@ Velour:
Sorry Velour, you have & are taking this much too far. I’ll email Dee with my concerns later but let me state them for you now so this is public:
* Since starting to comment here you have taken an oddly proprietory tone, as though not-quite that this is your blog, but that somehow you act as ‘hostess’ of the comments here. At first I thought maybe the Deebs had asked you to do this to help out, but then I realised it was just how you did things, maybe I misread you & what did it matter anyway. Clearly it does matter now as you are gatekeeping this thread & deciding who is behaving as a Christian here.
* At this point it seems that nothing but an abject apology & grovelling retraction from Barbara, Julie-Anne or anyone who has said something you disagree with will do, & an acknowledgement that you’re the expert & only you know the right way to think here. That’s unfair.
* You keep talking about those who have been hurt, who lurk here. For that I am truly sorry. However, it seems that grace is often only expected in one direction when alcohol issues are involved – from those without an addiction towards those with one, without anything going the other way, & suddenly this entire discussion becomes dependent on no-one with addiction lurking here (despite us not knowing) finding anything hard. Weirdly, when you said I found things hard – not hard actually but uncomfortable in a different way, embarrassing – I was to skip over it & move on. It was 5 seconds work to point out to anyone lurking that this was case specific to Sproul Jr, & not to all. Your endless rehashing has undermined a very simple solution to the initial misunderstanding. For those of us who have dealt with addicts this is unsurprising however, because eventually everything becomes about them & their comfort, & everyone else & their feelings always has to yield.
* And yes it is a wonderful story about the alcoholic lady at the church, but it’s starting to stick in my craw – this is because you are holding it up as an object lesson for all situations. However, clearly this lady was not an aggressive drunk, an abusive drunk, a puking drunk, a fitting drunk, an inappropriately behaving drunk, a yelling drunk, a swaggering drunk or that situation of her being in church under the influence could not have continued for long. Again, that entire church service every week would otherwise have revolved around her every week & the rest of the congregation taken a second place, forever. She clearly also had some kind of genuine repentance going on, not just the religious themed endless self-pity some indulge in. Short story – different cases need different treatment, all underpinned by love & wisdom.

So that’ll be the gist of what I’ll mention to Dee, there is one other issue I’ll be mentioning, but that may involve something I don’t know & want to check with Dee first.

Start your own blog Velour & come back to normal participation here.

Christiane wrote:

context is key to understanding, though, don’t you agree?

Context is key. And the context in which this post was written by Dee has been changed to something different by commentors. Some comments that were meant for the original context of this post are being scrutinized under a different context now.

Jack wrote:

Velour wrote:

Perhaps church is part of the problem not part of any solution.

Another reason to stay secular.

I realize this is your opinion, and it is your right to have it.

Staying secular was a disaster for me, as well as many other people I know. The power of God has been exponentially greater than any human power any of us had.

I do know people (including my FIL, whom I mentioned earlier) who have had success overcoming addictions. A former pastor’s dad was also a dry alcoholic for a number of years, as happened to other friends’ relatives, too. In all those cases, this of course helped in some ways (mainly, holding jobs and the families’ finances), but their personalities were unredeemed — they were rude and nasty and sometimes just plain mean. It was when the Lord moved in a powerful way in their lives that they were completely transformed, living different lives from then on. I saw this up close and personal.

The same was true for my dad, although his addiction was not a common one. Even so, it caused tremendous pain, divorce, wounded children, and a terrible nosedive in his personal life and finances. He was very prideful and did not think he needed the Lord because his personality was so winsome — he was a people person and lots of people thought he was the greatest — but eventually he came to the end of himself and humbled himself before the Lord. At that point his life was completely changed and he never hurt anyone else again.

I have seen the love, truth, and power of God transform many, many lives, including my own. I shudder to think what I would be without Him.

Claire wrote:

P.S. to Veiour who said, “Perhaps church is part of the problem not part of any solution.”
I meant to add that it is certainly possible that church can be part of the problem. I have known of, and experienced, dysfunctional churches. One huge problem is churches that do not follow the Word of God as they should.
My point was that the Lord Himself can make all the difference when a person’s life is surrendered to Him. I have also known of, and experienced, healthy churches which facilitated this.

Hi Claire,

I didn’t say that. Jack did. I guess it’s a block quote problem.

Claire wrote:

I do know people (including my FIL, whom I mentioned earlier) who have had success overcoming addictions. A former pastor’s dad was also a dry alcoholic for a number of years, as happened to other friends’ relatives, too. In all those cases, this of course helped in some ways (mainly, holding jobs and the families’ finances), but their personalities were unredeemed — they were rude and nasty and sometimes just plain mean. It was when the Lord moved in a powerful way in their lives that they were completely transformed, living different lives from then on. I saw this up close and personal.

Yes, in A.A. they refer to alcoholics who have stopped drinking but have all of the nasty personality traits that you mentioned as “dry drunks” or a people “who have put the plug in the jug” but haven’t had a spiritual transformation.

I am glad for the miracles that you have seen in the people around you who were alcoholics who have had spiritual transformations and that they have never harmed another person again.

As a born-again Christian whose life was completely transformed by the Lord, I have to ask, hoping someone will know: I am a little bit familiar with the TULIP theology (the theology of Sproul’s church? if I understand correctly), and it is my understanding — from conversations with a friend whose church subscribes to TULIP theology — that they do not believe in being born again, or the need to be born again.

If my understanding is imperfect in any way, please feel free to enlighten me. If that is true, this gives me greater understanding of Sproul Jr’s problem (NOT suggesting this is a TULIP theology problem; I know better than that).

Claire wrote:

As a born-again Christian whose life was completely transformed by the Lord, I have to ask, hoping someone will know: I am a little bit familiar with the TULIP theology (the theology of Sproul’s church? if I understand correctly), and it is my understanding — from conversations with a friend whose church subscribes to TULIP theology — that they do not believe in being born again, or the need to be born again.
If my understanding is imperfect in any way, please feel free to enlighten me. If that is true, this gives me greater understanding of Sproul Jr’s problem (NOT suggesting this is a TULIP theology problem; I know better than that).

Hi Claire,

There are others here, like Gram3 or Ken F. (and others), who can give you a greater understanding of the workings of NeoCalvinism and T.U.L.I.P. and what’s wrong with it. They do a good job of it and maybe one of them will explain it to you.

I will, however, give you my personal experience after a ‘tour of duty’ of a NeoCalvinist church that had ties to Mark Dever’s 9 Marks organization and John MacArthur’s (Grace Community Church in Southern California, The Master’s College in California, and The Master’s Seminary in California).

The pastors/elders, and many church members, at my ex-NeoCalvinist church frequently talked about being among God’s Elect…before the beginning of time.

When the chairman of the elder board asked me to give my testimony at a Good Friday Easter Vigil, which I did, he then wrapped it up with that I was among God’s Elect and had been chosen before the beginning of time. I was shocked and found the whole thing creepy.

The Gospels were skipped over in the NeoCalvinist church that I attended (and many others who post here have noted same in the NeoCalvinist churches).

Love. I didn’t really see any deep love for people within the church or outside of it. It was cold. After all, if you’re among The Elect and everyone else is not, than why spend any time on them or care about them as human beings.

Everything was framed as us versus them (The Elect v. The Non Elect).

The senior pastor constantly talked about how The Elect would be given horses, probably with sashes on them with their names, by Jesus and doing war on his behalf.

I don’t think that many of these NeoCalvinists have ever encountered Jesus.

In fact, I rarely heard Jesus mentioned. And I didn’t hear the Holy Spirit mentioned.

It doesn’t surprise me that we’re seeing implosion after implosion in NeoCalvinism and among their clergy.

I can’t speak to R.C. Sproul Jr.’s serious drinking problem and how NeoCalvinism impacts him. But an arrogant theology is no good for someone who already has a problem with humility.

Claire wrote:

I had heard of Anne Lamott (the lady referred to here), but was not familiar with her life, so I googled her and found a linked essay (at Salon) in which she addressed issues with her teen son (at that time). That gave me some context about her life, and she clearly needed more help at that time. I do hope the situation with her son got better and that her life did, too.

Anne Lamott’s life has gotten much better! Her son is doing fine. Her grandchild is doing fine.

The little Black church in Northern California that loved Anne when she wasn’t clean and sober, when she heard their beautiful singing from the flea market across the street and was drawn to their church (and Jesus was pursuing Anne), has become her home church!

Velour wrote:

Claire wrote:

It is also true that there is an even higher standard for church pastors and leaders — a number of scriptures address this issue.

Hi Claire,

At no time did I say that R.C. Sproul shouldn’t get the consequences of his actions, including the loss of his job. Enabling him will help kill him, and that is no kindness.

I fully believe that, if he’s agreeable to treatment, that down the road that he should be willing to make both private amends to the people he harmed and public amends at churches where he caused harm. This is in keeping with working the steps with a sponsor in a recovery program and “cleaning up the wreckage of one’s past.”

He also needs treatment and I think his church’s leaders would be wise to consult with a professional who works in substance abuse and figure out how to support him in getting treatment.

I did not see any disagreement between us in the first issue you mentioned. I do believe that RSJ will not have a REASON to repent and allow the Lord to change his life if others keep propping him up, not allowing him to suffer the consequences of his egregious behavior, which has also imperiled his own children’s lives. Honestly, that bothers me most of all. His excuses for living a drunken life are sickening, as well. They would sicken me even if he were not a preacher.

I think it was H.A. who linked another article which exposed more terrible realities about RSJ’s rebellious life, and those who have enabled him to continue in such horrific practices cannot be excused. They have definitely been part of the problem, not a solution. I don’t know the totality of that particular church’s or denomination’s beliefs, but something is definitely “off” and needs to be changed. Sooner rather than later.

Velour wrote:

Mae wrote:

Ugh…..the nastiness continues.
Verbal bullying is not appreciated, nor warranted.
Please Velour give it up….turn the other cheek, as you have been demanding others do.

Hi Mae,

Maybe you haven’t read all of the comments?

We have – thank you Lord – made progress. H.A. apologized to me today for the verbal barbs that H.A. repeatedly directed at me and asked for forgiveness. I accepted.

H.A. said that it was an old coping skill and apologized. I accepted.

I can see you’re now using my apology and request for forgiveness as some sort of trophy, i.e. “Ahah, chalk one up for me! I won!” Now you’re demanding Barbara and Julie Anne must do the same or you’ll just keep reminding them over and over and over again what meanies they are. I don’t think you’ve forgiven me or you wouldn’t be doing this.

Although I was sincere in asking for your forgiveness, because it’s the right thing to do, I also had another very important reason: it was to set an example, an example not for Barbara and Julie Anne, but for you. I’d hoped that you might come to see a need to humble yourself. Instead your bullying just continues.

Claire wrote:

Velour, thank you for relating your experience with, and insights regarding, NeoCalvinism. (I’ve seen that term before, but am not sure of its exact meaning vs. historic TULIP Calvinism?)
You said, “Everything was framed as … The Elect v. The Non Elect.”
Yes, this agrees with my TULIP friend’s statements.
You said, “I can’t speak to R.C. Sproul Jr.’s serious drinking problem and how NeoCalvinism impacts him. But an arrogant theology is no good for someone who already has a problem with humility.”
Total agreement here. As it is written, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
I thought that John MacArthur was Baptist, maybe Southern Baptist? I am aware that the SBC has had at least one president with (Neo?)Calvinist ties, and, again, I cannot comprehend what common ground they find. I thought (but maybe I’m mistaken?) that Southern Baptists emphasize the importance of the new birth. Here’s hoping that others here can enlighten me, because I do believe this is a significant issue.

Hi Claire,

From my understanding and experience, as well as other people who have commented here, there is a world of difference between Classical Calvinists (many of us have had mild-mannered Presbyterians in our families) who were loving, kind, and gracious people and the new, rabid, NeoCalvinists who are authoritarians.

Apparently the Young, Restless, and Reformed decided to ‘recover the ‘True Gospel” that has been lost in our churches, as though everyone preceding them was in error.

