. Ken F wrote:

    This is very true.

    This was meant to affirm ishy’s comment about Christ-following Calvinists. I accidentally included “This isn’t true” in quoting ishy, which could give the impression that I was arguing against rather than for.

  21. dee wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    “We’re gettin’ to em’ now!!!

    My guess is that the *’em* will now set up to get me!

    Those bullies don’t have what it takes to quench the light.

  22. Marie Notcheva wrote:

    the Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

    Wonderful! I hope they will follow through on this. We'd be happy to be of assistance!

  23. Bridget wrote:

    with “heirarchial systems” comes abuse of power

    Exactly. If Calvin’s name is anywhere near it, you may also find abuse of power. Whether the system is labeled as classical, hyper, neo, old, or new Calvinism, you will find an authoritarian structure of control which can lead to abuse of that authority over the lives of church members. “New” Calvinism gets all the press, since it is so radical, but the underlying belief and practice of reformed theology provides an avenue for potential abuse when ungodly leaders are in charge. One can argue that all authoritative patriarchal religious systems present opportunities for the abuser-at-heart; as you note “… abuse of power can be found in ALL Christian institutions.”

  24. @ Deb:
    Thanks. I am rarely able to complete a comment without some kind of a typo. Most don’t make much difference, but this was a bad one.

  25. So thankful you are sharing your story. If no one does, these churches have the ability to continue to abuse and hurt people in the name of God. Praying for you to remain strong. @ Marie Notcheva:

  26. Bridget wrote:

    How many different veins of Calvinism are there then? It really doesn’t matter to me what name goes with what group because they all claim to be following Calvin.

    There is a difference between, for instance, PCUSA and PCA. There is a difference between presbyterian and baptist. Etc.

    the weird thing is that the YRR or neocal or what you (i’m not going to get too fussed about definitions) are really more evangelical calvinists, which is it’s own thing. But some of them are presbyterian. So. Confusion.

  27. dee wrote:

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

    We need to make you a coffee mug that says that.

  28. @ Kim:
    Women trapped in these churches have been suffering in silence for WAY TOO LONG. It’s time for them to find their voice and speak up!

  29. Max wrote:

    If Calvin’s name is anywhere near it, you may also find abuse of power.

    Max, this is true of every organization with any power at all. I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking it’s all calvin related. It’s just this movement that is getting attention right now, and I think that’s because of the people involved and heading it, more than anything. If good, non-authoritative men were promoting reformed teaching in the baptist church, we might not agree but I don think the fruit would be so bad as this.

    The fish rots from the head. I think that’s what’s happened here.

  30. While i agree names are important, the key us abuse if authority, and how do these leaders behave when the “heat is turned up”
    As the Dee’s ask, is this a hill you want to die in? Clearly the current example of authoritarian example caved…. in the past, leaders died for their beliefs… the current leaders are running from a “potential” if lawsuite??? If they really think they hold the “keys to heaven”, is not that at least worth fighting a lawsuit?

  31. Lea wrote:

    I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking it’s all calvin related. It’s just this movement that is getting attention right now, and I think that’s because of the people involved and heading it, more than anything. If good, non-authoritative men were promoting reformed teaching in the baptist church, we might not agree but I don think the fruit would be so bad as this.
    The fish rots from the head. I think that’s what’s happened here.

    I think the worst problem isn’t the head, but the fact that the body is just standing around letting it happen. Sometimes people can cut off the rot before it gets too bad, but even now that it’s bad, Southern Baptists are still standing around ignoring it. I’m certain that a lot of pastors are aware of it, and very few are confronting it, unlike Max and mot.

    My pastor this morning preached a sermon about who people follow, and she referenced this cartoon: http://www.lermanet.com/audio/sheep.jpg

    Leaders might take power, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to follow them, nor be silent about it.

  32. dee wrote:

    Marie Notcheva wrote:
    he Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.
    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

    And we who know the truth, love you for your work….wish I was in North Carolina, I’d hug your neck.

  33. @ dee:
    That why us readers/posters on WW need to stand with you two
    Light needs to focused on thus stuff!! If they are correct, they should not be afraid if the light… “hating you two” is just trying to shift the light off them!!

  34. ishy wrote:

    Leaders might take power, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to follow them, nor be silent about it.

    Leaders can lead only if people follow. Many leaders have to resort to force to get people to follow. The followers have to evaluate the force those leaders use and whether or not they can choose not to follow.

  35. ishy wrote:

    Southern Baptists are still standing around ignoring it

    I’m wondering if this was the case when Patterson et al took over?

    my guess is that only a few brave souls stood up for what was right and were ‘culled’, if not from the SBC, certainly from any power in it;
    and the lemmings were granted favors

    ‘soul competency’ seems to me to have been thrown out with the label ‘liberal’ placed on it …. so ended the time when folks stood up for their own place in the Church and handed power over to the fundamentalists? Surely there were pockets of resistance: people who spoke up and out and defended those who were being injured by the fundamentalists? Of course there were.

  36. dee wrote:

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

    Well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it…:D

  37. Christiane wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    Southern Baptists are still standing around ignoring it
    //
    I’m wondering if this was the case when Patterson et al took over?

    It was not. A large number split off and made the Cooperative Baptist Convention in protest. A lot of independent Baptist churches also joined at that point.

    But that basically left the SBC heavily skewed fundamentalist.

  38. Neo-Puritanism is the better term in doctrine and attitude. Calvinism is a much broader term and includes many who reject the neo-Puritans of today.

  39. Bunny wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.
    //
    Well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it…:D

    I dunno. Can anybody have guessed how nutso these guys really are? And it seems to me they are getting worse!

  40. Marie Notcheva wrote:

    I was very pleased (having a BA n print journalism myself) to see how well Peter researched and explained the beliefs and movement of Neo-Calvinism. When he interviewed me over the phone, he joked, “Ma’am I didn’t really pay much attention in Sunday School.” He covered the no-divorce-for-abuse issue well. I texted him my appreciation for a job well done – the Editor in Chief now wants him to do a broader investigative piece on the Neo-Cal movement in New England.

    Marie, although this has been a trying time for you, you are very blessed to have an independent press who is willing to cover both the specifics of your case as well as investigate the larger issues that give rise to such abuse.

    DFW has some of the largest and most abusive churches in the US. The media here give them almost unlimited passes when it comes to covering abuse and scandals. The the DFW based The Church Law Group defends and helps some of the most abusive churches in the country to cover up their scandals. They openly brag about the hold they have on the DFW media. Some is due to the fear the outlets have over potential loss of advertising revenue, but TCLG also discusses how they cultivate relationships with “believers” at the papers and TV news teams. They convince them that any negative coverage is bad for the Kingdom and is an “attack from the Enemy” so they will willingly spike stories for the “good of the Kingdom.”

    Thanks for sticking with this. Hopefully the articles they write can help enlighten other citizens in other states.

    When you look at some of the top pastors in DFW you see some of the largest Trump supporters who were instrumental in mobilizing the Evangelical vote: Robert Morris, Jack Graham, Robert Jeffress and DFW based Daystar using their daily tax free broadcasts to directly market votes throughout the US. Morris’ Gateway Church Southlake, TX was the largest financial supporter of the Franklin Graham Decision America Tour – which was basically a 50 state GOP rally .https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/12/how-donald-trump-is-bringing-billy-grahams-complicated-family-back-into-white-house-circles/?utm_term=.18b29131fe64

    These pastors are now bragging about attending the inauguration with their triumphant leader. These men already felt invincible before, thanks to their backing other TX leaders like Gov Abbott, the criminally indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen Ted Cruz. Now they will have even less to fear.

    I am so grateful that you have some reliable support. Please enjoy it.

  41. ishy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    How many different veins of Calvinism are there then? It really doesn’t matter to me what name goes with what group because they all claim to be following Calvin. Everyday people, in churches and out of churches, don’t usually know the difference.

    This isn’t true. There are a lot of Christ-following Calvinists, and there are Calvinists speaking out against ESS and the way the neo-Calvinists act. I also have trouble with Calvin, his absolute determinism, and the way he did things in Geneva, but there are people who hold his doctrines but still hold Christ supreme.

    You cut my comment off at a point where it makes a difference. The next sentence was a good part of my point.

    I agree that there are Christians following Calvinists. I did not say that there were NO Christ following Calvinists.

  42. Ken F wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    (ed.) There are a lot of Christ-following Calvinists, and there are Calvinists speaking out against ESS and the way the neo-Calvinists act.
    This is very true. This website is hosted by Calvinists who strongly oppose new-Calvinism: http://www.newcalvinist.com/. It often pops up when I search for new-Calvinist abuses.

    I never said there were no no Christ following Calvinists. But most all Calvinists I have come in contact with are very heirarchial in their thinking. I have come in contact with several veins.

  43. Bridget wrote:

    I agree that there are Christians following Calvinists. I did not say that there were NO Christ following Calvinists.

    I disagree on an institutional level, not just for “some Christians”. While I do believe most institutions tend toward being top-heavy, and that there are always people trying to be in charge for the sake of power, I do not think that all Calvinist denominations have fallen prey to “following Calvin”. While I think some were founded that way, I don’t think they’ve all stayed that way. For example, the PCUSA is much more open than other Calvinist denominations.

  44. dee wrote:

    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.

    Oh *darn*. I’ve always said (as a joke, not for realsies) that I didn’t want to be famous, I wanted to be *notorious*. Looks like you’re really going to be notorious.

  45. “We hope it is plain for you to see that the reason we don’t permit resignation under duress is so that we don’t get thwarted in helping people who need help.”

    I have questions about this quote from Cochrell. In some jurisdictions, people who press domestic abuse charges have been barred from later dropping the charges. The idea is that the police and courts will protect the victim from intimidation by the abuser (usually a husband threatening a wife: drop the charges or else).

    Is this quote a warped variation of that principle? Do the leaders of this church believe that Marie’s husband was trying to force her to leave the church? Do the pastors think they were safeguarding her membership from his intimidating behavior?

    That would appear to be at odds with the sunny notion of getting the couple to reconcile. Moreover, if the ex-husband was trying to force his ex-wife to leave, such intimidation would suggest that he’s the one who needs church discipline. To use their imagery, such a man deliberately left a sheep in a place from which it could not find its way home.

    All of the duress seems to be coming from the clergy, and it’s aimed at making her stay, not leave.

  46. Max wrote:

    it is worthy of widespread media coverage.

    It is. As I’ve mentioned before, if not for this blog, I’d never have heard of this issue.
    Of course I know of the excesses of some streams of Christianity & child abuse scandals of the RC & others but not the authoritarian regimes of churches like Marie’s.
    Nor have those in my circle of friends. Every one I know draws a blank on names like John Piper & Marks Dever and Driscoll.
    More people should know.

  47. Bridget wrote:

    But most all Calvinists I have come in contact with are very heirarchial in their thinking.

    I think that comes with the idea of office-bearers having some special significance. That does not make sense within a Baptist framework except the 1689ers. Who are essentially Presbyterian except for baby baptism.

  48. drstevej wrote:

    Neo-Puritanism is the better term in doctrine and attitude. Calvinism is a much broader term and includes many who reject the neo-Puritans of today.

    I agree. This is a useful term for all of these non-denominational Houses of Oppression. Nobody should have to master the lexicon of their many, many flavors of misogyny.

  49. Ken F wrote:

    Max wrote:

    We would not be talking about New Calvinism, if the Young, Restless and Reformed had not put it on the map.

    I think “Young, Rebellious, and Misinformed” is a better title, but the alliteration is not quite as good. Their strategy is to flood the marked with free material. In some cases you get what you pay for.

    OR maybe https://youtu.be/lvGADgehKoM

  50. Lea wrote:

    this is true of every organization with any power at all. I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking it’s all calvin

    Agreed. Abuse can occur anywhere a man uses his authority to control, manipulate and intimidate others. In 16th century Geneva, Calvin’s name was synonymous with abuse. He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

  51. These men arrange for themselves and their cohorts trapped female slaves that cant not tell them (((NO))) or (((ESCAPE))) them.

  52. drstevej wrote:

    Neo-Puritanism is the better term in doctrine and attitude.

    This is true. But if the purpose for getting this stuff to the press is for wider exposure and warning, then New-Calvinism is the better term to use because the Wikipedia definition is very good and it names names. Searching on Neo-Puritan yields obscure results with no easy connections to the YRRs that are behind this movement. I’m for using the word that will be best when people new to this start searching the internet.

  53. Ken F wrote:

    New-Calvinism is the better term to use because the Wikipedia definition is very good and it names names. Searching on Neo-Puritan yields obscure results with no easy connections to the YRRs that are behind this movement. I’m for using the word that will be best when people new to this start searching the internet.

    You’re right, of course… but look at the number of churches that refuse to have the word “church” in the name, and that will never utter tired old words like worship, hymn, and sermon.

    It’s almost like they want to lure us in unawares and then stop us from leaving after we figure out where we are…

  54. Congratulations, Marie!

    A victory for domestic abuse survivors who’ve been re-victimized by un-Christlike churches. Jesus stood by women who were beaten down. He didn’t put his foot on their necks like Tim Cochrell and Kevin Wright did to Marie and others.

    My message to the good people at Heritage:

    “Get out now. You cannot fix churches like this. Don’t waste your time. These evil patterns are so ingrained, you cannot change it. By walking away (and taking your tithe, your volunteer hours, and your presence) you are sending an important message to the leadership.”

  55. Bunny wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles.
    Well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it…:D

    Super Chicken reference for the win!

  56. I guess what difference what type of Calvinism is new , old, or reformed. It makes no difference to me, that doctrine is a cult plane and simple. Im so glad you are standing up to them. Take notice women its time to let Gods word and the actions of the abused take these controlling manipulative men to task!

  57. Janey wrote:

    My message to the good people at Heritage:

    “Get out now. You cannot fix churches like this. Don’t waste your time. These evil patterns are so ingrained, you cannot change it. By walking away (and taking your tithe, your volunteer hours, and your presence) you are sending an important message to the leadership.”

    Janey, I agree. These ungodly leaders will not change their ways. Vote with you feet and everything else that goes with your feet.

  58. Max wrote:

    Agreed. Abuse can occur anywhere a man uses his authority to control, manipulate and intimidate others. In 16th century Geneva, Calvin’s name was synonymous with abuse. He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

    I still do not get the obsession with Calvin by the Neo-Cals. He seems to me to be a very ungodly man.

  59. @ dee:
    From the post: “It is my hope that church leaders will begin to understand that church abuse and harassment (which they term *love*) is not conducive in representing the gospel which they claim to serve.”

    It is not civil behavior, not in the Common Good, and unhealthy both in relationships or the micro sense, and socially, in the macro sense of society as a whole. As you point out, it is not love. God is love, however.

    These are very twisted situations in the institutional churches where this behavior is found. Shedding a light on this is the right thing to do. In a larger arena, the strangeness of it all becomes apparent (similar to some of the abnormalties of Piper and Wilson).

  60. Gram3 wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    But most all Calvinists I have come in contact with are very heirarchial in their thinking.

    I think that comes with the idea of office-bearers having some special significance. That does not make sense within a Baptist framework except the 1689ers. Who are essentially Presbyterian except for baby baptism.

    Some of this may simply be a matter of the baptists copying the Presbyterians.

    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself. It doesn’t put the congregation at a lower status necessarily, it’s just a different way to run things. Republic instead of straight democracy.

  61. @ JYJames:
    I love your comment because it ties Dee and Deb’s work to the Common Good. This idea of doing the right thing for the sake of all involved is a profoundly Christian concept.

    I don’t know what your theological training is, but you seem to have a heart for ‘the bigger picture’ and that is something increasingly rare and incredibly needed now.

  62. Max wrote:

    He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

    The horrors of Calvin’s Geneva (as were Cromwell’s England) were fresh in the minds of our Founders when they wrote:
    Congress shall make no law…

  63. As the light increases, the darkness diminishes. The power of even one Christian person bearing the light of Christ against the darkness is greater than the power of the darkness to withstand that light.

    ‘From the post: “It is my hope that church leaders will begin to understand that church abuse and harassment (which they term *love*) is not conducive in representing the gospel which they claim to serve.”’

    I don’t think we can underestimate the power of those who choose to light candles in the darkness and proclaim that God IS love.
    Without the Gospel of Our Lord, the GOOD News, there is only the darkness.

  64. Thank you all for your kind comments. Please keep us in your prayers as we confront this stuff head on. On that note, I may try to contact Pastor Tim for comment tomorrow. Did he really apologize?

  65. drstevej wrote:

    I did a PhD in Reformation History so I am not so much a Wiki-

    In your study of history, have you seen a time like this when you have these New Legalists going after hurt people?

  66. drstevej wrote:

    I did a PhD in Reformation History so I am not so much a Wiki-ite.

    Sounds better than the Doctorate of Biblical Confrontation that Kevin Wright, HBC’s Pastor of Counseling and Family Ministries, seems to be working on (see TWW Jan 13 post).

  67. ishy wrote:

    Jonathan Merritt did a piece on it for RNS: http://religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/
    I thought it pointed out some good things, but I wish it had gone farther.

    Thanks for linking Merritt’s piece. I followed a link to an interview with Martin Marty, who summed things up nicely, I think: “One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both.” Mean and not-mean. Very simple, but spot on.

  68. Abi Miah wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    Jonathan Merritt did a piece on it for RNS: http://religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/
    I thought it pointed out some good things, but I wish it had gone farther.

    Thanks for linking Merritt’s piece. I followed a link to an interview with Martin Marty, who summed things up nicely, I think: “One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both.” Mean and not-mean. Very simple, but spot on.

    interesting link, especially in the description of ‘mean’ as ‘arrogant’ in tenor or demeanor

    funny thing is that being a Christian doesn’t involve getting ‘puffed up’; quite the opposite

    ask a neo-Con about the ‘humility of God’ and they will tell you there is no such thing,
    so when they speak of themselves as ‘Christians’, we cannot see them following a God Who embraced humility willingly, no;
    instead we see some arrogance and also the desire to humilate those in their control: notably their attack on the dignity of women as persons made in the image of God …… once Our Lord became ‘lesser’ in their ESS doctrine, then they could align the duty of women to ‘submit’ to their claim that Our Lord was also a lesser Being compared to the Father ….. a strange, perverted cult teaching, yes

  69. Nancy2 wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I will become the most hated woman in Calvinista circles
    Badge of honor!

    I agree with Dee – you will be an encouragement to others who are abused by these kind of churches!

  70. Lea wrote:

    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself.

    If the hierarchy is geared to serving the servants of the Lord rather than lording it over them, I think you are right.

  71. Christiane wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself.

    If the hierarchy is geared to serving the servants of the Lord rather than lording it over them, I think you are right.

    Real checks and balances & accountability to those in the lower levels must be provided for, or it will tend towards abuse of power. I don’t think accountability to other top level leaders is effective.

  72. Friend wrote:

    Sounds better than the Doctorate of Biblical Confrontation that Kevin Wright, HBC’s Pastor of Counseling and Family Ministries, seems to be working on (see TWW Jan 13 post).

    What inspires a person to study such a thing? Of all the aspects of the faith?

  73. Ken F wrote:

    This is a good summary of New Calvinism by a New Calvinist: http://www.challies.com/quotes/john-piper-12-features-of-the-new-calvinism. If and when the print media begins picking up on this movement, this is they type of info people will readily find. Even though it was written by a New Calvinist, there are quite a few statements in this description that will set off all kinds of alarm bells in reasonable people.

    Thanks for the link, Ken.

  74. siteseer wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself.

    If the hierarchy is geared to serving the servants of the Lord rather than lording it over them, I think you are right.

    Real checks and balances & accountability to those in the lower levels must be provided for, or it will tend towards abuse of power. I don’t think accountability to other top level leaders is effective.

    I would respond by saying that a healthy Christian hierarchical system would not only acknowledge but rely on the concept of ‘collegiality’ in the Body of Christ as described in sacred Scripture. The problem with ‘unhealthy’ hierarchical systems seems to come from having the ‘great leader’ model with his self-appointed yes-men and also a deep seated insecurity which demands complete loyalty on the part of great leader’s followers OR ELSE. That controlling element signals a leadership that does not believe in the gift of moral conscience which is given to all human persons, hence the great need for ‘church discipline’ is someone shows a sign of doing their OWN thinking and arriving at a different conclusion than ‘great leader’.

    Collegiality has strengthened the Church. Where it is not valued, the Church loses out on the collective wisdom of those who are needed to build it up.

  75. One point in all of this that I wish TWW would point out more is that Marie’s husband is a not a member of the church Marie use to attend and apparently a non-believer. I found this out in an earlier thread by asking a question:

    Marie Notcheva wrote:
    Absolutely nothing.
    My ex-husband is not a member of the church, never has been – idk if that has anything to do with it. When I went to them initially and explained in some (but not exhaustive) detail the 20-year pattern of verbal/emotional abuse, they initially claimed to believe me and agreed it was abuse. They then started in on the “you’re BOTH going to ‘biblical counseling until he repents, then you’re reconciling.”
    These gentlemen clearly do not understand the mindset of controlling abusive men, or that when one says repeatedly “I’m not going to change; and only gets worse after decades, at some point you take them at their word.
    I submitted an 8-page statement to them, outlining specifics incidents and patterns over the length of the marriage; it was ignored. I reported ongoing gaslighting and intimidation incidents throughout the summer (while we were divorced; we share joint custody). Also ignored. College aged daughter emailed, asking for help (she was now being victimized worse than ever). Minimized. No idea what went on in counseling room, but the abuse was NEVER really dealt with.

    I could kind of understand somewhat of a push to try and keep them together if they were both members of this same church and these church leaders were having a similar dialogue with Marie’s husband. I say this but at the same time acknowledge that as Ecclesiastes says there is a time to give up as lost. I can’t at all understand these leaders pushing Marie when her husband isn’t a member of this same church or they aren’t at least having some kind of dialogue with him.

    This church’s actions is just way out there IMO!

  76. @ Abi Miah:
    Problem is both sides position those who disagree with them as mean, hateful, etc, to try and look more better than the other side.

  77. Muff Potter wrote:

    Max wrote:

    He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

    The horrors of Calvin’s Geneva (as were Cromwell’s England) were fresh in the minds of our Founders when they wrote:
    Congress shall make no law…

    And the Puritans.

  78. Lea wrote:

    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself.

    It is almost always the precursor to control of others. But we are our own worst enemy in that we often agree in the abstract that adults need someone in charge of them. Someone to lead them.

  79. Max wrote:

    I keep waiting for the national news media to do a feature on the aberrations of New Calvinism … such as an expose on 20/20 or 60 Minutes. When a religious group steps back into the 16th century for its theology and retrieves archaic practices of female subordination, shunning and excommunication, it is worthy of widespread media coverage.

    They could start with Mohlers “where else are they going to go” video he did with DeYoung, etc. He used the terminology.

  80. Steve240 wrote:

    I could kind of understand somewhat of a push to try and keep them together if they were both members of this same church

    Well, perhaps their reason is that they thought Marie’s submission would bring her husband into the fold. There is a scripture that has been abused for this purpose.
    Paige Patterson spun quite a yarn about a woman following his advice on submission, coming to church with not one, but two black eyes, and her husband getting saved over it.

    This is another one of their sacred cows.

    It’s not that they believe that her submitting to his abuse might get him saved. They believe that it will.

  81. Steve240 wrote:

    They then started in on the “you’re BOTH going to ‘biblical counseling until he repents, then you’re reconciling.”

    Quoting Marie here, but this is the crux of the problem for me. There is no guarantee ‘until’ ever happens. There may be lip service paid or not, but real change? None of these men seem to have a plan for what happens when this doesn’t happen.

  82. Lydia wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    I don’t think a hierarchy is abusive in and of itself.

    It is almost always the precursor to control of others. But we are our own worst enemy in that we often agree in the abstract that adults need someone in charge of them. Someone to lead them.

    Two points here. To your first, it is a precursor to control in many situations we’ve looked at because it was set up from the beginning for that purpose. When we see someone take over a church and change the system, that is often what they are doing, taking control. So of course bad things follow.

    Second, I don’t agree that adults need someone ‘in charge’ in small groups. Groups of two no one should be in charge usually. Small groups tend to have natural leaders emerge and others go with them. (Sometimes you have conflict here with a couple leaders butting heads). Large systems need not ‘a person’ in charge but they need a method of decision making. Sometimes this is one person, sometimes it’s a group of people sometimes it’s congregational. I think you can see people abuse in all situations. Congregational is harder in theory, but if you have a large group this often defaults to rubber stamping things and then you have the same issues.

    I think a system that includes soemthing like elders works fine when they are voted in, rotated out and concientious. When systems are in place to try to head off potential problems instead of creating them. But in any church, congregants have the option to vote with their feet, no matter the system. That and the pocketbook are where bad leaders really feel it.

    Which is why the book/conference industry is a way of going around that check and probably does more damage. That and celebrity worship which is not christian at all.

  83. Christiane wrote:

    Thanks for the link, Ken.

    If you can stomach that one, try this description of New Calvinism by John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-new-calvinism-and-the-new-community. If this is not an indictment of New Calvinism, I don’t know what is. Interestingly, Piper claims that there is no real distinction between new and old Calvinists (but I don’t believe most old Calvinists would agree):

    If there is such diversity in the Old, can we find dividing lines between the Old and the New? I don’t think so. And why would I include Packer, Sproul, and Boice among the old and not the new? How can you draw a line between the Philadelphia Conferences on Reformed Theology, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and The Gospel Coalition? How can you draw a hard line between Banner of Truth Publishers and Crossway Books? Or between the late Elder D. J. Ward and Thabiti Anyabwile?

    The article specifically addresses Calvinism as it relates to race. How is this for a statement of hope in the Gospel(TM) for all races:

    The doctrine of total depravity has a huge role to play in humbling all ethnic groups and giving us a desperate equality in condemnation.

  84. Mara wrote:

    It’s not that they believe that her submitting to his abuse might get him saved. They believe that it will.

    I don’t think that verse was ever meant to apply to evil men or to be used to put women in harms way! I think it was just for generic otherwise nice spouses. I guess if you think non believers are incapable of good you wouldn’t see it that way.

  85. Mara wrote:

    Paige Patterson spun quite a yarn about a woman following his advice on submission, coming to church with not one, but two black eyes, and her husband getting saved over it.

    This is another one of their sacred cows.

    It’s not that they believe that her submitting to his abuse might get him saved. They believe that it will.

    What a fairy tale that it will. No woman should ever feel she needs to stay in a marriage when her husband is abusing her IMO.