I’m not a Southern Baptist. From what others who are Southern Baptists have posted here for quite some time, the NeoCalvinists planned to take over the seminaries, train them up in all things NeoCalvinism, and send them out to do takeovers of churches, including stealth takeovers. Much damage has been done. I just wish the NeoCalvinists/YRR’s had started their own denomination.

I don’t know John MacArthur’s history in churches. Maybe somebody else like Ken F. can contribute their knowledge on this point. I do know that many people think that John MacArthur should just declare his own denomination as that is essentially what it has now become.

I hesitate to beat a tired horse… but I really don’t believe Barbara Roberts or anyone else actually said a person should be put out of the church because of their substance abuse. Rather, if any person claims to be a brother (or sister) but continues UNREPENTANT in one or more of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (drunkard being on that list), the brethren are not even to share a meal with them.

This is the scripture that backs up verbal abuse, among other things things, being grounds for divorce. If a believer is not to even eat with an UNREPENTANT reviler/railer (or any of the other sins listed), how is that believer supposed to stay married to one? Again, the key is LACK OF REPENTANCE on the part of the sinner. Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them, and if they don’t show the fruits of repentance, they are unrepentant, no matter what they may claim.

If the substance abuser/drunkard (or perpetrator of one of the other listed sins) does show genuine fruit of genuine repentance, however, even if they are still struggling to overcome and may relapse from time to time, I don’t think anyone here would suggest they should be put out of the church or not be allowed back in.

And it occurs to me to wonder what they’re teaching at a church where unrepentant sinners feel comfortable enough to stick around and keep coming back for more, apparently not coming under the conviction of the Holy Spirit enough to want to stop grieving the Spirit, renounce whatever sin it might be and get right with God. But that’s another discussion entirely.

@ Claire:
When I get home tomorrow I will re-post the list of links to the best articles I’ve found exposing the pitfalls of Calvinism. But for now, this one is pretty good (written by an ex-Calvinist who has studied in detail everything John Calvin ever wrote): https://www.perichoresis.org/why-i-left-calvinism/. This guy has probably read more about Calvinism than most of the famous New-Calvinists.

Two years ago I could not remember what TULIP stood for and I could not tell you any of the basics of “reformed” theology. I’ve learned quite a lot since then. Also, if you want some fun, search on the “Grace to You” site to find where John MacArthur wrote “the ultimate reality is Jesus saves us from God.” If that is not a twisted view of the Trinity I don’t know what is.

More later.

Some random thoughts on my part: Maybe because of my alcoholic family,even though I get angry when I think of all the damage that was done, obviously addicts are sick. Would a well person engage in such self destructive behavior and mistreat their children? My mom loved us but she was ensnared in a terrible disease. This is why I don’t believe an addict should be removed from church membership. But church leadership is a different story and predatory behavior should not be allowed.

I think the reasons churches no longer do church discipline is because it was usually not handled well. I know many years Baptists used church discipline as a way to punish people or control them.

We don’t have to judge a persons heart (Mr Sproul) or any criminal for that matter to say we don’t know why you did such and such but we cannot allow you to hurt anyone else and then throw their ass in jail (Remove all opportunities to hurt people)

Finally addicts either get better or they die. Many are never recovered. The devil is indeed a roaring lion seeking who he may destroy and devour. We should cry when a human soul is destroyed. No one should ever ever rejoice. God who is definitely not a calvinist says Do I have any joy in the death of the wicked but rather theythat they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel chapter 18.

Claire wrote:

If my understanding is imperfect in any way, please feel free to enlighten me. If that is true, this gives me greater understanding of Sproul Jr’s problem (NOT suggesting this is a TULIP theology problem; I know better than that).

RC1 is ordained in the PCA which is a conservative Presbyterian denomination holding to TULIP. RC2 has been in other non-standard “reformed” denominations. I would *not* call him Reformed because I do not think his hyper-Covenantal Federal Vision theology is consistent with any of the standard Reformed confessions. For sure it has nothing *at all* to do with being born again. Such an idea would be considered absurd in RC2’s theology. In fact, in RC2’s own FV theology, he has shown himself to be reprobate. I haven’t kept up with RC2, and perhaps he has changed since FV is not as trendy as it used to be. Perhaps H.A. has more recent information.

All that being said, theology is not RC2’s problem and theology is not going to be the solution to his problem, IMO.

Claire wrote:

Commercials always depict drinkers as so happy, having fun, etc. The down side of too much drink is never shown.

There’s an old Bill Cosby video (a standup performance) titled Bill Cosby: Himself. (This was long before he became known as “Pill Cosby”.)

In one segment, he demonstrates in gory detail what it’s like to drink yourself sick, then ends the segment with the line “This is called ‘Having a Good Time’.”

H.A. Way too many comments here have nothing at all to do with the subject, which is RC Sproul Jr, a wolf in sheep’s clothing who has destroyed the lives and faiths of dozens of people and families. Alcohol abuse has played a part in that, yes, but RC Jr would have still been a spiritual bully and done the same things had he been a teetotaler too. His emotional and psychological issues are not the result of his being an alcoholic — it’s the other way around. Getting him sober won’t cure his personality disorders. So whether he sobers up or not the focus needs to be on doing whatever is necessary to prevent him from scheming his way back into ministry where he will be given the opportunity of committing more spiritual abuse.

Putting the focus on Sproul’s alcoholism — getting him into treatment, support groups, counseling, church support, etc. — is playing right into his hands and giving him exactly what he wants. Why? Because if the focus is on the booze, and he from all appearances sobers up (which he could very well do) then where does that leave those of us who are his spiritual abuse victims? It lets him off the hook for all the spiritual abuse and leaves him free to weasel his way back into ministry once the dust settles.

Taking everything into consideration — including the article you linked earlier, which gave much more information about Sproul Jr’s serious issues apart from alcohol abuse — I tend to agree with everything you said here.

I think these are great insights. I am also very concerned about him taking the treatment, saying he’s cured, and then going right back to the other issues if they weren’t addressed, causing even more harm — especially if believers have forgiven him and open themselves up to more abuse.

Christians are often reminded to forgive, and I totally agree with that. But if an offender has not seen his need for forgiveness, hasn’t repented with godly sorrow which leads to repentance not to be repented of (ref 1 or 2 Corinthians), then he is still a unrepentant, rebellious person. It is also true that when Christians do the right thing and forgive an offender, that does not mean they should throw wisdom to the winds and give him total trust. That needs to be earned by evidence of a changed heart, mind, and life — what the Bible calls “fruits of repentance”.

P.S. to something that H.A. said: “[Sproul Jr’s] emotional and psychological issues are not the result of his being an alcoholic — it’s the other way around. Getting him sober won’t cure his personality disorders. So whether he sobers up or not the focus needs to be on doing whatever is necessary to prevent him from scheming his way back into ministry where he will be given the opportunity of committing more spiritual abuse.”

After reading the info here, as well as the other article you linked which gave a much fuller picture of his life, I wonder if he’s a Christian at all. I know I’m not God and God knows his heart (as well as everyone else’s), so I’m not trying to judge. I just remember the words of Christ Jesus: “By their fruit you shall know them.”

Claire wrote:

“This is called ‘Having a Good Time’.”

I just watched that on Youtube. It is very funny. I especially enjoyed the part about not being surprised to see your shoes come up.

StillWiggling wrote:

Claire wrote:

“This is called ‘Having a Good Time’.”

I just watched that on Youtube. It is very funny. I especially enjoyed the part about not being surprised to see your shoes come up.

Thanks, I’ll have to look this one up! 🙂

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Christiane wrote:

the worst thing I’ve heard is that the leaders of the accountability groups go running to the pastor with all the details and what is admitted to in the group comes back later to haunt the person if they attempt to leave the Church

Just like Scientology auditing records.

And the accountability group leader gets a Hero of the Party medal from Pastor Big Brother Himself.

H.U.G., I have recently read several books written by people who were deep into Scientology before coming out of it, including the father of the head of Scientology and that guy’s niece.

I looked up L. Ron Hubbard and learned that he was deeply involved in Satanism before inventing Scientology, becoming its god. After all I’ve learned about it, I’m sad to say that is very easy for me to believe.

I’ve never known of a Christian church which made it that hard to leave, but I did know of one whose pastor made it clear that he believed that anyone who left was “out of the will of God”, “in rebellion against Him”. That’s very strong stuff and it did not lead to anything good.

Gram3 wrote:

RC1 is ordained in the PCA which is a conservative Presbyterian denomination holding to TULIP. RC2 has been in other non-standard “reformed” denominations. I would *not* call him Reformed because I do not think his hyper-Covenantal Federal Vision theology is consistent with any of the standard Reformed confessions. For sure it has nothing *at all* to do with being born again. Such an idea would be considered absurd in RC2’s theology. In fact, in RC2’s own FV theology, he has shown himself to be reprobate. I haven’t kept up with RC2, and perhaps he has changed since FV is not as trendy as it used to be. Perhaps H.A. has more recent information.
All that being said, theology is not RC2’s problem and theology is not going to be the solution to his problem, IMO.

Gram3, thank you for this. This makes sense. Sadly so. One thing I meant to say to someone else (maybe Ken) is that since RSJ does not believe in being born again, it is logical to assume he is not.

Claire wrote:

I looked up L. Ron Hubbard and learned that he was deeply involved in Satanism before inventing Scientology, becoming its god. After all I’ve learned about it, I’m sad to say that is very easy for me to believe.

Sadly, I think manipulative groups (‘religious’ and political) try to appeal to a ‘base’ membership by manipulating fear AND existing prejudices.
Maybe it’s a case of a ‘church’ becoming what people already think they need to affirm where they are already at:
example: misogyny ….. ‘religious’ teachers appeal to men who have an elevated sense of male importance and privilege at the expense of the dignity of persons who are female; ‘political’ pundits cry about ‘feminazis’ who demand ‘equal pay for equal work’, and the right to ‘choice’ in matters medical.

The folks who manipulate look at ‘misogyny’ and think: oh boy, we can capitalize on this big time as the fields are ready for harvesting.

People want their prejudices to be affirmed. Any leader who comes along appealing to this need will succeed with such people, yes.
It’s not so hard to figure out. History is full of this stuff. It’s an old play book. Not just ‘misogyny’ is wanting affirmation, but also the many ‘phobias’ (fears) which are ‘popular’ now.

In more than a few cases, people are getting the leadership that panders to their lesser angels.

Gram3 wrote:

Claire wrote:

If my understanding is imperfect in any way, please feel free to enlighten me. If that is true, this gives me greater understanding of Sproul Jr’s problem (NOT suggesting this is a TULIP theology problem; I know better than that).

RC1 is ordained in the PCA which is a conservative Presbyterian denomination holding to TULIP. RC2 has been in other non-standard “reformed” denominations. I would *not* call him Reformed because I do not think his hyper-Covenantal Federal Vision theology is consistent with any of the standard Reformed confessions. For sure it has nothing *at all* to do with being born again. Such an idea would be considered absurd in RC2’s theology. In fact, in RC2’s own FV theology, he has shown himself to be reprobate. I haven’t kept up with RC2, and perhaps he has changed since FV is not as trendy as it used to be. Perhaps H.A. has more recent information.

All that being said, theology is not RC2’s problem and theology is not going to be the solution to his problem, IMO.

‘context does matter’ (platitude, check)
‘excuses are not the same thing as reasons’ (platitude, kinda)
‘some can’t see the forest for the trees’ (a favorite of many, yes)

all things considered, you have a grown adult man, a father of children, getting drunk and placing his children in his car and driving:

what could go wrong?

if, God forbid, the worst happened, who/what gets the blame?????

I suggest that a lot of our ‘issues’ are far more complex than we know and are inter-related to one another on multiple levels, so that our own judgements and forms of justice are always going to be the best we can do …… maybe even ‘karma’ is more just?

the thing about a ‘sin’ is that people get hurt: the sinner and all the people he/she affects with that ‘sin’

blame? anger? rage over the destruction of innocent lives?
understandable, yes

then we are drawn back to that scene in the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew “36 When He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”

He may have been the only One who could witness this and understand fully all the circumstances ….. and His response was to be moved with compassion, not contempt, nor snark, nor judgement, nor anger, and He was ‘fully human’ and well as ‘fully divine’

All kinds of things in those Gospels, yes. I’m glad on The Day, Our Lord will be the judge of all, because we are sure not geared for it from what I can see.

Jack wrote:

Not everyone is transformed by the experience [of church].
That being said, I have lately been finding prayer to be very therapeutic.

I realise I’ve pulled two fragments of your comment out of context here, Jack – I think I’ve caught the gist of them, but please feel free to correct me if I haven’t!

Religious experience is an odd thing, and it does seem to impact relatively few people. Even in the most heady charismatic worship atmospheres, if you look around the building, you’ll see a few people literally sobbing with pleasure and arousal, most people basically standing in an appropriate manner (they may or may not be experiencing a great deal) and the remaining few people looking bored stiff. The assumption always used to be that the bored stiffs weren’t open to God. I used to believe that, but I no longer do.

ISTM that a lot of people in churches here in Blighty have no expectation of being transformed in any real sense, but also find prayer and (for want of a better phrase) the worship experience therapeutic. They don’t believe in God – as they state more openly and forcefully the more one suggests actually depending on God to supply anything tangible – but find some form of comfort in religious language and behaviour. The best analogy I can think of is the way in which people (certainly over here) talk about Santa bringing presents. They don’t actually believe in Santa, but at the same time, we’ve all agreed not to talk about this and to keep up the game.

It’s an odd thing to find in a church; everybody insists on praying but bristles at the suggestion that anybody might (for example) actually be healed! For what it’s worth, I must say I find your approach refreshing; specifically, your taste for frankness and honesty!

Christiane wrote:

“36 When He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”

Here is a problem with quoting something from Jesus and then building a larger concept from it. The quoted passage states precisely what it was about the crowds about which in relation to them He had compassion, ‘harassed, helpless, like sheep without a shepherd’. You have used this passage as Jesus being anti ‘contempt… snark…judgement…anger’.

I have heard this same passage used as clear evidence that Jesus thought that people need ‘strong leadership’ (shepherds) and do not do well ‘without shepherds’. That is an entirely different take away from the same passage.

I keep hearing people advocate preaching from the gospels. Indeed a good idea. But here is one example of the sort of thing that can happen. The gospels are chock full of little things that people can pick up and use in vastly different ways.

Example: ‘Neither do I condemn you’ regarding the women taken in adultery. Have we not all heard that used as a starting place for all sorts of ideas. That is fertile ground for more fantasies than there are fairy tales. I have even heard postulated that this shows Jesus was an early modern feminist-that he excused her because only she was under arrest and not the man; as a women’s lib decision, basically as a political statement of that day. The trouble is, the bible does not specify what the take-away is from that episode. And the mind of man speculates widely. Usually in defense of some favored idea or agenda, which of course vary from person to person.

So what I am saying is-there are problems with forming conclusions based on isolated statements or observations, including isolated statements by or observations concerning Jesus. That does not mean we should not do it, but for me it does mean that we recognize the limitations of limited statements and form only appropriately limited conclusions.

And this is one of several things that made me a pretty bad SBC Baptist back in the day. I kept hearing conclusions preached from fragments of scripture and I kept looking at the scripture and thinking ‘it did not actually say that’ and/or ‘that may be one idea, but using the actual words of scripture that is not the only idea from that scripture passage’.

Evidence for what I am saying: Even the neo-cals preach from the Bible, and even the Episcopalians preach from the Bible but we come up with different ideas-with scripture references to back us up.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ H.A.:

FWIW, I appreciate your contributions on this thread. I thought it was your first time here, which you’ve subsequently confirmed.

H.A., I agree. Everyone who actively comments here will eventually get cross-threaded with another commentor. It usually works itself out. Please continue to participate.

Claire wrote:

How does a Calvinist KNOW if he or she is one of the elect? (speaking of their doctrine) And how do they know if someone isn’t? Is there some sort of test they use?

This is a very inciteful question. The only way they can know is if they don’t fall away (the P in TULIP). Hence the legalistic spirit that so often comes with Calvinism. But they don’t even have this assurance because of “evanescent grace” (lool up this term). Calvin taught that God tricks some people into thinking they are among the elect only so that he can punish them harsher for their false faith. You can find this in his Institutes. I’m typing this with my thumbs in an airport. I can post links when i get home if you cannot find anything.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Everyone who actively comments here will eventually get cross-threaded with another commentor.

… tell Me about it.

Best regards,
God

Christiane, fact is, Scientology is not a church. It uses the word church to name its organization, but it’s not church. As you said, context matters. Hubbard used religious language to mask the reality of what he invented.

I do not call any women ‘feminazis’ or admire those who do. I have always supported ‘equal pay for equal work’, but I cannot support killing babies in the womb. The Lord God does not give us the ‘choice’ to do that. It’s not just a medical matter, it’s a live person.

I always agree that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body — the thing is, as a mom, I know that babies have their own bodies; they have their own DNA; they have their own gender; they have their own fingerprints; they have their own blood types, etc. If they were just part of their mothers’ bodies, they would all be female!

They are separate human beings, and Christ Jesus made it very clear what a horrific judgment would come to those who harm little ones in any way. They are the littlest, the youngest, the most innocent, and the most helpless among us. The Good Shepherd cares for them, loves them, accepts them, and calls us to do the same.

We’ve gone far afield here from the topic of this thread, but these are responses to things you said.

ITA with this statement you made about the thread topic: “…all things considered, you have a grown adult man, a father of children, getting drunk and placing his children in his car and driving.” (endangering their very lives)

And giving alcohol to minors, and him a church pastor! There is something very, very wrong with that picture. I pray his church will awake and take Biblical action in obedience to the Lord.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

Hi Dee and Deb, just a couple of things you might want to correct in this part of your post:
>> Heart breaking tragedy is not an excuse for substance abuse. Sproul Jr. needs serous help.
I learned an important lesson while working in an alcoholic hospital when I was young. Tragedy does not cause alcoholism. Alcoholism is an excuse to drink and every alcoholic in the world usually tries to find an excuse to drink.<<
Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.
And I'm sure you didn't mean 'Alcoholism is an excuse to drink' — I'm pretty sure you meant something like "Alcoholics use tragedy as an excuse to drink…. "
R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

Maybe God’s grace is bigger than you think:

http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-already-than-not-yet.html

http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-already-than-not-yet.html

@ God</b
Awaiting instructions, but would love to be snarkier. Boo for me.

A man is ‘more than’ his profession, his afflictions, his sins. So we can ‘limit’ the ‘topic’ to one area of a man’s life and focus in on it;
but we run the risk of failing to see important connections to the other aspects of the person.

I’m all for clarity and being specific; but pulling the lens back occasionally to give a wider perspective is also beneficial to understanding.

As far as comments about Our Lord being the final Judge of our kind, I stand by my hope for this because of two reasons:
He is worthy by virtue of the whole Christ Event;
and we humans suck at judging one another.

@ Christiane:
The reddish (big ish) hair, the freckles, the milk white skin…Numo’s seen my pic, she says I look Irish.

Gram3 wrote:

All that being said, theology is not RC2’s problem and theology is not going to be the solution to his problem, IMO.

Totally agree with you. Some folks here are putting the focus on the wrong issues. They’re looking for a simple cause and effect relationship. I can sometimes fall prey to this thinking too. We all need to watch out for that, thinking that if we can just identify that one issue in someone’s life we’ll be able to fix them. It’s seldom that simple though.

Some here think that if they can just get RC Jr into alcohol rehab, therapy, counseling, support groups, a supportive church, he’ll sober up and then be a good person. Wrong. He’ll still be an abusive control freak seeking positions of authority where he can lord it over others.

Then there are those here who do see he’s an abusive control freak but think it must be because of TULIP, Calvinism, Federal Vision, or whatever their pet peeve doctrines are. Wrong again. If Sproul abandoned all those things and became an Arminian tomorrow he’d still be an abusive control freak. He’d still be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yes, there are Calvinist preachers who are guilty of spiritual abuse, defrauding their churches, alcoholism, being sex perverts, etc. But I could cite plenty examples of non-Calvinists who’ve done the same. Sproul’s theology isn’t what made him such an odious person, and a change of doctrines won’t cure him either. What he needs is professional psychological help for his personality disorders. That same kind of help will also address secondary issues, like his alcoholism.

Focus on root causes, not symptoms or personal pet peeves.

@ Bridget:
Good to know.

Claire wrote:

@ Gram3: I did not know that RSJ had been defrocked. If that had already been mentioned here, I missed it.

He was defrocked by the RPCGA and the welcomed into Doug Wilson’s Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) which has since been re-branded as the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches after Wilson’s views of chattel slavery became widely known. Wilson’s CREC is the Federal Vision/Reconstructionist denomination which welcomes anyone who is willing to pledge allegiance to Wilson, so RC2 being defrocked by the very conservative RPCGA was no problem for the CREC and they ordained him. That bit about pledging allegiance to Wilson *may* be a slight overstatement.

Claire wrote:

@ Gram3: I did not know that RSJ had been defrocked. If that had already been mentioned here, I missed it.

Here is one link to the info about RC Sproul Jr. being defrocked. A quick Google search will reveal other info).

http://hushmoney.org/RC_Sproul_Jr-defrocking-docs.htm

Also, I’m on the train. (“We are now approaching Larbert”, as the recorded-message lassie has just said.) This isn’t helping my co-ordination on the laptop trackpad.

@ Christiane:

I taught Him everything He knows, of course.

@ God:
🙂 LOL

I get “haters hate.”

This I know- Truth is fixed, but our apprehension of truth is progressive.

Truth is never based on assumption.

If

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Bridget wrote:

Everyone didn’t miss it.

I toyed with the idea of creating a new alter-ego called “Everyone”. Didn’t bother in the end, because a “new” commenter takes time to register and the moment might be lost. But you can see where I was going with that.

LOL. Curious as to how many you have created? And are they all still functioning 😉

Blimey, haven’t seen him for a while.

Most of them are typos, to be honest!

Christiane wrote:

and we humans suck at judging one another

You got that right! Everything which might be considered ‘to adjudicate’ we have ways to mess up.

Gram3 wrote:

Wilson’s CREC is the Federal Vision/Reconstructionist denomination which welcomes anyone who is willing to pledge allegiance to Wilson…

…as Supreme Commander of the future Republic of Gilead.

@ Sopwith:
oh Sopy,
so glad to see that wink at the end of your screed 🙂

I’m reading and i think ‘that’s not Sopy’ …. ‘someone is impersonating Sopy’

and then I saw the wink and felt SO relieved 🙂

Daisy wrote:

From what I’m seeing on this thread, RC Jr. is Mark Driscoll, but only with more beer added.

Quote-worthy that. Your sense of humor is much needed here.

Yes, a LOT more beer, and whiskey.

Velour wrote:

Are the victims adults or children?

Both. Through spiritual abuse Sproul has destroyed the Christian faith of not just multiple adults but quite a few children too. Seeing your parents get excommunicated from your church just because they want to attend a different church is bad enough. But seeing your pastor order the congregation to shun your entire family can turn any child into an atheist in short order.

In the case of the John Austin family they attempted to peaceably leave St. Peter Presbyterian Church because they didn’t believe in infant baptism. RC Jr initially told John that he didn’t have to be a paedobaptist in order to join St. Peter, but shortly after joining RC Jr harassed John about paedobaptism. John then wrote RC Jr a letter explaining that they needed to leave St. Peter over those doctrinal differences and join a Baptist church in town. He quickly found out how easy is was to join St. Peter but how hard it was to leave. The Austins weren’t the first who’d tried to get out of St. Peter and then be punished for it, but they were the first to file a complaint with RC Jr’s presbytery.