  86. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:

    I’ve always said (as a joke, not for realsies) that I didn’t want to be famous, I wanted to be *notorious*. Looks like you’re really going to be notorious.

    That’s not necessarily a negative, as with the Notorious RBG… 😀

  87. Christiane wrote:

    Christian hierarchical system

    I simply do not see this concept in scripture at all. In scripture we see the picture of “the body” functioning together as one, with Christ as the head. We see the members referred to as brothers and sisters in Christ. We see Christ rebuke his disciples for wanting to Lord over one another. This is the opposite of what a hierarchy is by definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization

    What I see in scripture is that Christ himself, and Christianity in action, was the antithesis to hierarchial structures. I won’t back down from this even though hierarchy in the church has come to be an accepted structure since very early on. History, and current events, continue to show that hierarchy in Christianity has proven to be awful.

  88. Lydia wrote:

    They could start with Mohlers “where else are they going to go” video he did with DeYoung, etc. He used the terminology.

    For those not familiar with this now-famous “No Options” promotion of New Calvinism by Al Mohler, here is an excerpt from the video:

    “Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this New Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there …”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

  89. Christiane wrote:

    Collegiality has strengthened the Church. Where it is not valued, the Church loses out on the collective wisdom of those who are needed to build it up.

    Christiane, are we talking about Catholic collegiality, as defined as “the Pope governing the Church in collaboration with the bishops of the local Churches, respecting their proper autonomy.” As a former Catholic, I find the hierarchical submission required by Romanism to be even worse than that found in New Calvinism. Some quotes from the Catholic Catechism:

    875: From him [Christ], they receive the mission and faculty (“sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis. [In the person of Christ]

    882: For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

    883: The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff…As such, the college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without agreement of the Roman Pontiff.

    890: Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

    891: When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”

    896: “Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.”

    937: The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

    From Vatican II: In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

    And to those who disagree with this hierarchical authority structure, and its infallible teaching?

    846: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    No, I don’t personally believe that collegiality as defined by Rome offers any protection against religious tyranny.

  90. Bridget wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    Christian hierarchical system

    I simply do not see this concept in scripture at all. In scripture we see the picture of “the body” functioning together as one, with Christ as the head. We see the members referred to as brothers and sisters in Christ. We see Christ rebuke his disciples for wanting to Lord over one another. This is the opposite of what a hierarchy is by definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization

    What I see in scripture is that Christ himself, and Christianity in action, was the antithesis to hierarchial structures. I won’t back down from this even though hierarchy in the church has come to be an accepted structure since very early on. History, and current events, continue to show that hierarchy in Christianity has proven to be awful.

    I would respond by saying that a healthy Christian hierarchical system would not only acknowledge but rely on the concept of ‘collegiality’ in the Body of Christ as described in sacred Scripture. The problem with ‘unhealthy’ hierarchical systems seems to come from having the ‘great leader’ model with his self-appointed yes-men and also a deep seated insecurity which demands complete loyalty on the part of great leader’s followers OR ELSE. That controlling element signals a leadership that does not believe in the gift of moral conscience which is given to all human persons, hence the great need for ‘church discipline’ is someone shows a sign of doing their OWN thinking and arriving at a different conclusion than ‘great leader’.

    Collegiality has strengthened the Church. Where it is not valued, the Church loses out on the collective wisdom of those who are needed to build it up.

  91. @ Lea:

    My views on the subject come from my strategic planning days, I guess I can’t help it. :o) Most people in a large groups are not even on the same page. Church tends to lend itself to being a member spectator sport , anyway. Not a real participant in the budget, operations, etc. Most adults don’t want to be that involved, sadly, so it is easy to put a few in charge. Much of that thinking is historical tradition. That attitude is why hierarchy is the precursor to control. We could spend our lives looking for non controlling elders, non corrupt priests, bishops, etc –but how would we know? Because they are nice at church? The whole approach is a production designed to make everything look good on the outside to attract and keep people. Centralization is a big problem because it lends itself to decision making for people at a great distance.

    I am not saying all churches are bad. What I am saying is they are often set up in a way that makes it easy to hide a lot of bad things. I used to joke after my seeker elder led mega days that I actually missed the monthly or quarterly business meetings the baptists had. When I was a kid, they were packed out at just about every church we were in at the time. I can see now that people took their part in the operations seriously. It is very hard for such groups to come to consensus but it is so worth the hassle! I now think…if people only knew what transpires at church backstage on Tuesdays they might rethink giving their money. But the truth is, most don’t want to know or care until it affects them personally or becomes a public embarrassment . And then, their friends in church don’t want to hear the bad things.

    I finally could not resolve or map the typical hierarchy of secular organizations to the Body of Christ.

  92. @ Lea:
    Another thing about hierarchy is whether or not the hierarchy is established by being a member of a class such as “male” or “white” or “royal” is determined by unchangeable circumstances. Or whether admission to the ruling caste is done solely by the members of the ruling caste (even if there is the eyewash of a congregational vote) so that the new rulers can be vetted to make sure that they think right thoughts.

  93. Ken F wrote:

    This is a good summary of New Calvinism by a New Calvinist: http://www.challies.com/quotes/john-piper-12-features-of-the-new-calvinism. If and when the print media begins picking up on this movement, this is they type of info people will readily find. Even though it was written by a New Calvinist, there are quite a few statements in this description that will set off all kinds of alarm bells in reasonable people.

    One of the points is that New Calvinism has ” a strong Complementarian flavor”.
    Ahem, what is the marked difference between “a strong Complementarian flavor” and total patriarchy?

  94. Lydia wrote:

    but how would we know?

    Good question. I think transparency is key. If you know what’s going on, how the budget is being spent, etc, that’s a good start.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that in any largeish group, some element of structure and leaders, self appointed or no, will emerge.

    what makes it dangerous and controlling is something else. Attitude, structure, people…

  95. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Another thing about hierarchy is whether or not the hierarchy is established by being a member of a class such as “male” or “white” or “royal” is determined by unchangeable circumstances.

    Or whether admission to the ruling caste is done solely by the members of the ruling caste (even if there is the eyewash of a congregational vote) so that the new rulers can be vetted to make sure that they think right thoughts.

    I separated these two thoughts just for clarity.

    The danger in the second part is yes men, whether men or not. No matter he system, the people involved need to take their ‘check’ role, whatever it is, seriously. I think that’s what Lydia is getting at in business meeting attendance.

  96. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ahem, what is the marked difference between “a strong Complementarian flavor” and total patriarchy?

    🙂

  97. Lea wrote:

    I think what I was trying to get at is that in any largeish group, some element of structure and leaders, self appointed or no, will emerge.
    what makes it dangerous and controlling is something else. Attitude, structure, people…

    There can be structure without hierarchy. People can function within their gifting without hierarchy. And, yes, transparency in one of the key issues along with attitude. Hierarchy breeds something else. The concept was not easy for the disciples either . . .

  98. @ Christiane:

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂

    To your last paragraph, hierarchy and collegiality are two different things entirely. The Church will not lose out on any wisdom because it does not function by hierarchy. We have been speaking of hierarchy not collegiality.

  99. @ Lea:

    Could be. My understanding of hierarchy, looking at many definitions, has to do with rank, superiority, everyone in submission to the person above them, a pyramid structure with a top man.

  100. dee wrote:

    Thank you all for your kind comments. Please keep us in your prayers as we confront this stuff head on. On that note, I may try to contact Pastor Tim for comment tomorrow. Did he really apologize?

    Bingo!

    You may be surprised if he responds to you.

    I suspect that he will claim that the Church actually disciplined Marie when the “removed” her, and that removing her was not just an act of following through with her wishes.

    But I really suspect that you won’t get that far. He doesn’t want anymore press. His desire to prove that his church did not back down from their theological convictions is important, but it’s not that important to prove to the world, especially when continuing to talk about this story gives life to it.

    I bet he won’t respond.

  101. Bridget wrote:

    @ Lea:

    Could be. My understanding of hierarchy, looking at many definitions, has to do with rank, superiority, everyone in submission to the person above them, a pyramid structure with a top man.

    invert the pyramid, with the ‘Servant of the Servants of God’ at the bottom, supporting the rest and you get a better concept of ‘hierarchy’ where ‘the last shall be first’ 🙂

  102. The opening quote: “Religion is a very scary thing, because a pastor is in a position of power. And if you use that power badly, you ruin people’s lives, and you ruin your own life.” (Eugene H. Peterson)

    You will not find the word “power” mentioned in the New Testament describing the office of pastor. Instead, you will find that a God-called pastor is to be in a position of service to his congregation, not in power over them:

    “He must not be arrogant … a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined” (Titus 1:5-9)

    “… not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock …” (1 Peter 5:1-5)

    “… care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood …” (Acts 20:28)

    ” … an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity …” (1 Timothy 4:12)

    Oh God, give us such pastors … and remove those from the pulpit who are not.

  103. Christiane wrote:

    Hi DALE,
    you might find this link informative:
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

    Thanks for the link, Christiane.

    I don’t accept that the Holy Spirit works mechanically through the laying on of hands. And I don’t believe that ordination confers any special charism of teaching infallible truth. 9Marks pastors claim to speak/stand in the place of Christ, as do Catholic clergy. It seems to me that they both usurp the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Both 9Marks and Catholic hierarchy demand submission based on their office. I also find this unacceptable.

    From the link you provided:

    “it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred,(20*) and the sacred character so impressed,(21*) that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person.”

    “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

    “And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable”

  104. Dale wrote:

    The pope’s power of primacy over all

    Could you imagine what would happen if this person had an army, or had religious influence over heads of State? Oh, wait.

  105. Bridget wrote:

    @ Lea:

    Could be. My understanding of hierarchy, looking at many definitions, has to do with rank, superiority, everyone in submission to the person above them, a pyramid structure with a top man.

    Ah, see i don’t really think of it that way necessarily I guess? That may be a more proper type definition, but I don’t think submission/pyramid structure with a top man. I think more some people are in charge of X, and those people may rotate, and be determined by the people below them…Structure with some hierarchical elements in that we’re not talking pure voting.

    I do think the further away from the people the decision making is the worse off. So somebody in Rome deciding for somebody in demoine is different from some people in first church of demoine choosing a few other individuals to be ‘elders’ for a predetermined time, who then choose stuff like what kind of light bulbs to use.

  106. Max wrote:

    You will not find the word “power” mentioned in the New Testament describing the office of pastor.

    Is there even an office of pastor? Wade Burleson, in his book “Fraudulent Authority” writes:

    “There is no emphasis in the New Testament on “authority” derived from an “office.”

    The King James Version translates the word “office” in Rom. 11:13, 12:4 and 1Tim 3:1. But in Rom. 11:13 it is the word “diakonia” or “service.” In 12:4 it is “praxis” or “action/function.” While in 1Tim 3:1 “office” is not in the text at all. The verse simply says in the original “if anyone aspires to oversight [episkope].”

    There is no “office” of authority in the church of Jesus Christ.

    Authority is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit obvious through people. In one sense, the entire body shares authority (Eph. 5:21, 1Pet 5:5).”

  107. Lea wrote:

    There can be structure without hierarchy.

    Maybe this is getting at a definition question

    That, imo is “responsibility” to others. Many heirarchies hijack that word to use it for power as they hijack a lot of words and concepts but mean something different with them. Is a deceptive maze.

  108. Deb wrote:

    Women trapped in these churches have been suffering in silence for WAY TOO LONG. It’s time for them to find their voice and speak up!

    I am one of these women. Happens in Ohio, too. Although my story is not as dramatic as Maria’s – the similarities are striking. Go, Maria!

  109. Dale wrote:

    “it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred,(20*) and the sacred character so impressed,(21*) that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person.”

    The bishops did not seem very concerned about this situation http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/world/article/Argentina-probes-sex-abuse-at-deaf-school-what-10814885.php?cmpid=twitter-premium so my question is, where was the Holy Spirit at that time and in what way were they acting in his person.

    Could you imagine what would happen if this person had an army, or had religious influence over heads of State? Oh, wait.

    Well, you know, that was a long time ago. Surely human nature has changed since then and persons given ultimate authority would no longer be tempted to do evil. Right?

  110. Lea wrote:

    choosing a few other individuals to be ‘elders’ for a predetermined time, who then choose stuff like what kind of light bulbs to use.

    Well, hopefully, the person responsible for the building can deal with light bulbs. And people responsible for teaching can teach, and people responsible for budgets can budget, etc. All of these people should be transparent and invite criticism for the purpose of doing a good job, learning from and supporting one another.

  111. Max wrote:

    You will not find the word “power” mentioned in the New Testament describing the office of pastor. Instead, you will find that a God-called pastor is to be in a position of service to his congregation, not in power over them:

    “He must not be arrogant … a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined” (Titus 1:5-9)

    “… not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock …” (1 Peter 5:1-5)

    “… care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood …” (Acts 20:28)

    ” … an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity …” (1 Timothy 4:12)

    Oh God, give us such pastors … and remove those from the pulpit who are not.

    Max, these people are in church, but they are not called “pastor”, they are just living their lives and exercising their gifts quietly.

  112. siteseer wrote:

    Well, you know, that was a long time ago. Surely human nature has changed since then and persons given ultimate authority would no longer be tempted to do evil. Right?

    Sarcasm, I hope?