Like other families before them the Austins got the shunning treatment. RC Jr instructed his church members in “The refraining from all contact with your family by the other families in
our church.” In church meetings that were called over the Austin family situation RC Jr gave specific and detailed examples of how to shun not just John and Julie but in how they were to instruct their own children to shun the Austin children. This conduct was as hateful a thing as we had ever witnessed in a church, and here’s why:

The Austins, like other families who’d heard of RC Jr’s homeschooling full-quiver patriarchy covenant community utopia, relocated there from multiple states away, at great personal expense. They bought a home at the end of a long dirt road specifically because they wanted to be in close fellowship with a number of other St. Peter families also lived on that same isolated dirt road. This was a common practice for St. Peter members — living in close proximity to one another. They ate with one another, had cookouts together, homeschooled together, kids played together, etc. All their friends, and literally most all their next door neighbors, were St. Peter families. So being excommunicated (which never actually happened because RC Jr didn’t have the authority of presbytery to do so, although he lied to his church and told them the Austins were excommunicated) and then ordered to be shunned meant the Austins lost all their friends overnight. Worse yet the Austins 5 children lost not just church friends, they lost their own neighborhood friends. And for what? For merely being the children of their parents.

Just imagine the utter confusion and disillusionment of the 5 Austin children continuing to see all their friends daily, but when they crossed paths with those friends they wouldn’t so much as look at them or utter a word. Amazingly enough the Austin children never did abandon the Christian faith, but that’s only because of the incredible love and faith of John and Julie Austin for their family. They somehow managed to keep it all together. Sadly that cannot be said of a number of other families that RC Jr destroyed with his hateful vindictiveness.

RC Sproul Jr lives under what the Bible describes as surely one of the most severe judgments of God. According to Jesus he would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea (Matt 18:6) than having to face the judgment God has in store for him.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

ANNOUNCEMENT: I’LL BE ON A TRIP AND AWAY FROM THE INTERNET FOR A WEEK OR TWO STARTING WEDNESDAY. SO DON’T PANIC IF I DISAPPEAR FOR A WHILE. I STAY MOSTLY OFFLINE WHEN I’M ON VACATION TO DECOMPRESS.

Good for you! Have fun. Hopefully you are going north where it’s cooler!

Bridget wrote:

Good for you! Have fun. Hopefully you are going north where it’s cooler!

No, actually to Pittsburgh and the Gettysburg area.
Not cooler at all, but GREEN.
And the rivers actually have water in them.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I STAY MOSTLY OFFLINE WHEN I’M ON VACATION TO DECOMPRESS.

Leave your SciFi novels behind, too! 🙂

Muff Potter wrote:

Let’s face it, many terminally ill folks are not going to get “better” no matter what new treatment or procedure is tried. So why limit their morphine dosages in their last stages before passing into the big sleep?

I was not aware that terminal patients were being short changed on pain management. My only first hand experience with this has been two cases in both of which hospice told the family that they could do whatever it took to stop the pain but that this would shorten the patient’s life and they needed the family’s permission to do that. In both cases the family agreed, the patients were given large doses of pain killer, became more peaceful and expired shortly after that. RE sat with the families for emotional support while this was done. That is legal and is not technically euthanasia.

I did mention to the oncologist about people who got chemo when there was no chance of further benefit, and they said that some patients insist on everything possible being done up to the last minute. I did not get the impression that it was oncology which was pushing that idea.

In the discussions about the cost of Medicare it has been noted that a huge amount of Medicare money is spent for the last six months of life, and some discussions have been done as to how to deal with that-the useless expenditure of monies when no results can be respected. As one can imagine this is a heated discussion area-that somebody is trying to eliminate grandma-and no progress has been made in this area that I have heard about. Here again, it is apparently not the health care industry which is promoting this idea of treat them until you can’t any more, but rather the patient and their family.

We had some cases of this in the church I left-lying up in Hospice and still on chemo. That certainly is not my personal choice, but until we stop letting patients choose then this will no doubt continue for some people.

Christiane wrote:

merciful

That is my opinion.

H.A. wrote:

I think it was okrapod who mentioned the absurdity of withholding pain meds to terminally ill patients.

Sorry. It was Muff Potter (hard sometimes for me to keep straight who said what).

Getting things back on topic, I had a comment held up in moderation for a long time that some readers here will probably miss (apparently having two or more links in a comment throws it into moderation).

See my response to an important RC Jr question byVelour here.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

@ Claire:
When I get home tomorrow I will re-post the list of links to the best articles I’ve found exposing the pitfalls of Calvinism.

Posted here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-330068. The list is not yet visible.

Christiane wrote:

@ Sopwith:
I can’t stop laughing

Sopy, were you one of the editors for the LOL Cat Bible?

@ okrapod:
Just got back from out patient surgery….wish there were a pain med that didn’t make me vomit. So, I always end up taking Advil like meds, and a few glasses of wine. Helps but no panacea.

H.A. wrote:

There are cases though where opioid addiction shouldn’t even be a concern. I think it was okrapod who mentioned the absurdity of withholding pain meds to terminally ill patients. Totally agree. The entire focus then needs to be on relieving pain and suffering. Drug addiction at that point is irrelevant.

BINGO.
The rest of your comment was right on the money too.
I could elaborate, but it would never get through customs.

H.A. wrote:

Just imagine the utter confusion and disillusionment of the 5 Austin children continuing to see all their friends daily, but when they crossed paths with those friends they wouldn’t so much as look at them or utter a word. Amazingly enough the Austin children never did abandon the Christian faith, but that’s only because of the incredible love and faith of John and Julie Austin for their family. They somehow managed to keep it all together. Sadly that cannot be said of a number of other families that RC Jr destroyed with his hateful vindictiveness.

Sadly I heard that C.J. Mahaney did that with at least one family that lived next door to them when this father (who was also a leader at Covenant Life Church) questioned one of Mahaney’s actions. This lead to this leader leaving and Mahaney not letting his children play with this leader’s children even though they lived next door. At least in the CLC case it wasn’t like they were isolated out in the country.

@ Beakerj:

Bah.

Mae wrote:

Helps but no panacea.

We seem to have a whole lot of folks familiar with cut and stitch. Sorry to hear you are one. I have not found any great pain meds either. I know that is no help, but what can I say. If all else fails I sometimes have to resort to breathe in, breathe out, time passes and things get better. If I knew any secrets I would share them.

okrapod wrote:

Mae wrote:
Helps but no panacea.
We seem to have a whole lot of folks familiar with cut and stitch. Sorry to hear you are one. I have not found any great pain meds either. I know that is no help, but what can I say. If all else fails I sometimes have to resort to breathe in, breathe out, time passes and things get better. If I knew any secrets I would share them.

Yes, people do react differently to pain meds. My hubby says pain meds don’t work, they just make him sleep.
I’m also a, “frequent flyer”, in the surgery department. Have also had 7 bone marrow biopsies.
I am used to physical pain as MM affects the bones but still, and I’m sure you’ll agree, there are times I would like to escape it. Wonder if marijuana does really help.
Hope you do feel significantly better now that drain has been removed.

__

Heaven’s Helping: “He’s Really Got Da Whole Wide World In His Hands?”

hmmm…

Dee,

You are our mostz interesting blog queen of da day!

ATB

Sopy
__
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gAzBOGA2JPA

😉

—

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate.

What in the world does this mean? The Holy Spirit can make a mistake then?

. . . according to Calvin anyhow.

Mae wrote:

Have also had 7 bone marrow biopsies.

This gets worse by the minute. I had forgotten what you said before about your conditions. Daggone anyhow. I don’t know about marijuana, but there are those who believe it has medicinal uses including pain relief. My official position is: no comment.

Bridget wrote:

I can only stomach so much of The Institutes. Some parts are either the rantings of a genius or a madman.

He was a lawyer. 🙂

@ H.A.:
The pendulum is swinging the other way on pain meds to the point where people who need them will have trouble getting them (although anyone in hospice should be able to get the medication they need-that’s sort of the point).

There was an interesting podcast the other day talking about a letter to the editor that was basically that people with pain being treated in hospitals didn’t tend to get addicted that supposedly opened the floodgates. With all the context getting lost, as doctors learnes genetically that opioids were safe even though there were huge issues with the data regardless (poor tracking post hospital stay).

@ dee:
Just take care of yourself!

H.A. wrote:

In church meetings that were called over the Austin family situation RC Jr gave specific and detailed examples of how to shun not just John and Julie but in how they were to instruct their own children to shun the Austin children. This conduct was as hateful a thing as we had ever witnessed in a church . . .

As I was working on a post for a series of blog posts on spiritual abuse based on my friend, Pastor Ken Garrett’s dissertation (I think if you click on my name, you can see the current post), H.A.’s comment about how RC2 handled this family AND also got the church involved, reminded me of Ken’s definition of a cult:

Cult – While most of the terms and ideas that I introduce are simple and easy to grasp, it is apparent in the project that I struggle greatly with the term cult in describing a Christian church. I will better explain and seek resolution to the struggle in subsequent chapters. But for a basic, consistent definition of the word, cult denotes a small, religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous.

While ideology and doctrine always have a role in the health or dysfunction of any religious group, increasingly a group’s status as a cult is derived solely from its actual treatment of its members, and not from its creeds, beliefs, and theology.

The bolded part especially resonated with me. Our family, too, was shunned, and I find it to be one of the most insidious forms of spiritual abuse. It is absolutely cruel. This is key in identifying cults: look how members are treated!

RC2 is surely a cult leader.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

To me, this is a bunch of word salad to basically say no one can be assured of their salvation in Calvinism.

Which is why they keep trying to prove to themselves that they really are Elect/Saved. Whether that proof is getting rich, getting in power, or perfectly parsing their theology. All desperate attempts to prove they’re really Elect (and more important, You’re NOT!)

Roger Bombast wrote:

Bah.

Humbug.

Muff Potter wrote:

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
I understand this to mean that God gives to some of the damned the experience of faith only so he can judge them harder, and that if one doubts their salvation then they probably don’t have electing faith.
This is truly obscene and has no redeeming social value.

Sounds like something out of Greek mythology . A twisted, vengeful god having the last laugh at mortal man.

Mae wrote:

A twisted, vengeful god having the last laugh at mortal man.

Their god has way more in common with the gods of Egypt and the gods of the Canaanites. The God of Abraham isn’t anything like their god.

@ Christiane:
orthodox 🙂

@ Muff Potter:

For sure.

__

The Fruit Of An Elaborate Deception: “John Calvin like Augustine before him, was guilty of laying hold of the ‘shadow’ rather than the ‘substance’ of God’s Holy Word. ”

hmmm…

Let the reader understand that Calvin had the mind of a steel trap. Therefore, once you accepted any premise of his systematic religious conviction, he has you! There is no escape. Like any good lawyer, accepting his premise, you are captured by his elaborate arguments. The unfortunate thing is that John Calvin spent his whole religious career defending Augustine’s faulty premises, and not scripture. In essence Calvin was captured by Augustine’s elaborate premises, thus buying hook, line, and sinker the foundation of his convincing, but false arguments.

huh?

Let the reader recall that false prophets were among God’s people in the documented scriptural past. Holy Scripture warns us that false teachers will be among us as well. They will bring their own elaborate destructive teachings. They will abuse, and misconstrue the word of God for there own motives –ultimately denying the words of the One who was clearly sent to save them. It has been foretold that many people will follow them in the elaborate religious premises of their clever arguments and will cause others to disrespect the purity of God’s truth.

What?

Don’t let them use good-sounding religious arguments to exploit you.

(Please sēē your bible for details…)

ATB

Sopy
___
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmq2MYf33iY

😉

—

Walter Martin, author of “The Kingdom of the Cults,” defined a cult as a group centered around the (false) teachings of one man or woman. Mormonisn, Joseph Smith. JW s, Charles Taze Russell. “Christian” science, Mary Baker Eddy. And so on. The other thing that defines a pseudochristian cult, according to Martin, is the denial of the full deity of Christ as well as the doctrine of the trinity. “Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

Christiane wrote:

@ Mae:
it’s almost as though the ‘god of wrath’ neo-Cals are coming out of some non-trinitarian cult model rather than classic Calvinism
if they were, then it would make more sense what they are up to and also how they ‘word’ discussions about ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ without indication any trinitarian relationship between the two Persons …. and you are right: no Holy Spirit (they don’t mention him, do they?)

The Trinity has been denied, defined, redefined, since the beginning. Affirming, believing in the Trinity is still an issue today. Some heresies never seem to die.

StillWiggling wrote:

Walter Martin, author of “The Kingdom of the Cults,” defined a cult as a group centered around the (false) teachings of one man or woman. Mormonisn, Joseph Smith. JW s, Charles Taze Russell. “Christian” science, Mary Baker Eddy. And so on. The other thing that defines a pseudochristian cult, according to Martin, is the denial of the full deity of Christ as well as the doctrine of the trinity. “Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

As I’ve said before and often, defining CULT entirely in terms of theology and doctrine, NOT abusive control-freak behavior towards their people. OK for the Shepherd to slaughter and devour his sheep as long as his Theology and Doctrine are correct.

Mae wrote:

Sounds like something out of Greek mythology . A twisted, vengeful god having the last laugh at mortal man.

Zeus when Hera was really henpecking him and he had to take it out on mortals.

The only one of the Olympian Gods I can respect would be Athena; she always seemed the most “grown-up” of any of them. Maybe being a personification of Wisdom had something to do with it.

__

“Calvin’s Conundrum?”

hmmm…

John Calvin profoundly believed that every elect person’s salvation was pre-determined by God Himself before the foundation of the world.

huh?

Since Divine select election determination is in the mind of God alone and not humanly knowable, each individual subscriber of John Calvin’s religious systematic convictions, is left with the unknowable; hence left in the balance with absolutely no concrete assurance of salvation.

What?

Let the reader truly understand that solid ‘Assurance Of Salvation’ is only one of God’s ‘faithful promises’ given to Christians. Four other important examples can be classified as: promises of answered prayer, victory over sin, forgiveness, and divine guidance. Whew!

(I kid you not!)

All in this short profound New Testament book?

SKreeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!

The Bible New Testament focuses on the believers ‘relationship’ with Jesus and affirms their salvation, of which ‘foundational assurance’ is a very important and integral part for new and mature believer’s walk alike.

In conclusion, the Bible is a good source for an initial understanding, and also as a follow-up and refresher of the essence and the meat of Christ’s salvation. (1)

(sēē your bible for details…)

…this is my story, this is my song, hum, hum, hum…(1)

ATB

Sopy
___
Select Ref(s): (1) John 5:24; John 6:47; 1 John 5:12-13
(1) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QY00uCF9kUk

😉

—

Christiane wrote:

but to bring this kind of thing into the SBC inside the trojan horse of stealth neo-Cal-ism????

Whatever you think of William Lane Craig’s Christology, he in not a neocal. He has been one of the more influential voices against Calvinism.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I’ll take the orthodox teachings over William Craig Lane’s logic, yes. I would like to know Ken F.’s thoughts about this man’s Christology, especially Craig Lane’s apparent difficulty with the concept of Our Lord ‘assuming’ our humanity to Himself. In all I have so far read, Craig Lane hasn’t mentioned that we were originally make in the image of God …. I’ll keep reading.

Craig’s logic is pretty airtight and persuasive, but in making it airtight he seems to have smothered the life out of it. His arguments start with a singular “simple” god (per arguments voiced by Thomas Aquinas) and then he tries to find a way to bolt the concept of trinity onto that model. But it doesn’t fit well. It would work better if he started with Trinity. But who am I to challenge someone of his academic background?

well, I respect your opinion and I can see right through him which is not too hard to do

thanks for weighing in, Ken …. I do consider you a scholar worthy of respect, yes

Beakerj wrote:

Velour wrote:

@ Beakerj:
I am sorry for the pain that you have been through in dealing with alcoholics.
I know it has been very sad and destructive.
I have a comment to you “waiting to clear customs”.
This has been a triggering subject for many people, because of all of the various issues that come up relating to alcoholism. It is such a prevalent problem.
Please take good care of yourself right now.

Well bless your little heart for thinking of me. Being patted on the head is always such a help in these circumstances.
You have entirely missed the point, but nevermind.

Beaker J,
Was that really necessary?

@ Jeff:
will pray for you in your trouble …. get rest and build up strength slowly …. I hope you recover fully but it sounds like you will need to be careful and take it easy …. God Bless!

Ken P. wrote:

Whatever you think of William Lane Craig’s Christology, he in not a neocal. He has been one of the more influential voices against Calvinism.

Yes. I think he is excellent in dealing with some typical Calvinist ideas while delineating how far and no farther one can go with some idea.

Obviously I am a huge fan of Dr. Craig. He is rain on my desert from having listened to way too much mindlessness in the name of Christianity over the years.

@ Jeff:

Oh, gracious. I hear you. That is scary. On the upside, you wife is a real winner in insisting on the ER. God was right that it was not good for Adam to be alone-we all need people who care enough to take charge and get things done.

We have been dealing with strong meds at our house in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (my daughter) and on top of that some endocrinologist insisted that she take metformin even though she is not diabetic (but is post-menopausal PCOS and they are doing that now)) such that she had constant diarrhea and vomiting from the meds and now her rheumatologist has identified nutritional deficiencies in D3 and B12 which will take at minimum 6 months and perhaps the rest of her life to deal with-apparently due to the meds tearing up her gut.

We are running a veritable convalescent hospital at our house. May I say both as a professional and as a patient-it ain’t over till it’s over. Not by a long shot. But it sure can get difficult. God be with you.

okrapod wrote:

Obviously I am a huge fan of Dr. Craig.

You respond to his ‘logic’, I think. It’s what turns me off, but it does reveal to me something I had wondered about:

IF post-reformation folks were really ‘sola Scriptura’, how would they handle the questions of ‘Who Christ is’ and ‘Is there a Trinity and what is it’s nature?’
It seems more honest for post-Reformation people to seek out the answers themselves USING ‘the bible’, rather than to say ‘oh, we accept the teachings of the early Church councils’.

It’s revealing. And interesting.
I don’t find Craig to be a theologian who is ‘creative’ so much as one who picks through the bones of the early heresies and re-examines them using sacred Scripture as ‘proofs’.

Problem for me is that the ‘Bible’ IS a result of those Councils. I would have more respect for Craig IF he were to go even further back into Church history and question and re-examing everything about how the Councils settled on the CANON. Now there’s a place for a ‘fresh start’ ….. the early Councils dismissed a lot …. but did they get it right???

I mean if folks want to challenge the Councils and the Creeds, then by all means go for it, but it defies logic to accept the ‘canon’ and not the ‘creeds’ …. at some point, a re-examination must have integrity ….

does this make (any) sense? 🙂

Christiane….sorry, not your quote, responding to okrapod’s response to you.

@ okrapod:
@ Christiane:
OKRAPOD, you may find this interesting. I did. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hz2SOvr_b0

okrapod wrote:

He is under no constraints to refrain from seeing truths in the early creeds nor does seeing truths in the creeds compel him to accept every word in some creed based on an idea of authority apart from scripture. And, let me repeat once again, there are some creedal statements which many? most? all? protestants understand differently in some way from some Catholic ideas about those same statements.

This makes sense to me. But I suppose I am a Protestant, in some sense of the word, just because I am not a Catholic. I prefer to be simply a Believer in God.

Mae wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Christiane wrote:

God forgive me the many times that I just want to smack somebody up side the head when they try that garbage.

Not alone in that gut reaction!

Vouch.

@ Christiane:

Thanks, I will check that out- I don’t have a whole half hour until this afternoon. But careful there, you might fall into this man’s trap also if you listen to his stuff. (wink)

Christiane wrote:

I think though, in the Church, the sacred Scriptures become for us a part of the liturgy where ‘authentic’ listening is encouraged and becomes a part of active worship.

‘Authentic” listening can happen anywhere and anytime. It is the responsibility of the individual to do this. One can sit in the midst of a worship service, be encouraged until the cows come home, but manage not to listen.

@ Beakerj:

I love the Proverb that states Like one who takes a dog by the ears is he who meddles in a quarrel not his own… but, to some extent, we who call ourselves Wartburgers are all mutually responsible. So, like an idiot, here I go.

Well, I’m not going very far TBH, but I didn’t blame you for posting some kind of response there. I didn’t get the impression you were acting out, were hurt, found the thread subject matter difficult or painful, or otherwise were calling out for help. I’m not privy to anyone’s innermost thoughts, but it bothers me (along with others who’ve commented to similar effect) to see how often “you’re hurt” is used in such a way that it has the effect of an ad hominem.

dee wrote:

Velour has a tremendous capacity to care for other people.

AMEN AMEN AMEN

dee wrote:

Velour has a tremendous capacity to care for other people.

…this blip…

Correct on both counts, Dee. At risk of repeating myself, this has been a strange thread. But Velour is represented by other threads and other contributions.

@ Christiane:
Never never fear bringing it up with me if you think I’m in the wrong, because I probably am. I am not the remotest bit hurt by this & I didn’t think you were being rude or unfair. I also think Velour is a very caring person & I hope she’s not too hurt, & will come back to commenting. we share a huge amount in working for the safety of young people in our communities. But you can be caring in one direction whilst missing something else you’re doing that is not helpful,. In this case I felt she was smothering other commenters & acting as the morality Police as I posted & mentioned to Dee. It had just gone too far.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned at TWW it is to be more cautious about language backed up with religious words & statements, & what sneaks in under that cover whilst looking, to me, like something else entirely. It had the feel of a personal crusade, not a discussion or even a disagreement, with equals.

Bridget wrote:

Berkerj

Possibly the best typo ever 🙂

Bridget wrote:

… “a lot of people” would seem to encompass most of people who post on this blog.

Bah. You’re all rubbish.

Up yours,
Roger Bombast

@ Beakerj:

They’re both sadly missed…

Bridget wrote:

It would be helpful for you to clarify

Helpful how?

Bridget wrote:

It would be helpful for you to clarify since “a lot of people” would seem to encompass most of people who post on this blog.

Those are YOUR words. You own them.
Assuming is one thing. But when you ask someone to explain YOUR assumption, then you’ve problem.

Christiane wrote:

The liturgy involves ‘corporate’ worship where people are actively engaged. It is a bit different from the more passive worship services of some denominations who don’t have a formal liturgy, I suppose.

I have been thoroughly converted to a liturgical worship style, but I don’t see the difference as being between active and passive. Personally for me standing, kneeling, standing again, keeling again, making hand motions, bowing, walking up to the rail, kneeling again, standing again-none of that is anything either spiritual or cognitive to me-merely going through the motions. It is not worship for me. It is not wrong, it does keep you from falling asleep, but it in no way keeps my mind from wandering.

What I like about liturgy is how much can be packed into 50 minutes (Catholic) or 75 minutes (us) and the rapid pace of the service and the fact that there is a church Kalendar with an organizational scheme that requires covering an enormous amount of stuff during the year, and the fact that the readings and the prayers are quality stuff-not just praying ‘if it be your will’ and preaching for three Sundays on one biblical phrase somewhere between the semicolon and the comma of some bible verse. And I must say that I converted to a love of liturgy over at the Catholic church, and they are more sedentary in their mass than we are.

But in all fairness I did not find old style Baptist worship services to be remotely passive, nor do I need ecclesial gymnastics to stay awake. If some do I will gladly participate for their sakes. For me, though. at some level, it feels rather pretentious and sometimes I have to remind myself that as far as we know God is not offended by this sort of thing, and I am thinking that given the complexity of creation at some level God is really good with the complex and the fancy. But I still struggle with it a bit.

okrapod wrote:

But in all fairness I did not find old style Baptist worship services to be remotely passive, nor do I need ecclesial gymnastics to stay awake. If some do I will gladly participate for their sakes. For me, though. at some level, it feels rather pretentious and sometimes I have to remind myself that as far as we know God is not offended by this sort of thing, and I am thinking that given the complexity of creation at some level God is really good with the complex and the fancy. But I still struggle with it a bit.

One of the most beautiful services I ever attended was a candlelight funeral service for a friend of my daughters and it was at a Baptist Church where she had attended since a child. Everything was done with reverence and with attention to comforting the family. I was very moved. My daughter was devastated and she also thought the service was beautiful.

Beakerj wrote:

This was not the first thread I’ve felt uncomfortable on when this commenter has taken control of the thread, it’s just the first time I’ve spoken up.