  113. dee wrote:

    Thank you all for your kind comments. Please keep us in your prayers as we confront this stuff head on. On that note, I may try to contact Pastor Tim for comment tomorrow. Did he really apologize?

    To my understanding, the “apology” takes the tone of “We’re sorry you took offense.”

  114. siteseer wrote:

    Max, these people are in church, but they are not called “pastor”, they are just living their lives and exercising their gifts quietly.

    As all true believers should, in both pulpit and pew.

  115. siteseer wrote:

    The bishops did not seem very concerned about this situation http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/world/article/Argentina-probes-sex-abuse-at-deaf-school-what-10814885.php?cmpid=twitter-premium so my question is, where was the Holy Spirit at that time and in what way were they acting in his person.

    When submitting to an office, you become too trusting.

    “The Mendoza Archbishopric says it was unaware of the accusations against Corradi. “A religious man comes to a diocese and you trust the legitimate superior,” spokesman Marcelo De Benedectis said.”

  116. According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    This idea of submission to authority as a “gift” is prevalent in the ecumenical movement. In fact, there is an ecumenical document written in 1999 titled “The Gift of Authority.” It is an agreement between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches as to the necessity of a “universal primate.” One headquartered in Rome.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_12051999_gift-of-autority_en.html

    From the agreement: “The reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.”

  117. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    Yikes. All this word game playing is exhausting.

  118. Guest wrote:

    These men arrange for themselves and their cohorts trapped female slaves that cant not tell them (((NO))) or (((ESCAPE))) them.

    Which reminds me– The Handmaid’s Tale TV series is set to premier on Hulu on April 26th.

  119. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    Ha! I think he means trust must be stolen through treachery!

  120. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    Me too! 🙁

  122. Gram3 wrote:

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    Well, who else do ya think would hold the Keys of the Kingdom?

  123. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    Have you ever heard of someone speaking out of their “super intentelligence?” What Dever is admitting is that he cannot be trusted by virtue of his character. He is telling everyone that he can only be trusted if people choose to disregard his actual character. It’s a very revealing statement.

  124. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”

    Thank you for taking the time to write an Amazon review of the book. The number of glowing reviews is scary. This stuff is like a virulent epidemic.

  125. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    The number of glowing reviews is scary. This stuff is like a virulent epidemic.

    I think you almost have to experience the trauma of authoritarianism to understand what is going on. After all, who wouldn’t want to be in a “pure” church with excellent worship and teaching? For dense ol’ me, it took a ten year exodus of excommunication, shunning, being fenced from the table, and the threat and execution of a restraining order for me to put two and two together. Even then, I needed to see evidence of the bad fruit – which has been abundantly supplied at this blog.

  126. Max wrote:

    Oh God, give us such pastors … and remove those from the pulpit who are not.

    Sorry, but ever since the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC those controlling the seminaries have fought tooth and nail to install arrogant and domineering pastors. They wouldn’t call it such, but it still is. Remember, you can be and do whatever as long as it is in the name of Truth.

  127. Ken F wrote:

    He is telling everyone that he can only be trusted if people choose to disregard his actual character. It’s a very revealing statement.

    It is a very scary statement! He is advocating this for all men/women who are considered leaders. It is down right absurd.

  128. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ha! I think he means trust must be stolen through treachery!

    I have seen this concept acted out. If you don’t blindly trust them, you are faithless, rebellious and therefore sinful. It goes with the sinning by questioning meme.

  129. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Max wrote:

    Oh God, give us such pastors … and remove those from the pulpit who are not.

    Sorry, but ever since the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC those controlling the seminaries have fought tooth and nail to install arrogant and domineering pastors. They wouldn’t call it such, but it still is. Remember, you can be and do whatever as long as it is in the name of Truth.

    As a long time SBC member I detest what it has become and do not understand why the masses put up with what the fundamentalist takeover has done to the SBC.

  130. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    Well, who else do ya think would hold the Keys of the Kingdom?

    There is even a book about the SBC, I think called the God Makers and it is very true of what many SBC pastors are taught that they are–little gods. How sad!

  131. Dale wrote:

    After all, who wouldn’t want to be in a “pure” church with excellent worship and teaching? For dense ol’ me, it took a ten year exodus of excommunication, shunning, being fenced from the table, and the threat and execution of a restraining order for me to put two and two together. Even then, I needed to see evidence of the bad fruit – which has been abundantly supplied at this blog.

    DALE, your own site https://xcjournal.org/
    links to the following ‘apologetics’ sites ….. what is your take on the Calvinist sites like Ligonier and James White’s Alpha and Omega Ministries site?
    Apologetics Ministries

    Alpha & Omega Ministries
    Beggars All
    Berean Beacon
    Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism
    Just For Catholics
    Ligonier Ministries
    Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries
    Take Heed Ministries
    Thoughts of Francis Turretin

  132. Bridget wrote:

    Well, hopefully, the person responsible for the building can deal with light bulbs.

    If you have appointed someone to be ‘responsible’ for whatever, you have made a distinction between people. You have given them ‘authority’ to do something. That doesn’t in and of itself lead to abuse. I guess I”m just interested in the other things that cause problems. The attitudes. Etc.

    I’m just saying some of this seems like semantics.

  133. Dale wrote:

    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift

    That’s stupid.

    I have given trust as a gift before and been really really wrong. That trust was then revoked. What does Dever suggest you do in those situations?

  134. mot wrote:

    As a long time SBC member I detest what it has become and do not understand why the masses put up with what the fundamentalist takeover has done to the SBC.

    “Just do what you want to with your theology, but don’t mess with our potluck dinners!” (The Masses)

  135. Christiane wrote:

    DALE, your own site https://xcjournal.org/
    links to the following ‘apologetics’ sites ….. what is your take on the Calvinist sites like Ligonier and James White’s Alpha and Omega Ministries site?
    Apologetics Ministries
    Alpha & Omega Ministries
    Beggars All
    Berean Beacon
    Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism
    Just For Catholics
    Ligonier Ministries
    Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries
    Take Heed Ministries
    Thoughts of Francis Turretin

    Christiane, I have been a faithful reader of Tabletalk Magazine since 1992. I placed those links on my website six or seven years ago. I was primarily interested in taking a stand against the ecumenical movement, and R.C. Sproul took the lead in that fight back in 1994, as did James White and John MacArthur. I also come from a very Catholic family, and I have a passion to reach Catholics with the “evangelical gospel” which I think is the only gospel. I know we disagree on that point. I heartily agree with the theology of the reformation as it relates to justification. So to the extent that those sites stand against deceptive ecumenism and clarify distinctions that separate evangelicalism from Catholicism, I recommend them.

    I am very concerned with the direction that Ligonier Ministries has recently taken. Dever and Mohler have suddenly become important contributors to the magazine, and 9Marks has been prominently featured.

    One of my issues with requiring mandatory statements of faith is that one’s theology often changes as we grow in our Christian walk. I have recently moved away from complementarianism. I like to read books by those who hold to “New Covenant Theology.”

    Yes, we evangelicals are a messy bunch. I like to say that the Holy Spirit “blows things around,” like leaves in your back yard. Certainly things were much “cleaner” before the Reformation, when just a few “rebels” like the Waldensians stood up against the monolithic Papal structure. I find great danger in large authoritarian structures like the Papacy. I fear that 9Marks and New Calvinism/Neo-Puritanism have likewise morphed into authoritarian structures.

  136. @ Lea:

    With responsibility comes authority for what you are responsible for, but none of it means hierarchy.

  137. @ Dale:
    and yet those links remain on your website …. perhaps you can understand my confusion when I saw them?

    I can tell you that I see my own Church vastly differently from how you present it to people, but I was really trying to understand where you were coming from when I clicked on your name and found your site with those links.

    I also have read some of your interactions with people who have joined the Catholic Church after being in Protestant seminaries. You seemed very disgusted with them, but I also wondered ‘why’ when Catholic people are brought up to RESPECT the consciences of those who come from different religious faith communities.

    My father’s family has been Catholic for over a thousand years, and I am Catholic to the backbone. My mother’s family was Southern Baptist. I respect and revere the memory of my Southern Baptist grandmother of blessed memory. I cannot imagine not respecting people of good will who see the faith from other perspectives, but what enables me to do that is that they are primarily of ‘good will’ towards others ….. sadly, that is not always the case. God bless.

  138. Ken F wrote:

    The point I was trying to make is that the New-Calvinists will use terminology to deflect people away from the real issue.

    Just like Intellectual Communist Apologetics did during the Cold War.
    Find any error (even a typo) in the accusation and pounce on it with Party Line discrediting of the entire accusation. Party First, Comrade.

  139. LT wrote:

    When you look at some of the top pastors in DFW you see some of the largest Trump supporters who were instrumental in mobilizing the Evangelical vote: Robert Morris, Jack Graham, Robert Jeffress and DFW based Daystar using their daily tax free broadcasts to directly market votes throughout the US.

    Something about 81% of American Evangelicals Trumpeting for The TRUMP:

    The 80/20 Rule in relation to Groupthink. Once consensus among a group reaches 80%, Groupthink locks in and the 20% are Purged by any means necessary.
    There can be only One True Way.

  140. Christiane wrote:

    I also have read some of your interactions with people who have joined the Catholic Church after being in Protestant seminaries. You seemed very disgusted with them, but I also wondered ‘why’ when Catholic people are brought up to RESPECT the consciences of those who come from different religious faith communities.

    Christiane, I think you are referencing an interaction I had with Jeremy at Called to Communion. In his post, he stated the following, to which as a former Catholic I heartily disagreed:

    1)Those who were “born again” and left the Catholic Church had never really entered into the fullness of the Catholic Church.

    2)Those who left Catholicism never loved Catholicism to begin with.

    3) Ex-Catholics were never taught the unbroken history of the Church back to the apostles.

    4) Ex-Catholics were never properly catechized in their Catholic faith.

    Both Jeremy and I attended Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS). I pointed out the errors listed above. I also discussed the problem that I had experienced at RTS of those who compromised the Gospel related to their participation in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), including one of my professors. I was responding to Jeremy’s straw men. I was not disgusted with him, I was disgusted with his arguments. I spoke passionately related to what I perceived as his misrepresentation of former Catholics. I also urged him to reconsider his decision. I can see that maybe I could have written in a more gentle manner. I was concerned for his soul, just as you as a Catholic should be concerned for my soul if you believe that there is no salvation apart from your Church and its sacramental system, which I forsook.

    Evangelicalism holds to Sola Fide. It considers this to be critical to the Gospel. Catholicism believes in a Sacramental salvation that is only available in the Catholic Church. Never the twain shall meet.

  141. Dale wrote:

    Never the twain shall meet.

    While in no position to argue theology, in my experience, I would say the twain may sometimes meet.

    In la République centrafricaine (RCA), we brought a needy newborn from a remote village to a group of urban nuns that cared for him through infancy and then returned him to his father. His mother had died in childbirth. We were not Catholic.

    In Europe, over lunch a pastor said his denomination would say we had never been baptized, and then we all continued work as an evangelism team that very afternoon.

  142. Dale wrote:

    I like to say that the Holy Spirit “blows things around,” like leaves in your back yard. Certainly things were much “cleaner” before the Reformation, when just a few “rebels” like the Waldensians stood up against the monolithic Papal structure. I find great danger in large authoritarian structures like the Papacy. I fear that 9Marks and New Calvinism/Neo-Puritanism have likewise morphed into authoritarian structures.

    This is an excellent point.

    So it is amazing when individuals like Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty, are in the system, so to speak, and do amazingly good work.

    He resisted Nazism, saving 6,500 Allied soldiers and Jews.

    Perhaps the system doesn’t always define or reflect the holiness of the individual and vice versa.

  143. @ Dale:

    “I have recently moved away from complementarianism.”
    ++++++++++++

    That’s neat. I’d like to hear how that came about. would it be within the acceptable tangential limits for this particular blog post?

  144. I have read “Fraudulent Authority” by Wade Burleson. This gave me a significant “nudge.” Hearing about the abusive treatment of women in certain churches. Another nudge. The Holy Spirit convicting me in my marriage. A shove.

  145. Dale wrote:

    Catholicism believes in a Sacramental salvation that is only available in the Catholic Church.

    I think you are confused about this, yes.

    Salvation is of Christ. All Salvation is of Christ. But HOW He does this is part of what we calls ‘the Paschal Mystery’ and the Church expresses this very clearly:

    ““For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way…. The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery”

  146. I am not confused, Christiane. Salvation in Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic sacraments. I am fully aware of the three forms of baptism taught in Catholicism.

    A Catholic (usually infant) is born again through the sacrament of baptism. This begins their journey of faith via the sacraments. Baptism mode number one.

    A non-Catholic (one who has not received Catholic baptism) can still be considered as receiving the sacrament through what is known as the “baptism of desire.” Thus, because this person (let’s say an Animist) is ignorant of the requirement to receive Catholic baptism, they are saved because if they did know the requirement then they would have been baptized. It is only their “invincible ignorance” that keeps them from the sacrament.

  147. Then there is mode number three which is a martyr’s baptism, the baptism of blood.

    It gets a little confusing with regards to the “separated brethren.” Most of them flat out reject the Catholic sacramental system. While some of these folks do not know all about the “pascal mystery” of Catholicism since they have not been raised Catholic, it is hard to argue that they are “invincible ignorant” of the Catholic system of sacraments as necessary for salvation.

    And then there is the sticky problem of former Catholics. We know all about the “system” and flat out reject it. We are not “invincible ignorant.” The best you may be able to argue for us is that we have been “improperly catechized” whatever that means. I personally received religious formation through high school and was a practicing Catholic until age 35. I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church from cover to cover and constantly refer to it in my ministry. I have investigated the peculiarities of Catholicism from Miraculous sacramentals to appearances of the Virgin Mary to the use of relics to the teaching of Purgatory and indulgences. I am pretty sure I know more about Catholicism than 99% of Catholics.

  148. If anyone “deserves” the anathemas (cursing to hell) of the Council of Trent and Vatican 2, it is I. And other former Catholics like Richard Bennett, the former priest who founded Berean Beacon as an outreach to Catholics and to inform the “separated brethren” of the errors of Catholicism. No, we are not ignorant of the scheme of Romanism. We actively seek to turn Catholics away from their reliance on their Church to instead teach them to rely solely on Jesus.

  149. After Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism has become like the “Borg” in Star Trek. She seeks to assimilate people of every spiritual ilk into her “collective.” Google world day of prayer 1986 to see this in action. (Spell check turns A-s-s-i-s-i into Assist.)

  150. Dale wrote:

    We actively seek to turn Catholics away from their reliance on their Church to instead teach them to rely solely on Jesus.

    And, hopefully, everyone else who relies on their church – to turn to Jesus: the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Perfecter of our Faith.

  151. Dale wrote:

    We actively seek to turn Catholics away from their reliance on their Church to instead teach them to rely solely on Jesus.

    Interesting connect there with the thinking of some former evangelicals in that some of us who were born, raised, educated and thoroughly familiar with what it means to be a bible believing witnessing and
    separated semi-fundamentalist believer in Jesus also preach the idea that one (evangelicals/fundamentalists) ought to turn away from their reliance on their church’s narrow doctrinal understandings and rely solely on Jesus.

    I brought up the subject once with Christiane as a hypothetical what if situation if she had to choose between Jesus and the Church….Her reply was that one cannot separate Jesus and His (Catholic) Church. A similar sort of thinking is present in fundagelical thinking, that one cannot separate Jesus from their own tradition’s interpretations of various passages in scripture. Thus we have the idea of you can’t be a Christian unless you either are Roman on the one hand or else unless you accept certain specific specific fundagelical beliefs on the other hand.

    And then there are those of us who do not identify with either group’s ideas of exclusivity, either organizational or doctrinal. That is a different conversation, but all of you people who have the one and only true understanding of the answers need to know that there are those of us who believe and practice ‘yes, but have you considered the following…’.

    Praise to Jesus. Can we all find common ground somewhere in that vicinity?

  152. @ JYJames:
    Hi DALE,
    I know ex-Catholics who aren’t in the business of being ex-Catholics, so to speak. Among them are people of good conscience who now worship in other faith traditions, one Anglican, one Orthodox, and one Methodist (my brother, who converted to his wife’s Protestant faith so that the children could be raised in her Church). But none of these people present the Catholic faith as what it is not, nor do I think they knowingly would, such is their integrity, and I respect that. They also SOUND like former Catholics when there are discussions on faith communities …. they don’t come out with stuff that is not true about the Church in dialogue about comparisons and contrasts: they respectfully get their facts right.

    I think you may represent what it looks like when a Catholic converts with the help of arguments from people like MacArthur and White. You present the Church much differently from how my Anglican former Catholic friend, my Orthodox former Catholic friend, and my former Cathoic, now Methodist brother would talk about the Catholic faith.

    Very different viewpoint indeed.

  153. @ Dale:
    Hi DALE,
    I know ex-Catholics who aren’t in the business of being ex-Catholics, so to speak. Among them are people of good conscience who now worship in other faith traditions, one Anglican, one Orthodox, and one Methodist (my brother, who converted to his wife’s Protestant faith so that the children could be raised in her Church). But none of these people present the Catholic faith as what it is not, nor do I think they knowingly would, such is their integrity, and I respect that. They also SOUND like former Catholics when there are discussions on faith communities …. they don’t come out with stuff that is not true about the Church in dialogue about comparisons and contrasts: they respectfully get their facts right.

    I think you may represent what it looks like when a Catholic converts with the help of arguments from people like MacArthur and White. You present the Church much differently from how my Anglican former Catholic friend, my Orthodox former Catholic friend, and my former Cathoic, now Methodist brother would talk about the Catholic faith.

    Very different viewpoint indeed.

  154. Christiane wrote:

    they don’t come out with stuff that is not true about the Church in dialogue about comparisons and contrasts: they respectfully get their facts right.

    Christiane, did I get the facts wrong concerning the three types of Baptism? I sincerely try to get my facts straight when I examine Roman Catholicism. Is it so complicated that I am missing something?

  155. okrapod wrote:

    Praise to Jesus. Can we all find common ground somewhere in that vicinity?

    The only REAL unity we have IS in Jesus Christ.

    I think this expresses how I see it:
    “” …. our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is He who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary.
    For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, IF it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.

    Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to His life.
    And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into His love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).” (Benedict XVI)

  156. Dale wrote:

    Salvation in Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic sacraments.

    Hi Dale,
    your concept of ‘salvation’ seems confused in how Catholics view where the power comes from in the sacrament of Baptism.

    perhaps this will clarify it some for you:

    ““See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from,
    if not from the cross of Christ, from His death.
    There is the whole mystery:
    He died for you.
    In Him you are redeemed, in Him you are saved “
    (St. Ambrose)

  157. Christiane wrote:

    your concept of ‘salvation’ seems confused in how Catholics view where the power comes from in the sacrament of Baptism.

    Is that view possible in infant baptism? Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change or repentance. Can an infant baptism reflect that transformation I wonder?

  158. Christiane wrote:

    I think you may represent what it looks like when a Catholic converts with the help of arguments from people like MacArthur and White.

    Well, I was “converted” on December 8th, 1990 when I attended a “Life in the Spirit Seminar” at my local Catholic Church. I eventually left Roman Catholicism through the study of the book of Colossians.

  159. Dale wrote:

    I eventually left Roman Catholicism through the study of the book of Colossians.

    Same here! Particularly Col. 2:14. I was set free!

  160. Christiane wrote:

    your concept of ‘salvation’ seems confused in how Catholics view where the power comes from in the sacrament of Baptism.

    Christiane, how effective is the power of baptism in salvation if one can lose said salvation through the commission of a mortal sin? My mother had a pre-Vatican II missal that provided an examination of conscience for those preparing for confession. It listed “entering a Protestant church” as a mortal sin. Confession is known as the “second plank of salvation for those who have made shipwreck of their faith.” For the Catholic, any unconfessed mortal sin is grounds for hell at the point of death, correct? My mother attended a service at my Protestant church once. I wonder if she confessed her mortal sin to the priest?

  161. Christiane wrote:

    ““See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from,
    if not from the cross of Christ, from His death.
    There is the whole mystery:
    He died for you.
    In Him you are redeemed, in Him you are saved “
    (St. Ambrose)

    That is a great quote, Christiane. As a Protestant, I would consider the Bishop of Milan to be one in a continuing line of protesters to the Church at Rome. Successive bishops in Milan defied the authoritarianism of the Bishop of Rome. Eventually the protesters were to move further north to the foot of the Italian alps. The Waldensians were persecuted for centuries. Some of their ancestors moved to North Carolina and founded the town of Valdese. Every summer they have a play commemorating their story and their persecution at the hands of Roman authority.

  162. “Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughter’d saints,
    whose bones Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains cold.
    * * * in Thy book record their groans
    Who were Thy sheep, and in their ancient fold,
    Slain by the bloody Piedmontese,
    that roll’d Mother with infant down the rocks.
    Their moans The vales redoubled to the hills,
    and they To heaven.”

    John Milton’s sonnet about the Waldensians

  163. okrapod wrote:

    Praise to Jesus. Can we all find common ground somewhere in that vicinity?

    Thank you, Okrapod, for your theological statement (explanation) for how “the twain” does, indeed, meet: Jesus.

    [Reference to earlier comments about “the twain”.]

  164. @ JYJames:

    Yes, indeed! At this point, any vein of believers claiming Christ seem to be spreading as many misnomers as the next group.

  165. Bridget wrote:

    @ JYJames:

    Yes, indeed! At this point, any vein of believers claiming Christ seem to be spreading as many misnomers as the next group.

    This is why I have a hard time aligning with any group. It becomes about defending the group, spreading the group’s version of truth or trying to rehab the group’s image.

  166. Refugee wrote:

    Oh, yikes! The Berean Beacon! It is run by a guy who was welcomed some years ago at our hyper-Calvinist church to preach and raise money for his “mission”–converting Catholics from their “false religion” to saving faith.

    Interesting discussion on encouraging people to turn away from reliance on a church or doctrine and turn to Christ. After reading through, I was struck by the irony that our old church was supporting Richard Bennett and his Berean Beacon ministry to encourage Catholics to turn away from their church, to turn toward another set of restrictive doctrines–like the ones held by our former hyper-calvinist church.

  167. Lydia wrote:

    They are all competing for your dollars.

    They are doing that. I keep thinking it is more to it than that, though, more like Joseph in Egypt. First Joseph gathered up the grain from the field and put it into storehouses for seven years. Except For The Priests. Then when the famine struck he sold (sold) the grain back to the people until their money was gone, and then took their livestock and finally acquired the people with their land into slavery for pharaoh.

    I think that some people may want not just the money but want the very people themselves to be in bondage. And I think that there seems to be evil behind some of this which may want their very souls.

    And for those who may be squeamish about that sort of thinking, breathe easy. I am no further off some deep end than was Lewis with his characterization of Screwtape.

  168. @ okrapod:

    Yes some are really bad. But let’s be honest, there are bills to be paid. Some churches have 20,000/mo electric bills. I don’t enter those types of places at all anymore. My kids want to know why we put money in the plate when we visit churches. I am from the thinking we pay our way. We are sitting there using their facility, their lights, their heat, etc. It’s voluntary. But, I Am all too well aware of what it takes financially to keep any church alive. And most have seem the flow of money take a dive, More competition, fewer people joining. Even the Megas -that have further to fall. If there is one thing I learned about the trends in my time in the Church growth world is the concept of nickels and noses. There is a different generation that doesn’t really consistently tithe. They give when they come. They key is getting them in consistently. Even the church with 50 members know this.

  169. Lydia wrote:

    There is a different generation that doesn’t really consistently tithe.

    This is true. Even just a few people dying in a congregation can hit the bottom line seriously.

  170. okrapod wrote:

    I think that some people may want not just the money but want the very people themselves to be in bondage. And I think that there seems to be evil behind some of this which may want their very souls.

    On another note concerning bondage, I am becoming increasingly concerned about people’s need to strongly and almost totally identify with a specific group/tribe. It’s not as simple as it once was. It seems to be reverting back to a quasi sort of fuedal system. I hope I raise individuals!

    People have always done this but it has become all encompassing to an unhealthy degree.

  171. @ Lea:
    As my former church, taken over by pimply faced YRR, is finding out! Some seniors have changed their legacy!

  172. mot wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    Well, who else do ya think would hold the Keys of the Kingdom?

    There is even a book about the SBC, I think called the God Makers and it is very true of what many SBC pastors are taught that they are–little gods. How sad!

    I believe this whole heartily from what I’ve witnessed. I’ve heard
    several times from the pulpit members should refrain from speaking
    out/gossiping about changes to the church whether be the building,
    music or service style. To do so is going against God’s plan for
    the church. Since the first time I thought he was using the name
    of God to control members.

  173. Bridget wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    ishy wrote:
    (ed.) There are a lot of Christ-following Calvinists, and there are Calvinists speaking out against ESS and the way the neo-Calvinists act.
    This is very true. This website is hosted by Calvinists who strongly oppose new-Calvinism: http://www.newcalvinist.com/. It often pops up when I search for new-Calvinist abuses.
    I never said there were no no Christ following Calvinists. But most all Calvinists I have come in contact with are very heirarchial in their thinking. I have come in contact with several veins.

    To add to the conversation, I would say that the irenic, kindly Calvinist – whether of the Baptistic strain or Presbyterian strain – is decreasing in numbers. The effect that Neo-Calvinism/Neo-Puritanism has had on Calvinists is that it has united many of the Presbies and Baptists. (By the way, I’m not talking about the liberal branch Presbyterians, the PCUSA. They would be the exceptions.) Hence, I can go to Calvinist sites where both Baptists and Presbyterians will unite under one banner: Calvinism & the Doctrines of Grace. Often times, they will unite together to oppose anyone that disagrees with their theology, and they will do it with belligerent, acerbic gusto. I honestly believe this strain of Neo-Calvinism sees things as US Against the WORLD.

  174. Max wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    this is true of every organization with any power at all. I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking it’s all calvin
    Agreed. Abuse can occur anywhere a man uses his authority to control, manipulate and intimidate others. In 16th century Geneva, Calvin’s name was synonymous with abuse. He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

    Odd that Calvin was authoritative when you think about it. He left the Roman Catholic Church because of its abuses of power. Then he turns around and does the very, same thing that he was supposedly fleeing. Maybe it boils down to not so much fleeing authority, but wanting all the authority for yourself.