Same for me. I didn’t comment publicly up to now, but I recently corresponded with Dee, and I do want to thank her publicly for the way she and Deb handle the many roles played by this site–investigation, education, support and comfort, community. It’s a lot to juggle.

Bridget wrote:

As I stated, I don’t see that much unkindness.

I realize that

Christiane wrote:

Yes, it IS your thinking.

It seems you are dancing around Bridget’s question and instead putting it back on her. What does “a lot” mean to you? Those are your words.

@ Julie Anne:
‘a lot’ mean ‘a lot’ in my thinking, Julie Anne

one would have been enough, but it took off, didn’t it?

I’ve seen this happen once before. The usual suspects. It’s never pretty. Trouble with a ‘pile on’ is that there is a synergy at work in them collectively, which makes the intent seem much more negative …. it would be an interesting phenomenon except that someone is hurt

Christiane wrote:

The usual suspects.

Likely, the people who have been quiet in the past out of respect for their hostesses, but finally got pushed enough to respond.

Christiane wrote:

…. it would be an interesting phenomenon except that someone is hurt

And the pity party begins again, this time by proxy.

“Self-pity is easily the most destructive of the nonpharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality.”
John W. Gardner

Gram3 wrote:

H.A.or wrote:
What he needs is professional psychological help for his personality disorders. That same kind of help will also address secondary issues, like his alcoholism.
Yes, I think that a personality disorder lies at the root of this, though my standard disclaimer is that I am not a psy*. My SWAG is NPD.

About six years ago, a close relative got a second DUI. One of the many things s/he had to do was attend a group talk (with a relative) about family dynamics and addiction. The counselor was very specific that one has to deal with the primary addiction FIRST, before anything else can be addressed. When an alcoholic is drinking, no emotions are processed, no insights are available. The personality disorder or destructive behaviors can’t be addressed until the person is clean/straight/sober and able to reflect about and think about his/her destructive behavior.

Harley wrote:

We support each other, we don’t tear each other down. We uplift them in the name of Christ. We encourage each other. We pray for each other. FYI – for those that need to know, Velour is out of town working for her job. I know this for a fact.

thank you for sharing this information about Velour

BTW …. to help with those carb cravings, try adding more protein in small amounts throughout the day (boiled eggs, beef roll-ups, chunks of chicken breast, etc)
and try some grapefruit juice also with the protein feedings ….. it helps some, yes

@ Harley:
Harley – the quick answer is that no-one should be being asked to leave the church WITHOUT GOOD REASON & ONLY FOR A TIME. That specific answer was specific to Sproul Jnr & no-one else, let alone your average struggling Christian. He’s a clearly unrepentant man who has caused havoc in his own church, which is not acceptable. That doesn’t mean at all that Christians who love him shouldn’t love & care for him at this time, just that pastoring is not appropriate for him right now.

Berkerj wrote:

Harley – the quick answer is that no-one should be being asked to leave the church WITHOUT GOOD REASON & ONLY FOR A TIME. That specific answer was specific to Sproul Jnr & no-one else, let alone your average struggling Christian.

Exactly. And that is where this thread was taken off track thinking the put out meant for all Christians who are alcoholics. It was a response about RC2 based on his decades of chronic abuse, the least of which is alcoholism.

Berkerj wrote:

That specific answer was specific to Sproul Jnr

Indeed. And it does sound as if his problems with alcohol were not limited to having a few too many drinks before bedtime. He was encouraging bad behavior at church, possibly inviting minors to drink and berating others who did not drink. That is behavior that should be called out and if you cannot behave at church functions, you should be asked to leave.

I would take things on a case by case basis. A mountain dew and piece of cake are not hurting anyone else in the church, obviously.

H.A. wrote:

Harley wrote:

I have a question here.

Harley, in case you missed it:

Dee wrote:

The way you can see if a comment. thread has gotten off course is to look back at the original post. Is this still about the post or has it become about a commenter.

This article is about RC Sproul Jr. His alcoholism, driving drunk with kids in the car and getting arrested for it, etc. is the topic of the thread. Yes, Velour did derail it for a good long while. Dee stepped in to get it re-railed. And now you want to derail it again, but this time make it about carb addiction? Please spare us.

I welcome Harley’s comment. She has often interacted with us on the Discussions page when it was operating and we are always interested in how she was managing.

Please, if you are SO offended by what you see as disrespect to our blog hosts, then of course you must act and report us. But Dee knows that Harley has come here in good faith and has always treated EVERYONE with respect. If Dee has appointed you to discipline people, we need to be told. Otherwise, I see no disrespect in Harley’s comment and I very willing to interact with Harley here in the absence of a Discussion page particularly if she is needing prayer or wants to share.

You’ve got problem with that? You have no idea what Harley has been through.

Elastigirl wrote:

Several people were egregiously misrepresented, described and portrayed in ways that were untrue which they themselves refuted as based on misunderstanding, crazy presumption, and arguments from silence. Yet the false accusations and character assassination didn’t stop.
Some of these people are public figures in the blogosphere, their reputations potentially harmed. Based on untruths.

Thank you, Elastigirl. I was very concerned about this. I tried to make sure Velour knew my thoughts via private message on Facebook. It seemed that she did understand more clearly in some areas, but she is still incorrect in other areas and would not change her opinion, sadly.

StillWiggling wrote:

Walter Martin, author of “The Kingdom of the Cults,” defined a cult as a group centered around the (false) teachings of one man or woman. Mormonisn, Joseph Smith. JW s, Charles Taze Russell. “Christian” science, Mary Baker Eddy. And so on. The other thing that defines a pseudochristian cult, according to Martin, is the denial of the full deity of Christ as well as the doctrine of the trinity. “Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

I found Martin’s teachings decidedly useless when I was coming to a secular theory of why Scientology was wrong. Because people generally don’t care if my religion (whatever it may be) doesn’t agree with Scientology (or any other religion). What they do care about is people getting hurt. So, while the story of Xenu and Tom Cruise jumping on the couch helped make Scientology a laughingstock, it was the real stories of harm that have been coming out courtesy of “Going Clear” (both the book and the documentary) and Leah Remini’s show on A&E which have given people real life examples of when a belief system goes completely haywire and becomes self-destructive.

Martin never considers that someone may be teaching the most correct doctrine ever, but also be enormously abusive in so many ways. That’s why I find his designation of what a cult is useless.

Beakerj wrote:

But you can be caring in one direction whilst missing something else

To un-moor your statement from the context I find much meaning in your comment. I have occasionally felt run over by someone who has a high degree of compassion. I have since discovered compassion is not distributed equally by those who possess it and thus there is the need for other virtues that are supplied by others. For example a stodgy person with a strong degree of conscientiousness (big 5 personality type) can be a wonderful balance for someone high in compassion even though they may seem in conflict.

I continue to find so much wisdom in Jesus depiction of us as parts of a body. We find completion, the ability to be well rounded, largely by the virtues of others and left to our own virtue we can go turn it into vice, I can speak from experience. When my limitations are exposed my pride causes me shame when instead I should realize even more the need for the virtues and wisdom of others to temper my own.

Hopefully my off topic comment will be forgiven.

{Sigh} Gram3 made the comment I replied to above.

@ Deb:

Gram AND Deb, thank you both for the info AND the link re RSJ’s “defrockment” (I’m sure that’s not a real word, lol).

Wow, that was VERY enlightening. How ironic that RSJ commanded a man (and his family) to be shunned because the man submitted a very respectful letter detailing his scriptural reasons for leaving that church. And how sad that RSJ has never apologized to him (and his family).

According to a closing statement, that is just one situation of many which were similar.

One thing that is confusing to me: That article said that RSJ was defrocked in January 2006 — more than 11 years ago! Yet I got the distinct impression from the OP here that he was in church leadership while he was living a life of drinking to excess, giving alcohol to children, and putting his own children in danger?

Gram3 wrote:

While I agree that theology is not the cause or cure of abuse, I do think that certain theologies are more likely to enable certain kinds of abusive behaviors. However, abusers are perfectly capable of seizing any system to use as a tool of abuse. It’s what they do.

Totally agree with this, Gram3.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote [in response to my questions]:

How does a Calvinist KNOW if he or she is one of the elect? (speaking of their doctrine) And how do they know if someone isn’t? Is there some sort of test they use?
This is a very inciteful question. The only way they can know is if they don’t fall away (the P in TULIP). Hence the legalistic spirit that so often comes with Calvinism. But they don’t even have this assurance because of “evanescent grace” (lool up this term). Calvin taught that God tricks some people into thinking they are among the elect only so that he can punish them harsher for their false faith. You can find this in his Institutes. I’m typing this with my thumbs in an airport. I can post links when i get home if you cannot find anything.

If I can’t find that, I’ll let you know, Ken. I appreciate your offer to post links.

Don’t worry about your spelling of “insightful” as “inciteful”. Some posts apparently fit the latter description. 😉

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

StillWiggling wrote:

Walter Martin, author of “The Kingdom of the Cults,” defined a cult as a group centered around the (false) teachings of one man or woman. Mormonisn, Joseph Smith. JW s, Charles Taze Russell. “Christian” science, Mary Baker Eddy. And so on. The other thing that defines a pseudochristian cult, according to Martin, is the denial of the full deity of Christ as well as the doctrine of the trinity. “Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

I found Martin’s teachings decidedly useless when I was coming to a secular theory of why Scientology was wrong. Because people generally don’t care if my religion (whatever it may be) doesn’t agree with Scientology (or any other religion). What they do care about is people getting hurt. So, while the story of Xenu and Tom Cruise jumping on the couch helped make Scientology a laughingstock, it was the real stories of harm that have been coming out courtesy of “Going Clear” (both the book and the documentary) and Leah Remini’s show on A&E which have given people real life examples of when a belief system goes completely haywire and becomes self-destructive.

Martin never considers that someone may be teaching the most correct doctrine ever, but also be enormously abusive in so many ways. That’s why I find his designation of what a cult is useless.

I’ve seen some of Leah Remini’s TV programs. They caused me to want to dig deeper and learn more, so I’ve read autobiographies written by people who either joined Scientology as adults or were born and raised in it.

I can not call Scientology a “church” because it is an atheistic belief. God is not in it. Its highest level, which typically takes people YEARS to attain (if they ever do), is reported by people who finally got there that Hubbard cited sci-fi beliefs as his “great secret”. Hubbard, a Satanist, used religious language to mask the reality of the religion he invented.

So IMO Scientology did not “go weird”. It never was anything but weird. What happened was that people began to wake up, see that it was/is not what it’s cracked up to be, and then tell others about that. I pray for them that they will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Jim Jones is a clear example of someone who started out preaching the Bible but then completely departed from it. When I read his bio, I learned that he got to the point that he would throw it down on the floor and urinate on it during speeches to his followers. He also did other things so heinous I would not mention them.

I do think Martin’s work had/has merit and value, but I also agree with your point that church leaders can preach correct doctrine, but abuse their members spiritually.

In situations like this of which I have personally been aware, though, I will say that spiritual problems had already developed in these leaders’ lives — they were not as they had previously seemed to be. Because of this, there were very serious issues in their personal lives, as well as their beliefs and attitudes. It just took time for those things to come to light, for the inner change to manifest outwardly.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

@ Claire:
When I get home tomorrow I will re-post the list of links to the best articles I’ve found exposing the pitfalls of Calvinism.

Posted here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-330068. The list is not yet visible.

Wow, that’s quite a list! It will take time to work my way through it, but I surely do appreciate the time and effort it took for you to post that. 🙂

Bridget wrote:

I was never trying to put my assumptions on you at all.

A person is defined by their own words and actions.

If someone then decides or assumes ‘what that person really meant’, then they own that assumption. But if they then attempt to get ‘clarification’ or ‘explanation’ of that ‘assumption’, the discussion goes off its trolley.

My words speak for themselves. I own them.
What another chooses to say about those words is their business to deal with, not mine. I can’t answer for someone else’s assumption. Nor can I put any light on it. It comes from them, not from me.
I cannot answer for someone else’s words, no. I’m not the ‘source’ of their assumptions and assertions about ‘what I meant’.