  175. Friend wrote:

    You’re right, of course… but look at the number of churches that refuse to have the word “church” in the name, and that will never utter tired old words like worship, hymn, and sermon.
    It’s almost like they want to lure us in unawares and then stop us from leaving after we figure out where we are…

    Here’s another tricky thing these Neo-Calvinists are doing. The names they give to their local congregations – take Heritage Bible Church for example – give no hint that they are Calvinists. And how many of them on their websites under *What We Believe* actually describe themselves as “Calvinists?” I think they know the name has gotten so much bad press over the years that they don’t want to expose their True Identity. They operate in the dark, covertly – and only come out of the closet when it is most advantageous to their Movement.

  176. Muff Potter wrote:

    Max wrote:
    He teamed with the magistrate to oppress any Christian who did not agree with his theology … that included church shunning/excommunication, banishment from the territory, torture, imprisonment, and execution.
    The horrors of Calvin’s Geneva (as were Cromwell’s England) were fresh in the minds of our Founders when they wrote:
    Congress shall make no law…

    I think the Roman Catholic Church was also on their minds. Any religious institution that misused its authority.

  177. siteseer wrote:

    Friend wrote:
    Sounds better than the Doctorate of Biblical Confrontation that Kevin Wright, HBC’s Pastor of Counseling and Family Ministries, seems to be working on (see TWW Jan 13 post).
    What inspires a person to study such a thing? Of all the aspects of the faith?

    As HUG would say, “He who holds the whip, has the POWER!”

  178. Ken F wrote:

    The doctrine of total depravity has a huge role to play in humbling all ethnic groups and giving us a desperate equality in condemnation.

    Misery loves company. 😉

  179. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    There is a different generation that doesn’t really consistently tithe.

    This is true. Even just a few people dying in a congregation can hit the bottom line seriously.

    This is going to affect many churches in the coming years. Usually the “older” folks are more consistent in their giving and generous in the amount they give and when they die–the churches budget can be affected dramatically.

  180. Darlene wrote:

    Here’s another tricky thing these Neo-Calvinists are doing. The names they give to their local congregations – take Heritage Bible Church for example – give no hint that they are Calvinists.

    Southern Baptist church plants don’t even give a hint that they are Southern Baptist! You might find reference to the Baptist Faith & Message on a plant’s website page pertaining to beliefs, but otherwise they are mum about SBC affiliation. They use catchy church names to conceal their identity, as if they are ashamed to be part of SBC, while taking SBC church planting funds! Most church plant members have no idea that they are affiliated with SBC.

  181. Victorious wrote:

    Is that view possible in infant baptism? Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change or repentance. Can an infant baptism reflect that transformation I wonder?

    Augustine taught that unbaptized babies are beyond God’s grace and that without the ritual performed, the stain of Adam’s imputed guilt separates then from God for eternity. The Medievals (both Catholic and Protestant), affirmed this doctrinal belief too. Even the vaunted Jonathan Edwards (in reformed circles) preached in 18th cent. America that babies sans the ritual are cast into hell.

  182. Y A Y to the M A X !!

    for bright light shining on all the rot.

    A toast (fwiw, alcohol fails the taste test for me), with beverage of choice, in honor of truth-speak and every truth-speaking soul.

  183. Gram3 wrote:

    Dale wrote:
    According to Mark Dever in his “Nine Marks” book, trust given to an authority cannot be earned. “It must be given as a gift — a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”
    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    This is exactly how the Complementarians think of the role of husband as the Head. Trust should be given, never earned because the husband is not perfect.

  184. Max wrote:

    Most church plant members have no idea that they are affiliated with SBC.

    This gives new meaning to the term: dumb sheep.

  185. mot wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Oh my. They do think they are as gods. That is a sobering quote. Kind of wish I could unread it.

    Well, who else do ya think would hold the Keys of the Kingdom?

    There is even a book about the SBC, I think called the God Makers and it is very true of what many SBC pastors are taught that they are–little gods. How sad!

    The God Makers was a video about Mormonism, if I remember correctly. Thing is, it was an unhinged polemic that played fast and loose with the facts (including claiming that Mormons worship Mormo, the Ancient Greek mythological demon). The guy who made it was a bit of a nut case.

  186. Muff Potter wrote:

    Augustine taught that unbaptized babies are beyond God’s grace and that without the ritual performed, the stain of Adam’s imputed guilt separates then from God for eternity. The Medievals (both Catholic and Protestant), affirmed this doctrinal belief too. Even the vaunted Jonathan Edwards (in reformed circles) preached in 18th cent. America that babies sans the ritual are cast into hell.

    So I am confused, we don’t have a part in salvation but if we don’t have a ritual performed then we do?

  187. Bill M wrote:

    So I am confused, we don’t have a part in salvation but if we don’t have a ritual performed then we do?

    Mic drop.

  188. @ MidwesternEasterner:
    thanks for that link!

    I am sure that Augustine’s original Manichaeism influenced him way beyong the time he gave it up for Christianity. But it is not at all difficult to see how ‘thought systems’ of the varieties of Gnosticism took hold on men who attempted to comprehend the mysteries of God way beyond man’s ability to do so. I think Calvinism is an example of that kind of ‘thought system which is a form of circular logic’.

    I like the way Chesterton’s ‘The Convert’ celebrates the ‘mystery’ that is not held captive to the logic of men:

    “After one moment when I bowed my head
    And the whole world turned over and came upright,
    And I came out where the old road shone white.
    I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
    Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
    Being not unlovable but strange and light;
    Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
    But softly, as men smile about the dead

    The sages have a hundred maps to give
    That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
    They rattle reason out through many a sieve
    That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
    And all these things are less than dust to me
    Because my name is Lazarus and I live.”

  189. Bill M wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    Augustine taught that unbaptized babies are beyond God’s grace and that without the ritual performed, the stain of Adam’s imputed guilt separates then from God for eternity. The Medievals (both Catholic and Protestant), affirmed this doctrinal belief too. Even the vaunted Jonathan Edwards (in reformed circles) preached in 18th cent. America that babies sans the ritual are cast into hell.

    So I am confused, we don’t have a part in salvation but if we don’t have a ritual performed then we do?

    Edwards, as a Calvinist, didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. So in his view, it wasn’t whether the babies were baptized or not that mattered, but rather whether or not they were invisibly elected. This was one key area where Calvin differed from Augustine (and Lutheranism, and medieval Catholicism).

    Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodox, Syriac, etc.) never accepted many of Augustine’s ideas, and was always far more inclusivist in its approach toward salvation than the West was. A lot of supposedly “liberal” and “modern” theological views are in fact ancient and have long had a following in the east.

  190. @ MidwesternEasterner:
    I know that the Dutch Reformed are people who celebrate the mercy of God;
    but it is hard to see the concept of God’s ‘Mercy’ in Puritan writings or in neo-Cal writings.

    At some point, the Orthodox filtered out a lot of the influences of the early Manichaeism and Gnosticism that the Western Church kept traces of,
    and so the Eastern Church is much more comfortable in the presence of mysteries of God, especially with the Incarnation and all that it holds of meaning for all mankind, AND the concept of God’s great mercy.

    The West? We struggle with it. But still we know our limits to understand. But we struggle …… 🙂 We are impatient to see and to know those things which are shrouded completely or partially in mystery. Sometimes we go too far in our assumptions because of this.

  191. Christiane wrote:

    Alpha & Omega Ministries
    Beggars All
    Berean Beacon
    Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism
    Just For Catholics
    Ligonier Ministries
    Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries
    Take Heed Ministries
    Thoughts of Francis Turretin

    Some of these ministries are downright cruel to anyone who disagrees with them. I remember going to some of these sites years ago and was appalled at how they treated other people with such arrogance and vicious words.

  192. @ MidwesternEasterner:

    “I just learned a new word today. Maybe this is what should be done to corrupt pastors who abuse or who re-victimize those who were abused before?”

    Charivari
    +++++++++++++++

    ha! that’s a good word. we could always include a good ol’ fashioned tar & feathering, too.

  193. @ Darlene:
    I found the list on DALE’s site, but I don’t know how much he still buys into their stuff. He can speak for himself on that. I do know that some of these sites are used by neo-Cal folk.

    I am Catholic, but I have many friends in the North who are Dutch Reformed and they are among the finest Christian people I know in that they live out the love of Christ in their efforts.
    I don’t think there is much comparison between the Dutch Reformed and the neo-Cal theology. The neo-Cal world seems lost to empathy and compassion and because of this, many people have been hurt. Not so with the compassionate and kind Dutch Reformed folk that I know up north.

    Why the difference? I thought it might have something to do with the neo-Cals working out of an abrasive fundamentalism which is very judgmental and self-righteous. Well, that’s my theory, which isn’t worth much. I’m sure it’s all far more complicated than that, yes.

  194. @ trs:

    “Y A Y to the M A X !!

    for bright light shining on all the rot.

    A toast (fwiw, alcohol fails the taste test for me), with beverage of choice, in honor of truth-speak and every truth-speaking soul.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    hear hear, and L’chaim! with my dry champagne (& plate of greek olives, bleu cheese, basil, rosemary, grapes, and salty crunchy things)

  195. Dale wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    I think you may represent what it looks like when a Catholic converts with the help of arguments from people like MacArthur and White.
    Well, I was “converted” on December 8th, 1990 when I attended a “Life in the Spirit Seminar” at my local Catholic Church. I eventually left Roman Catholicism through the study of the book of Colossians.

    Dale, I am neither Protestant or Catholic. But I *get* what Christiane is saying here. The folks like MacArthur and White have what I believe is an actual hatred for Catholics themselves. Oh, they will say, we love Catholics and that’s why we tell them the truth. But that’s hogwash. They spew vitriol while mocking and deriding. I see those kind of Red Flags among certain Protestants because I was once one of them. I stood on the steps of Catholic churches and waited for Mass to end so I could tell those pathetic souls that they were going to hell if they continued to be Catholics. I didn’t love them. I hated everything they stood for and wished that the entire Catholic Church would disintegrate. Then again, love in some Christian quarters is defined through a particular lens that has little to do with Jesus Christ. And now I’ll get off my soap box.

  196. Bill M wrote:

    So I am confused, we don’t have a part in salvation but if we don’t have a ritual performed then we do?

    It’s a mystery. (Wink)

  197. @ Darlene:
    Historically, they are not that far apart. It’s called the Reformation because the original goal was to Reform the CC. Therefore the ‘Protest” against the Goliath CC that controlled the state church. It was really more political than anything else, IMO. The 95 Theses are more about the selling of Indugences than anything else. Local money going to greedy Rome. When it comes to hierarchy, I don’t see much difference overall except the nuances as practiced in the many different different streams of the Protestants locally. Even more recently people tended to trust their CC priest unconditionally. The CC kept their theocracy in Rome and their Vicar of Christ Pontiff and changed with the more democratic times in terms of political control. They had to. During those times, a lot of people were murdered by both sides in the Name of Christ. I try not to confuse individual salvation with institutional conferred salvation. Some think you can’t separate them. I think it is a must. :o)

  198. Lydia wrote:

    I try not to confuse individual salvation with institutional conferred salvation. Some think you can’t separate them. I think it is a must.

    perhaps ‘Church’ IS the place where salvation occurs …..
    you have to ‘reverse’ the thinking to get this point, but it could be expressed this way:

    ‘where Our Lord is, there is the Church;
    therefore where salvation is, the Church is there also’

    ‘Church’ is so much more than ‘the institutional church’, yes

    Our Lord Himself asked Saul ‘Why persecuteth thou Me?’ when Saul had been persecuting terribly the early Christians

    We can no more separate Our Lord’s Church from Him than we can separate our own humanity from the Incarnate Christ

  199. Darlene wrote:

    This is exactly how the Complementarians think of the role of husband as the Head. Trust should be given, never earned because the husband is not perfect.

    Which is why the entire concept is stupid and flawed.

  200. Bill M wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    Augustine taught that unbaptized babies are beyond God’s grace and that without the ritual performed, the stain of Adam’s imputed guilt separates then from God for eternity. The Medievals (both Catholic and Protestant), affirmed this doctrinal belief too. Even the vaunted Jonathan Edwards (in reformed circles) preached in 18th cent. America that babies sans the ritual are cast into hell.
    So I am confused, we don’t have a part in salvation but if we don’t have a ritual performed then we do?

    Oooh. Good point.

    I am part of a congregation that does infant baptism now, and having grown up baptist, I have been trying to understand where they’re coming from. The thing that made the most sense to me, is that for babies who ‘grew up’ in church, they may have never had a conversion moment and so this is a sort of symbol they’ve been raised to the faith? And the congregation pledges to help raise the child in faith (and the kids pledge to be friends!) which is sort of nice.

  201. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    Edwards, as a Calvinist, didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. So in his view, it wasn’t whether the babies were baptized or not that mattered, but rather whether or not they were invisibly elected

    They apparently used to wait for some outward sign of regeneration? I’m forgetting the details.

  202. Darlene wrote:

    . The folks like MacArthur and White have what I believe is an actual hatred for Catholics themselves. Oh, they will say, we love Catholics and that’s why we tell them the truth. But that’s hogwash. They spew vitriol while mocking and deriding.

    Deep breath.

    Darlene, I think there are two inappropriate responses to truth. The first inappropriate response is to deny it because you don’t like it (or are ignorant of it), and then attack the messenger. The second inappropriate response is to be unloving to others in sharing it.

    If you were to review the blog posts at this website (and the comments), you will find both of these responses to truth occurring. It seems that Calvinists and New Calvinists take a pretty good beating. They are often “mocked and derided.” This is an unloving response to the (perceived) errors of those holding these convictions. On the other hand, you will find the occasional Calvinist who responds on the message board and denies what is truthfully said about their guru.

    Truth and love must kiss. The Church at Ephesus was strong on truth and purity, and they were commended. But they lacked love, and thus they were threatened with the removal of their lampstand. But remember, they were commended for their truth.

    We must not throw out truth in reaction to an unloving messenger. The message of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18) and it is mocked and derided. The ministries I listed are very good at clarifying distinctions that often are used to modify the gospel, to remove its “offense.” The reactions to their ministries include those who mock them, set up straw men, and dismiss them because they disagree with them. And there are valid concerns when they speak the truth in an unloving manner.

    Roman Catholicism teaches that Muslims and Hindus are part of the body of Christ based on their being “invincibly ignorant.” This removes the offense of the cross. I personally feel it is unloving to tell someone they are Christians when in reality they are Muslims or Animists. The ECT theologians tell lies and use wordsmithing concerning the gospel in order to bring Catholics and evangelicals together to fight abortion, same sex marriage, or whatever.

    We must listen to those with whom we disagree, for they might be telling the truth. A doctor may be very unloving and caustic and have a terrible bedside manner, but if he is a specialist in the disease that you have, you would be wise to listen to him. I would rather have that doctor than the unqualified one who tells me I’m fine, and to take two aspirin and call him in the morning. Granted MacArthur and White are often caustic. They have a terrible bedside manner. But we dismiss what they are saying at a great risk, IMO.

  203. As for the age that we live in, I think that the pendulum has swung to the point that we often become unwilling to share truth for fear of being castrated as one who is “intolerant.” The Catholic Church herself has adjusted her message to fit the times in which we live. It has gone from the harshness of the pre-Vatican II days to the extreme tolerance of today.

  204. Dale wrote:

    Roman Catholicism teaches that Muslims and Hindus are part of the body of Christ based on their being “invincibly ignorant.”

    No. That is invorrect, Dale. I think you meant to say they’re ‘inculpably’ ignorant.

    That is a very important difference. Yes.

    I have found that MacArthur does a similar kind of thing, where he states something and will switch a word or a phrase around and yes, it does make for some misinformation. I don’t think he is doing it innocently either because in one case, at least, he was corrected, but continued to claim what was not a Catholic teaching: that Our Lady was herself born of a virgin. These are MacArthur’s words: ” the “virgin birth of Mary.” If he means the Immaculate Conception, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. If he means the Virgin Birth of Christ, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. But he doesn’t say that. He says the “virgin birth of Mary.” That is not Catholic teaching. And MacArthur knows it.

    I would ask ‘why’ the mis-information? There is enough to openly disagree about honestly without people misrepresenting each other’s beliefs and doing it on purpose.

    I accept that Dale’s words are like an honest mistake, but his claim that we are imperiled if we don’t buy into MacArthur’s teachings doesn’t ring true……

    what I do know is that there is big money in the ‘circuit’ that feeds on anti-Catholicism, same as on the circuit that attacks Muslims and people who are of the Jewish faith.

    No need for that among people of good will. Not these days, no. The Body of Christ needs everyone on deck because no one in it is dispensable.

  205. Dale wrote:

    Calvinists and New Calvinists take a pretty good beating

    I also think there is an issue that arises when we label ourselves and others. One may agree with much of what Calvin taught, but disagree wholeheartedly with his puritanical paradigm. If we say that we are a “Calvinist” because we agree with Calvin’s soteriology, we risk someone thinking that we also agree with Calvin’s puritan paradigm. Or, if we say that we are “Lutheran” does that include agreeing to Luther’s antisemitism? Or if we agree with James White on one issue, does that mean we must be held accountable for everything he believes, or how he communicates it? It is definitely a problem of human language. Language uses labels to describe reality, and it does so imperfectly.

  206. Christiane wrote:

    No. That is invorrect, Dale. I think you meant to say they’re ‘inculpably’ ignorant.

    I don’t think I misspoke or provided misinformation, Christiane. One is inculpable because of their invincible ignorance. Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

    Here is an excerpt: “Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin.”

    And yet the main purpose behind the Lord’s institution of the Day of Atonement was to atone for sins committed in ignorance!

  207. Dale wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    No. That is invorrect, Dale. I think you meant to say they’re ‘inculpably’ ignorant.

    I don’t think I misspoke or provided misinformation, Christiane. One is inculpable because of their invincible ignorance. Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

    Here is an excerpt: “Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin.”

    And yet the main purpose behind the Lord’s institution of the Day of Atonement was to atone for sins committed in ignorance!

    You changed a word, Dale. I’m sad that when I pointed out that you used the wrong word, you doubled down. That is disappointing. I guess I expected better. (sad face)

    the two words are not identical and cannot be conflated, no

  208. Dale wrote:

    The Catholic Church herself has adjusted her message to fit the times in which we live. It has gone from the harshness of the pre-Vatican II days to the extreme tolerance of today.

    Yes it has. I grew up in pre-Vatican II days including some educational experience in catholic hospitals of that time and I always had one eye on the RCC while being a Baptist myself. Then later when I decided that I needed to take a good look at catholicism, seeing the disasters going on in protestantism, I went over to St L’s catholic church to mass and to RCIA for the better part of three years. I did not convert, but the original shock of my life was that what I had seen of catholicism decades before I did not see at St L’s. The RCC, or so we thought, had previously pushed the idea that they were totally correct about everything and then whammo, they changed the things and they changed how they talked about how right they were/were not.

    Anyhow, I think that one cannot compare ‘catholicism’ with ‘protestantism’ because both sides of the Tiber are divided against themselves. The catholics have the traditionalists and the progressives? (not sure what word they use) and the protestants are divided 47 ways from Sunday on just about everything.

    And I think a lot of all of it by everybody is politics and social agenda and pursuit of power and, yes, money.

    However, I do think that catholic thinking (not dogma, but approach to ways of thinking about things) has a lot to recommend it in a lot of ways, along with it’s own weaknesses. At the same time I also do think that catholicism has at least as many ‘issues’ as does protestantism in practice. And I really think that the way some catholics present catholic ideas is what appear to be deceptive ways is every bit as bad as the fact that Islam justifies lying when necessary and when protestantism blabbers on without putting any brain cells on line before doing so. I agree with you that the truth has to be told, preferably nicely, but told none the less.

    Is that ecumenism, to have some agreements across the walls that divide us? I neither know nor care whether that word applies or not to what I have said.

    So, I am a former-baptist semi-charismatic anglo-catholic episcopalian. But first, and in descending order of importance, I am a follower of Jesus, and then a mother, and then a physician, and then we can throw a religious label around if necessary; this being a thoroughly protestant approach to labeling.

  209. okrapod wrote:

    I agree with you that the truth has to be told, preferably nicely, but told none the less.

    The question is what is truth? Sometimes people get very convinced that their tiny little interpretation is ‘truth’ and they get mean about it.

    A little humility and willingness to admit you might have a thing or two wrong would solve a lot of problems here.

  210. @ Lydia:
    Very wise. Maintaining the group becomes a burden that God never intended. The Gifts of the Spirit are indeed gifts. Free. Given by God Himself for the benefit of all of His people. No burden there.

  211. @ Lea:

    I think we are talking about two different things. I think you are probably talking about the bible and how one understands the bible. I did not get into that.

    Example: Referring to something that has been brought up on some comments, what if somebody has an incurable and/or fatal disease. The truth is that they have that disease. During the prior years of medical patriarchy people were rather frequently not told this truth, the truth of how serious the condition was. Then that changed in medical ethics in practice and now the patient must be told the truth, and if not they can sue you for lack of informed consent. That is the sort of thing I was referring to, as when Dale said about choose the doctor not for his bedside manner but for what he knows about your condition. The truth is that no matter how nice some doctor is he may need to be replaced with somebody who knows that they are doing. None of this is ‘nice’ to consider, but it is being truthful.

    When people here mention historic events, assuming they are true, they need to be told. They do not need to be hidden lest someone be offended.

    That sort of thing.

  212. @ okrapod:

    Look at Christiane’s comment at 8:42 about what MacArthur said in respect to misrepresenting what the catholic belief is about Mary as in virgin birth like he says or immaculate conception like Christiane says. It is easy enough to check out what the catholic church teaches on this. For him to say the church teaches XYZ when it does not is to depart from the truth.

    Now to investigate whether or not the church is correct in this teaching, whether or not the teaching itself is ‘the truth’ is an entirely different issue.

    It can definitely be determined as to what the truth is about what the church teaches, just check the catechism. It can be debated about whether they are correct. These are two different ideas about what constitutes ‘the truth.’

    IHTH

  213. okrapod wrote:

    So, I am a former-baptist semi-charismatic anglo-catholic episcopalian. But first, and in descending order of importance, I am a follower of Jesus, and then a mother, and then a physician, and then we can throw a religious label around if necessary; this being a thoroughly protestant approach to labeling.

    I loved this. 🙂

  214. Lea wrote:

    The question is what is truth?

    Pilate asked Jesus that question before he sent him to the Cross. Jesus stood silent before Pilate. He had already answered that question by teaching and demonstrating Truth during his three years of ministry. But only those with ears to hear understood, just as today. Jesus ‘is’ Truth … He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The teachings and traditions of men pale by comparison.

    Lea wrote:

    Sometimes people get very convinced that their tiny little interpretation is ‘truth’ and they get mean about it.

    “Truth is singular. Its ‘versions’ are mistruths.” (David Mitchell)

    Being mean and defending a mistruth will never lead anyone to Truth. “Anger does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).

  215. Christiane wrote:

    and then a mother, and then a physician

    My beautiful niece has twin boys, now older. She was at the time of their birth employed as the head nurse practitioner of a children’s cardiac unit at her former university hospital. One of the twins had some difficulties, and my niece chose to stop working and stay home with the babies and bring them along and help work with the little one with problems. I was proud of her for becoming a nurse-practitioner, yes; but I was never more proud of her then when she made that enormous decision to put her career on hold and put the boys’ needs first. I know she did the right thing.

    When you wrote that your motherhood came before your career, I know that means sometimes people who do that give up a very great deal indeed. Good for you!

    My niece is going back to work now that the boys are thriving and are older. She and her husband moved to a smaller home to save money and she said ‘less to clean’ ….. so when I myself think about what is important as our retirement begins, that ‘less is more’ phrase also was given more meaning for me by my dear niece. 🙂 (My husband says ‘we’re keepin the house!’.
    Men! 🙂

  216. @ okrapod:

    “and then a mother, and then a physician”

    My beautiful niece has twin boys, now older. She was at the time of their birth employed as the head nurse practitioner of a children’s cardiac unit at her former university hospital. One of the twins had some difficulties, and my niece chose to stop working and stay home with the babies and bring them along and help work with the little one with problems. I was proud of her for becoming a nurse-practitioner, yes; but I was never more proud of her then when she made that enormous decision to put her career on hold and put the boys’ needs first. I know she did the right thing.

    When you wrote that your motherhood came before your career, I know that means sometimes people who do that give up a very great deal indeed. Good for you!

    My niece is going back to work now that the boys are thriving and are older. She and her husband moved to a smaller home to save money and she said ‘less to clean’ ….. so when I myself think about what is important as our retirement begins, that ‘less is more’ phrase also was given more meaning for me by my dear niece. (My husband says ‘we’re keepin the house!’.
    Men!

  217. okrapod wrote:

    I think we are talking about two different things. I think you are probably talking about the bible and how one understands the bible.

    Yes, maybe. But in the context of religious denominations and theology, the term ‘truth’ gets thrown around quite a lot when it really means opinion. There is truth, a person did x, a person lived at this time, this is the history (although history itself can get wonky, because we do not always actually know the facts).

    What does it mean when you say you are telling a person the ‘truth’ regarding theology?

  218. okrapod wrote:

    Now to investigate whether or not the church is correct in this teaching, whether or not the teaching itself is ‘the truth’ is an entirely different issue.

    I was young and now am old. I’ve been around “religion” all my life and didn’t think much of what I was exposed to when I compared it to Scripture. Yep, I’ve learned a lot along the way. And the main thing I’ve learned in spotting false teachings/teachers is this: False theology always contains a wrong view of God, man, sin, and salvation. That’s why it has been so easy to spot New Calvinism as aberrant. When they subordinate Jesus, they have a wrong view of God. When they subordinate women believers, they have a wrong view of man. When they allow ungodly behavior in the church in order to be “culturally relevant”, they have a wrong view of sin. When they claim that God predestines some to save and most to damn before they ever draw breath, they have a wrong view of salvation. I rest my case.

  219. Lea wrote:

    What does it mean when you say you are telling a person the ‘truth’ regarding theology?

    See my response to Okrapod in this regard, when it clears moderation.

  220. Lea wrote:

    What does it mean when you say you are telling a person the ‘truth’ regarding theology?

    well, if you are pointing towards Jesus Christ, the person will be in good Hands

  221. Lea wrote:

    What does it mean when you say you are telling a person the ‘truth’ regarding theology?

    I have no idea. I don’t try to tell people about theology; I am not a theologian. I do insist that people be accurate about evidence and history and science and who said what to whom-things that can be checked for accuracy should be. Things that can be eliminated as logical fallacies should be eliminated. But that is not theology. We cannot prove either by philosophical arguments or by science that there is a god. I believe that to be a true statement, but it is not a theological statement but rather is about the limitations of philosophy and science.