My words speak for themselves. You can make of them what you will, but what is of your making belongs to you. Have a great day.

@ Christiane:

If I’m honest, Christiane, I am as confused as Bridget at this point. Regardless of what you own or are defined by, you did make a comment on a discussion that involved people and was about something. Many people are apparently being unkind. I would have found it useful to know whom you thought unkind and what it was they said that you thought was unkind.

H.A. referred to “alkies”. (We have the same abbreviation here in Scotland too, probably because it’s an obvious one to make.) Velour felt this was offensive, and I can understand that it might come across as flippant. H.A. explained very clearly where it came from and why it was not flippant. Although Velour was not mollified, to me, it was useful. It certainly didn’t derail the discussion.

@ Beakerj:

I was wildly and unbelievably infatuated with a ‘black irish’ lad when I was a freshman in college. I have been able to track him down, or at least his photo, and he also has no hair now. More is the pity.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
thanks for this, Nick

as usual, I am always interested in what you have to say, as it never ceases to life my spirits

if you want me to respond to the individual in question, then you need to come back here as ‘God’ and I just might consider it 🙂

I have my own opinion of what went down, and you and I disagree. That’s okay. But I appreciate your input. On this matter, we see some of the commenting from different perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate you sharing what you saw from your point of view.

okrapod wrote:

I described the nuisance of vertigo using a word which she found offensive but which would have been perfectly appropriate for that particular situation a few decades back.

Well now I’m sorting through words trying to figure this one out!

I listen to a podcast by a doctor and he was talking one day about how people in the medical field often use humor, sometimes gallows humor, to deal with the situations they see every day, but it can come off offensive to people outside of that group because it sounds terribly insensitive.

Lea wrote:

I listen to a podcast by a doctor and he was talking one day about how people in the medical field often use humor, sometimes gallows humor, to deal with the situations they see every day, but it can come off offensive to people outside of that group because it sounds terribly insensitive.

Precisely. Though it is not alway humor, sometimes it is just frustration with no attempt at humor.

So why would we do that? It is a pressure release valve for some of the difficulties that we cope with, but also it is a sort of in-house-speak that automatically identifies people in the same boat when they recognize what has been said.

So the transaction is (1) steam release followed by (2) recognition which serves as unspoken ‘I hear you’.

I had no original intention of bringing this up on this thread, but there are obvious differences in how various people talk about various things as well as obvious unexpected offenses being taken when none was intended in the first place, and since we sometimes delve into discussion of medical situations here, then I conclude that this needed brought to the front.

The way I experience it, however, is that people are becoming more sensitive and the line marking what is acceptable for public use and what is not seems to be shifting toward the right. I was totally surprised that in the totally non-public place of an OR in operation there would have been any changes in anything, so perhaps it was just that she was young and still learning the ropes. Or not. But her response made me rather unsettled in that I had the feeling that I was in the hands of some who might actually be hostile. That was an over-reaction, but considering the situation it was an understandable over-reaction.

I believe that one should not needlessly give offense and one should not needlessly take offense, and this current trend in our society is headed in the wrong direction if it goes too far in either side trying to force its will on the other.

Mae wrote:

If you want to hear some gallows humor, join me in the oncology clinic! Believe it or not, sometimes it’s a great release to use it.

I absolutely believe you! I think that would be very hard. Probably there are many patients who use the same type of humor to cope, and other patients, or maybe patients families, who might overhear something and find it cold and offensive. I know there was an issue a while back here where somebody saw a comic strip (it may have been hanging on the wall or emailed), and I honestly don’t remember what it said, but it was in this gallows humor vein and it offended someone and made the news and then everybody got training on sensitivity.

And I actually kind of get that, from a patient perspective too. If you don’t think about how providers are dealing with the same issues all the time, sometimes deeply sad painful things to have to watch, then you may not see this as a way of relieving that pain. And maybe if you don’t react to things that way yourself, you may not get it.

okrapod wrote:

there are obvious differences in how various people talk about various things as well as obvious unexpected offenses being taken when none was intended

Yes, exactly. There was some article I was reading a while back where an American (I guess) shortened Pakistani to ‘paki’ and got called out for it because this is a great insult in Britain I guess? But it’s not one commonly used here, so it didn’t register with a lot of people until that was explained.

@ okrapod:

Once an MD I was having a consultation with,( 1st visit ) made a disparaging remark about a President. A remark I did not agree with. Made me nervous as I didn’t dare disagree for fear he would not treat as well medically.

What happened to the old rules of not commenting on religion or politics, while in the workplace?

It does feel like today people wear their feelings, and politics, on their sleeves.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to communicate a neutral stance, as so often words are twisted to imply something different then the original intent. It’s becoming like walking on eggshells.

@ okrapod:

Have been going to my primary care physician ( Family Medicine ) for 30+ years. We also can discuss religion and politics but that familiarity was cultivated over a long period of time. I’m sure with newer patients, he would refrain from discussing both politics and religion.

@ Mae:

Exactly.

@ Mae:

There is nothing wrong with how you express yourself, nothing at all that I can see. Some people are so smooth in how they talk I secretly suspect they may be ghost writers for politicians, but other than that I don’t think we have all that much difference from one to the other. I am kind of verbose specifically because I have not acquired the skill to be more to the point. For some reason they tolerate that, for which I am thankful.

I never heard of honey soaked cornbread, but I do saturate a biscuit in butter and honey so I will try honey with cornbread. Thanks for the tip.

@ Lea:

I don’t know what i did with the list, but i will add it to the BBQ menu.

okrapod wrote:

Some people are so smooth in how they talk I secretly suspect they may be ghost writers for politicians,

That’s funny!

@ Muff Potter:
Muff Potter wrote:

The Chicago statement guys could not rest in the Bible as mystery and magic the way Pastor Sorensen the Lutheran and Father Doyle the Jesuit did all those years ago in my Wisconsin childhood.

Ah yes, Lutheran and Catholic; I am not surprised. Some folks retain the mystery, some flee in fear from mystery. (Because they can’t control it?)

Some folks apparently live in fear of the Spirit and think the only wee small voice they will ever hear is a recall of some memorized bible verse; some treasure the awesome Presence. (Because He cannot be controlled?)

But I never saw until now a concerted effort to marginalize Jesus. (Control issues?)

That just leaves the Bible as authority and leadership as enforcement. They seem to be spiritually starving to death, since they deny the very message of the Bible itself. They sabotage their own last hope.

Ichabod, I think.

I wrote a post a few days ago on my ‘Daisy’ blog about some of the subjects on this thread/post:

Non-Church, Non-Spiritual, or Secular Remedies and Treatments Don’t Always Work
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/non-church-non-spiritual-or-secular-remedies-and-treatments-dont-always-work/

There is also another post related to that one (and linked to within it, and at the bottom of that post) on the Daisy blog, with this title:
Problems with A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

Claire wrote:

If I can’t find that, I’ll let you know, Ken. I appreciate your offer to post links.

Here is the list of articles challenging penal substitution that I posted a few weeks ago: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/#comment-326343. The second link has the “God in the Hands of Angry Sinners” paper.

Lea wrote:

I can see how some children, brought up in a faith that caused them great harm, might decide that it was not for them, though.

When my childhood pastor was exposed as a long-time adulterer (with the church organist, no less) and, when he was fired and took another pastorate (!) AND the church organist went along (!), I was about 15yo at the time. I was so shocked, I remember that I made something of an oath to the Lord, saying, “If that’s the Christian life, I don’t want it.”

For the next few years, I steadfastly ignored the Lord and lived my life the way I wanted to live it, making many mistakes which led to serious consequences. But the Lord was there all along, and showed me that, drawing me back to Himself. He moved in my life such a powerful way when I submitted my life to Him, I’ve never been the same since. I never knew that love was, or real peace, or joy, until then. He is faithful. 🙂

Lowlandseer wrote:

You might find this (lengthy) article on Assurance helpful

Thank you for that, Lowlandseer. I have a couple of questions which I did not see addressed in the article (it is possible that I missed them).

1) Did Calvin (and do Calvinists) believe that people are born children of God?

2) Did he (and they) believe that a person can be an unbeliever one moment, then become a believer the next?

Max wrote:

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

no one can be assured of their salvation in Calvinism

Which should be enough for critically thinking folks to steer clear of this aberrant faith! I hear a lot about New Calvinists being intellectual, so why aren’t they smarter than that?!

I hear you, Mae. But assurance of salvation does not come by intellect (and I’m sure you know that). So many truly intellectual men/women have felt they were so smart, they didn’t need God. Salvation is not about intellect. It’s about the power of the Holy Spirit moving in our lives.

Claire wrote:

Julie Anne wrote:
You’ve been hoping for the demise of the ministry of RC2 for a long while now.
I’m not H.A. (obviously), but what sort of ministry does a man who has done all those things have?

I should have put ministry in quotes. Mea culpa!

Julie Anne wrote:

I should have put ministry in quotes. Mea culpa!

Ah, that makes perfect sense, and I agree. 🙂

Bridget wrote:

an inferior operation of the Spirit

When people are talking about an “inferior” operation of the Spirit, they are clearly not talking about the Holy Spirit, but another spirit. Paul addressed this issue in one of his letters.

Years ago, a pastor’s wife who was virtually worshipped by the church as a woman of great wisdom, was teaching a Bible study I attended. I lost count of the number of times she spoke of the spirit “leading people off”, accusing the Holy Spirit of leading people away from God!

I was so shocked, I was speechless (very unusual for me). To this day I regret not speaking up and simply asking, “What spirit are you talking about?” The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God! That was a Methodist church. Error can be taught anywhere.

Claire wrote:

When people are talking about an “inferior” operation of the Spirit, they are clearly not talking about the Holy Spirit, but another spirit. Paul addressed this issue in one of his letters.

I totally agree. I always wonder what people who call themselves Calvinists think of these statements.

H.A. wrote:

Harley wrote:
I have a question here.
Harley, in case you missed it:
Dee wrote:
The way you can see if a comment. thread has gotten off course is to look back at the original post. Is this still about the post or has it become about a commenter.
This article is about RC Sproul Jr. His alcoholism, driving drunk with kids in the car and getting arrested for it, etc. is the topic of the thread. Yes, Velour did derail it for a good long while. Dee stepped in to get it re-railed. And now you want to derail it again, but this time make it about carb addiction? Please spare us.

Her post is possibly more intimately tied to alcoholism than you could ever imagine, and I immediately understood where she was coming from when I read her post.

My paternal grandfather, an Irishman, died of alcohol abuse. Of his 12 children, at least 9 were severely alcoholic, including my father. I went to an oncology nutritionist about 20 years ago. With my family origin (Ireland) and nutritional history (carbohydrate craver) he immediately realized that I had a metabolic flaw in the methylation cycle, which subsequently has been confirmed through genetic testing (thanks, 23 & Me!). For me, this manifests as an inability to process alcohol; half a can of beer gives me a hangover, so I don’t drink, at all but have a deep love for carbs. Fortunately, I have zero attraction to alcohol or any addictive tendencies. Oddly, for many people with variations of this metabolic flaw, there can be a very strong predisposition to alcoholism. The main point being, it isn’t just a character flaw or weak willpower. The body is screaming for something it thinks it needs.

So let’s wrap this around to RC2. Perhaps Lisa Sproul can help support RC2’s sobriety with her nutritional prowess. I greatly wish he could achieve sobriety, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg for this guy. Sadly, as far as we know, there’s no ignition lock, no alcohol monitoring bracelet, no requirement for substantive therapy with a SECULAR psychiatrist or psychologist, no required attendance at an alcohol support group.
Statistically, his chances of relapse (if he is truly sober) are very, very high. Long term, hard core alcohol can damage the brain and certainly adversely affect impulse control.

If his choice of lawyers is any indication, RC has some very deep pockets (especially if he squirreled away/wisely invested any of his staggeringly large Ligonier “salary”). He can afford rehab or excellent therapy, if that’s his priority. Let’s define staggeringly large: RC2’s annual Ligonier “salary” was over $300,000, even while he was “suspended” from Ligonier. Yes, indeedy, non-profit financial statements are public. Who knows if RC1 and Vesta are still funneling $$$ to RC2 as well. Possibly, RC could just cruise without working another day in his life and not be financially pressed. Interesting times ahead for RC2 and Lisa.

Jack wrote:

But I have noticed that there are sometimes blurred lines between being a resource and being a support group. I don’t think a comments section makes an optimal support group – sorry.

I think the Cry for Justice site runs things much like that, which is great for people who have been or are in DV situations. But it does mean that wider issues can’t be discussed fully sometimes. That is fine for that site, but I do think it would change things about what this site is.

Anonymous!, thank you for sharing about your particular metabolic flaw. I had a coworker many years ago who told me basically the reverse, that he would have to drink enough alcohol that it would kill him before he would even be drunk because of his family background. (I don’t know if this was true, just found it interesting)

I don’t think I know enough about sproul himself, medically, to make a judgment call on anything but his behavior, which is obviously dangerous to more than himself and needs to change. I agree with you, he can afford any kind of rehab he chooses. But he HAS to choose it.

@ Christiane:

We have almost 2,000 years of wondering about this, and the church has a long history of many theories, some more easily understood than others, but multiple ideas none the less.

This is an area in which, if I understand correctly, the RCC has refused to take a precise and specific and poured in concrete exclusive opinion. I totally agree with how the RCC has handled this situation, even if I personally find one theory best and somebody else finds another theory best.

Dr. Craig has mentioned how many people bring up the issue of how to explain the atonement. I don’t doubt that. But I am not looking for a definitive and unassailable theory to emerge in my life time. Sometimes we just have to say that something is multifaceted, mysterious, difficult to process, offends one’s sensibilities and cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction at this time.

One can get caught in a trap if one does not just let a thing go unresolved if necessary lest it become a stumbling block. I believe that Jesus said ‘follow me’ and did not say ‘follow some theory about me’. In my view your Church has done a better job at that than the neo-cals are doing by far.

okrapod wrote:

In my view your Church has done a better job at that than the neo-cals are doing by far.

Like I said, at least in my Church we know we are sinners. I don’t know what is going on in neo-Cal heads, but Our Lord doesn’t seem to be the priority, their devotion to ‘male-headship’ seems to be at the top of the heap.

@ Julie Anne:

Home run, Julie Anne. And congrats on your cyber security pursuits. That field is going to get nothing but bigger and bigger, I am thinking.

okrapod wrote:

@ Julie Anne:

Home run, Julie Anne. And congrats on your cyber security pursuits. That field is going to get nothing but bigger and bigger, I am thinking.

Thank you! I think you are right if the last few weeks are any indication of what’s to come. I think it is the new type of warfare, sadly.

Max wrote:

Claire wrote:

assurance of salvation does not come by intellect (and I’m sure you know that). So many truly intellectual men/women have felt they were so smart, they didn’t need God. Salvation is not about intellect. It’s about the power of the Holy Spirit moving in our lives.

Amen! It’s by the Spirit, saith the Lord! Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. The intellect must be filled with the mind of Christ to understand spiritual things. You can’t figure it out in the flesh.

In my Church we don’t have ‘assurance’ in the manner of evangelical people, but we do have ‘trust’ and we do rely on the mercy of God. A favorite prayer is ‘Jesus Christ, I trust in You’;
and then of course the beautiful prayer “Jesus Christ, Son, Savior, have mercy on us”

Christiane wrote:

I have wondered if the Crucifixion was not done in order to change US as we are the ones who drove those nails into Christ with OUR sins?

Did you read the articles by Baxter Kruger I posted on 28 May on the interesting items tab? They are the first two links on my list of penal substitution links. What he writes is very much in line with what you just wrote.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

es, I agree we lose much when we try to explain things that don’t need explanation.

‘si comprehendis non est Deus’
(Augustine)

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I have wondered if the Crucifixion was not done in order to change US as we are the ones who drove those nails into Christ with OUR sins?

Did you read the articles by Baxter Kruger I posted on 28 May on the interesting items tab? They are the first two links on my list of penal substitution links. What he writes is very much in line with what you just wrote.

I found them and will be looking at them …. thanks again. I do recognize that neme ‘Baxter Kruger’, yes…… I’ve got memory issues (like from childhood) and they are not getting any better

I am grateful for the resources you share here. God Bless!

@ Nick Bulbeck:
g’morning, Nick,
this makes sense: “It’s quite common – in fact I’d say it’s normal – to see those who feel themselves responsible for attacking a heresy to hunker down in a small foxhole of passionate “orthodoxy”.”

I see something of myself here because of the reaction I had to ESS, viewing it as a doorway for patriarchists to minimize the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and replace Him with their own importance.

Yes. I see it. Thanks for the mirror.
There is a ‘fierceness’ of wanting to ‘protect’ and ‘defend’ that which neither needs my affirmation nor will be changed in its core because of any ‘heresy’.
The ‘doctrine’ is not the deity. Heresies will come and go. Gnostics will ‘know it all’ in vain. But what is sacred remains in the unapproachable light and is not made greater nor diminished by the efforts of human creatures who can only see as though ‘through a glass darkly’. Silly me. 🙂

Thanks for putting light on this. I needed it.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

It’s quite common – in fact I’d say it’s normal – to see those who feel themselves responsible for attacking a heresy to hunker down in a small foxhole of passionate “orthodoxy”. As they become more and more intent on fighting the doctrinal war, they become more and more antipathetic towards anything that isn’t exclusively focused on destroying their particular enemy, be it “feminism”, “new age”, “liberalism”, or whatever. In other words, they reduce the Christian faith and, by extension, Jesus himself.

This is a very good point. And so is your Lord of the Rings reference. My investigation of Calvinism and PSA started a few years ago with the devastating impact a college ministry had on the faith of my sons. The teaching robbed joy and hope from them and from many of their friends. I became pretty shocked by what I was finding, and went into an OCD phase for awhile in my attempt to figure it out. A few months ago I had a “Holy Palantir, Batman, I’m becoming Denethor!” moment. I’m now trying to pull the pendulum back to center again. If my spiritual state is a house full of messy rooms, I feel like I’ve finally gotten that room into useful order and now I need to head to the messy room I’ve been avoiding – the one with the right-brained experiential aspects of faith. TWW has been a good place for me to process this stuff and help me move on to what I believe will be a more difficult and more necessary project.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

TWW has been a good place for me to process this stuff and help me move on to what I believe will be a more difficult and more necessary project.

I hope you still share what you are working on with us here, Ken F.

I have for some time, since the death of my dear father, thought about the symbolism of the ‘viaticum’, the Eucharist he received the morning that he passed away. We who were present, joined in receiving, but for him, the significance was ‘strength for the journey’ …. but I have also thought how it is that we who continue in earthly life are also sojourning.

The ‘Lamb of God’ symbolism of the Passover is also something related to ‘viaticum’, to ‘Eucharist’. The lamb slain before the Passover in Egypt was then eaten completely before the Israelites set out to leave Egypt behind for the Promised Land. Strength for the journey.

So I wonder how the idea of ‘Eucharist’ sets within the evangelical teachings on PSA, if it does at all. And if it does, is it related to the idea of Eucharist in some meaningful way to evangelical people?

Christiane wrote:

So I wonder how the idea of ‘Eucharist’ sets within the evangelical teachings on PSA, if it does at all. And if it does, is it related to the idea of Eucharist in some meaningful way to evangelical people?

I have not seen any connection. It’s a very good question and something I will think about, but I don’t want to dive into that rat-hole at this point. I’m afraid of what I will find.

@ Christiane:
I have thought that PSA only makes sense if evangelicals completely separate the two ‘natures’ of Christ and say that only one of the ‘natures’ (human) was crucified

That doesn’t make sense to a Catholic, though. We see that the whole Person of Christ was crucified, one Person with two complete natures.
But I guess that doesn’t make sense to the evangelicals???

?

Anonymous! wrote:

With my family origin (Ireland) and nutritional history (carbohydrate craver) he immediately realized that I had a metabolic flaw in the methylation cycle, which subsequently has been confirmed through genetic testing (thanks, 23 & Me!). For me, this manifests as an inability to process alcohol; half a can of beer gives me a hangover, so I don’t drink, at all but have a deep love for carbs. Fortunately, I have zero attraction to alcohol or any addictive tendencies. Oddly, for many people with variations of this metabolic flaw, there can be a very strong predisposition to alcoholism.

This was fascinating, thank you.
I know some carb cravers “get drunk” on sugar (or maybe “get stoned”?), and I have talked to a recovering alcoholic who admitted to substituting sugar for alcohol for some time during the early part of the recovery process, but I had never read any of the possible science behind it.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

A few months ago I had a “Holy Palantir, Batman, I’m becoming Denethor!” moment. I’m now trying to pull the pendulum back to center again… TWW has been a good place for me to process this stuff and help me move on to what I believe will be a more difficult and more necessary project.

I was reading this out to Lesley this morning (our mac is in the bedroom and she’s finishing her morning coffee) and she approves of this too! We were, to give some context, talking about how easy it is to get side-tracked into committed low-level Christianity. That is, to throw oneself into servitude in blinkered and immature faith, because grappling with the harder questions, and the apparent contradictions in Christian living, takes too much effort. It’s easier just to flop down on PSA or the sufficiency of scribsher and pretend one is fighting the good fight by defending it. Or, using your analogy, obsessively cleaning only one small room and pretending the house is clean.

I think this is one facet of what Jesus meant when he said that the way to live is steep and narrow, and few find it.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

So, this thing about “hurt”… and TWW being a good place for people who’ve had jarring, unpleasant experiences with toxic church cultures. There are all kinds of people, and all kinds of toxic cultures. People extricate themselves from churches and emerge in all kinds of states. To pigeonhole them all as “hurt” is no more accurate, and frankly no less lazy, than to dismiss them all as “bitter”.

This is so true. Many people have emerged from terrible experiences with a determination to warn others of the dangers of predatory people who prey on the innocent in ‘church’ settings.

I have seen TWW as a sanctuary for recovering victims but also as a place where SURVIVORS could help prevent further victimization from occurring (or at least make an effort in that direction) …..

If a place like TWW can offer a sanctuary that takes in wounded victims of clergy abuse, offers them a voice that had been denied to them and offers a place for them to share their experiences;
and then helps them on the path to become strong SURVIVORS with dignity and something to give back to others, this is all good.

I am one who admires those who stand up for people who are being attacked and bullied. Wade Burleson is one of my great heroes in the faith. There are many others. If Wade has seen the work of the Deebs in helping people and has contributed E-Church to TWW, I am encouraged that he also sees the potential in TWW. I hope he continues to help with E-Church.

Anonymous! wrote:

With my family origin (Ireland) and nutritional history (carbohydrate craver) he immediately realized that I had a metabolic flaw in the methylation cycle, which subsequently has been confirmed through genetic testing (thanks, 23 & Me!). For me, this manifests as an inability to process alcohol; half a can of beer gives me a hangover, so I don’t drink, at all but have a deep love for carbs.

I would put money on my family, at least some of it, carrying this too. Being half-Irish & having alcoholics on both sides of the family a few of us siblings are very fond of carbs in the form of sugar, normally encased in chocolate. A lot of children of alcoholics seem to have this. It’s the nearest I come to getting inside addiction & I choose not to drink in case I discover a need for it. I drank as a teenager but had none of the knocks & losses I carry now that might mean I like it in a whole different way.

JJ wrote:

To this day I still reject their claim that I am an alcoholic. I know myself better than strangers did. I was binge drinking and knew why.

It doesn’t sound to me that you had the true dependency on alcohol that I associate with alcoholism, but that you self-medicate sometimes…like many drinkers. There are definitely different types of problem drinking & different reasons for it, just like over-eating or eating rubbish food when good food is available or a thousand different things. I remember reading about one guy that said going to AA taught him he wasn’t an alcoholic, when confronted with the real thing he knew he didn’t qualify.It sounds as though the context you’re in a labels all/most drinking as problem drinking, whereas I feel that’s extreme.