    So, one can quote scripture accurately, one can quit saying science says if they are misrepresenting science, but this is not theology. This is just accuracy with whatever evidence one chooses to critique.

    So, you will have to ask some theologian how one identifies truth in theology. I am not the one.

  222. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    Edwards, as a Calvinist, didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. So in his view, it wasn’t whether the babies were baptized or not that mattered, but rather whether or not they were invisibly elected. This was one key area where Calvin differed from Augustine (and Lutheranism, and medieval Catholicism).

    Either way, Catholic, Protestant, Augustine, Edwards, or whomever, it’s just plain wrong to willfully hurt a baby under any circumstances, and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.

  223. Muff Potter wrote:

    Either way, Catholic, Protestant, Augustine, Edwards, or whomever, it’s just plain wrong to willfully hurt a baby under any circumstances, and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.

    Amen, Amen, Amen

  224. Christiane wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I try not to confuse individual salvation with institutional conferred salvation. Some think you can’t separate them. I think it is a must.
    perhaps ‘Church’ IS the place where salvation occurs …..
    you have to ‘reverse’ the thinking to get this point, but it could be expressed this way:
    ‘where Our Lord is, there is the Church;
    therefore where salvation is, the Church is there also’
    ‘Church’ is so much more than ‘the institutional church’, yes
    Our Lord Himself asked Saul ‘Why persecuteth thou Me?’ when Saul had been persecuting terribly the early Christians
    We can no more separate Our Lord’s Church from Him than we can separate our own humanity from the Incarnate Christ

    You are a good word player, too.

  225. Christiane wrote:

    if you are pointing towards Jesus Christ, the person will be in good Hands

    Amen! That was one of the first red flags for me re: New Calvinism. Jesus is diminished in their theology. They talk a lot about ‘God’, but hardly mention Jesus … all the time claiming to be Christ-followers!

  226. Lydia wrote:

    When you were looking into Catholicism did you buy into the doctrine that the Pope is infallible?

    No. But then I do not sign off on the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy/infallibility either.

  227. Muff Potter wrote:

    Either way, Catholic, Protestant, Augustine, Edwards, or whomever, it’s just plain wrong to willfully hurt a baby under any circumstances, and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.

    Well, Muff, yours is an easy enough statement with which to concur. And I heartily concur! It was bad enough when religion condemned babies to hell if they hadn’t been baptized. Hence, folks back then (and the ones who believe it now) had/have their little ones baptized ASAP. But what is worse is those who teach that God does indeed cast some babies into hell…well, just because and for the sheer pleasure of giving glory to Himself. Oh, and to add to that, these little ones are going to suffer eternal torment because they have inherited Adam’s Guilt. These purveyors of Baby Hell can offer no comfort to grieving parents of little ones. None whatsoever. Except *Trust God*…you meant the God who is sending babies to hell? Yeah, well watch out or these same purveyors may tell you that babies are *Vipers in Diapers.*

    And then there are those words of Christ Himself: “…to such belong the kingdom of God.” For those who tout *perspicuity* of Scripture, they ignore the clear statement Jesus makes concerning children. To get to their doctrine, they have to teach religious riddles where A is to B is to C is to D and so on and so forth, that somewhere down the line it means God sends babies…at least a substantial portion of them, to hell.

  228. Max wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    if you are pointing towards Jesus Christ, the person will be in good Hands

    Amen! That was one of the first red flags for me re: New Calvinism. Jesus is diminished in their theology. They talk a lot about ‘God’, but hardly mention Jesus … all the time claiming to be Christ-followers!

    They would know Jesus if he showed himself to them. These Neo-Cals are very dangerous people and they do have an agenda.

  229. Darlene wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    Either way, Catholic, Protestant, Augustine, Edwards, or whomever, it’s just plain wrong to willfully hurt a baby under any circumstances, and there is no holy god or holy book that will ever make it right.

    Well, Muff, yours is an easy enough statement with which to concur. And I heartily concur! It was bad enough when religion condemned babies to hell if they hadn’t been baptized. Hence, folks back then (and the ones who believe it now) had/have their little ones baptized ASAP. But what is worse is those who teach that God does indeed cast some babies into hell…well, just because and for the sheer pleasure of giving glory to Himself. Oh, and to add to that, these little ones are going to suffer eternal torment because they have inherited Adam’s Guilt. These purveyors of Baby Hell can offer no comfort to grieving parents of little ones. None whatsoever. Except *Trust God*…you meant the God who is sending babies to hell? Yeah, well watch out or these same purveyors may tell you that babies are *Vipers in Diapers.*

    And then there are those words of Christ Himself: “…to such belong the kingdom of God.” For those who tout *perspicuity* of Scripture, they ignore the clear statement Jesus makes concerning children. To get to their doctrine, they have to teach religious riddles where A is to B is to C is to D and so on and so forth, that somewhere down the line it means God sends babies…at least a substantial portion of them, to hell.

    They also act as if no baby that they might be related to could die. They harm people who are already grieving the loss of a child. What kind of twisted mind is capable of such harshness and unfeeling towards another human being?

  230. Dale wrote:

    Granted MacArthur and White are often caustic. They have a terrible bedside manner. But we dismiss what they are saying at a great risk, IMO.

    I’ve read and heard enough of MacArthur’s material to take the opposite approach – “But we accept what they are saying at a great risk.”
    I have come to the conclusion that MacArthur’s theology is divisive, dangerous, and probably heretical. In the interesting items section above and also in the open discussion from around June I posted a bunch of links and questions about penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I learned over the last couple of years that it was an invention of the followers of Calvin and was not believed by Christians for the the first 1500 years of Christianity. Most Calvinists claim that PSA is one of many aspects of the atonement, but it is the one aspect that hold all the rest together. MacArthur stands nearly alone in teaching that it is the only way to understand the atonement. If MacArthur is correct, the “church” was completely wrong for 1500 years. How is that possible? Here is one of his worst quotes about PSA: “however, the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God” (see http://www.gty.org/resources/blog/B131002). This is an heretical view of the Trinity that is not stated in the Bible. The sentence after that one states “Christians no longer face the penalty of their sin because His wrath has been satisfied.” Nowhere does the Bible tell us that God’s wrath was or had to be satisfied. The closest MacArthur can get is to use a Latin word (propitiation) that is probably not the best translation from the Greek. His view of God is flawed, and it’s built on a house of cards. But people believe him because he is so famous.
    I could go on an on about MacArthur and his aberrant teaching, but I will stop with this.

  231. Darlene wrote:

    But what is worse is those who teach that God does indeed cast some babies into hell…well, just because and for the sheer pleasure of giving glory to Himself.

    This is interesting timing – this is the lead article of The Founder’s site today: http://founders.org/2016/11/27/reprobation-and-the-second-london-confession/. It leads off with a quote from the 1689 Second London Confession (which is based on the Westminster Confession):

    By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

    Whatever Calvinists want to say about what they believe, Calvinist confessions state that God pre-determines who will go to hell, and that he is glorified in creating people who have no possibility for salvation.

    The article also states this:

    Many have objected to the doctrine of reprobation on the basis of its alleged inconsistency with God’s just and loving character.

    No kidding! The article is painful to work through, but it helps to explain what the Calvinist resurgence is pushing.

  232. mot wrote:

    What kind of twisted mind is capable of such harshness and unfeeling towards another human being?

    A mind who has been taught that God is gloried in the eternal suffering of people whom he never gives an opportunity for salvation. A mind who has been trained to believe that God is glorified by irresistibly sending people to hell even though he could save them. A mind who has been trained to believe that God can only be properly gloried if most people go to hell through no choice of their own because he withholds the grace that could rescue them.

  233. Ken F wrote:

    mot wrote:
    What kind of twisted mind is capable of such harshness and unfeeling towards another human being?

    A mind who has been taught that God is gloried in the eternal suffering of people whom he never gives an opportunity for salvation. A mind who has been trained to believe that God is glorified by irresistibly sending people to hell even though he could save them. A mind who has been trained to believe that God can only be properly gloried if most people go to hell through no choice of their own because he withholds the grace that could rescue them.

    And a mind who has been trained to believe that HE is the Predestined Elect, God’s Speshul Pet.

  234. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    mot wrote:
    What kind of twisted mind is capable of such harshness and unfeeling towards another human being?

    A mind who has been taught that God is gloried in the eternal suffering of people whom he never gives an opportunity for salvation. A mind who has been trained to believe that God is glorified by irresistibly sending people to hell even though he could save them. A mind who has been trained to believe that God can only be properly gloried if most people go to hell through no choice of their own because he withholds the grace that could rescue them.

    And a mind who has been trained to believe that HE is the Predestined Elect, God’s Speshul Pet.

    I do not know their god or have any desire to! IMO their god is a monster!

  235. mot wrote:

    I do not know their god or have any desire to! IMO their god is a monster!

    That is because you are a goat… like me…

  236. Ken F wrote:

    mot wrote:

    What kind of twisted mind is capable of such harshness and unfeeling towards another human being?

    A mind who has been taught that God is gloried in the eternal suffering of people whom he never gives an opportunity for salvation. A mind who has been trained to believe that God is glorified by irresistibly sending people to hell even though he could save them. A mind who has been trained to believe that God can only be properly gloried if most people go to hell through no choice of their own because he withholds the grace that could rescue them.

    A mind like this guy’s.

    http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/12/29/neo-nazi-site-celebrates-death-of-jew-loving-trollop-debbie-reynolds/

    What kind of sicko publicly expresses glee over another person’s death, while expressing faith in a god who tortures people eternally because of their ethnic background?

  237. Ken F wrote:

    mot wrote:
    I do not know their god or have any desire to! IMO their god is a monster!
    That is because you are a goat… like me…

    And don’t forget Reprobate.

  238. Ken F wrote:

    A mind who has been taught that God is gloried in the eternal suffering of people whom he never gives an opportunity for salvation. A mind who has been trained to believe that God is glorified by irresistibly sending people to hell even though he could save them. A mind who has been trained to believe that God can only be properly gloried if most people go to hell through no choice of their own because he withholds the grace that could rescue them.

    Exactly! This is the elephant in this room.

  239. Dale wrote:

    If you were to review the blog posts at this website (and the comments), you will find both of these responses to truth occurring. It seems that Calvinists and New Calvinists take a pretty good beating. They are often “mocked and derided.”

    The New Calvinists, at least, have it coming. If they want respectful treatment, they should stop trying to enslave their fellow human beings, while calling it “love”.

    Dale wrote:

    A doctor may be very unloving and caustic and have a terrible bedside manner, but if he is a specialist in the disease that you have, you would be wise to listen to him. I would rather have that doctor than the unqualified one who tells me I’m fine, and to take two aspirin and call him in the morning. Granted MacArthur and White are often caustic. They have a terrible bedside manner. But we dismiss what they are saying at a great risk, IMO.

    And what, exactly, makes a man like MacArthur so “qualified” that we’re all duty-bound to listen to him? What makes him a “specialist”, like the doctor in your analogy?

    I would likely at least listen to a nasty doctor who’s a specialist. That’s because he (supposedly) knows his specialty, and I don’t (although even in that case, I can still seek a second opinion from someone who treats me humanely). But why should I give that much deference to a self-proclaimed “pastor” who isn’t exhibiting any Christlike behaviour? I have the Holy Spirit as much as MacArthur does. So why should I trust that he knows what God thinks about Catholics, when apparently he doesn’t even know good manners?

  240. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    But why should I give that much deference to a self-proclaimed “pastor” who isn’t exhibiting any Christlike behaviour?

    I would say if someone were, say, a greek scholar who I respected, I wouldn’t care if they were a Christian or not – I would listen to their opinion on something like translation. However, at application I would probably stop listening.

    But there are a lot of pastors, and we know many will be wolves. So we should take great care in deciding who and what we believe.

  241. @ Lea:
    Doesn’t the Didache (early 2nd Century AD) devote a third of its length to how to recognize con men in the pulpit?

  242. Neo-Calvinist thinks that they are glorifying God by their abusive behaviors. But all they do is bring shame to God’s name.

    Just as back then the so-called Christians burnt heretics on stakes, thinking that glorifies God. Where was their love for their neighbours? Did we see Jesus and his Apostles murdering Pagans back then?

    This news story about abuse need to be written. But as clear as it stated that this is about Neo-Calvinist and not all Christians, non-believers will see this and say ALL churches are bad. This gives them further reasons to hate God. Hence the name of God is not glorified but disgraced because of what these Neo-Calvinist have done.

    And for the Christian that is desperately trying to get his/her family and friends to believe, news stories like these might push them over the edge toward non-believe. (Thanks a ton Neo-Cals!!!)

    My own father is against Christianity because the “Christian” USA government likes to bomb and kill people. And other so-called “Christians” acted in very unloving manners. Even atheists won’t treat people this way! So this is a bit personal for me.

    Of course Neo-Calvinist won’t care. They believe humans have no free will and so cannot help but to believe or not to believe, as totally per God’s choice. So they believe that a true believer will come to faith no matter how badly the church behaves, how much hatred it spills and how much abuses it throws out.

  243. Scott
    Your comments were not approved. This is a post about a victim of church abuse, Marie Notcheva. You didn’t even mention her and instead generally attacked *all* the commenters with no want quote for proof. Up your game.