Ava Aaronson: more loving

“I came to the faith knowing that the God who created the universe loved me.”

Yes.

Thank you Dee for highlighting this debate. I have long found the work of Scott McNight and NT Wright a helpful antidote to the dogmatic but often extra-biblical/unbiblical noise which emanates from TGC, T4G, 9-Marks, McArthur et al, but had not come across Matthew Bates before. I now intend to read some of his work beyond the current articles.

This from Bates’ article was music to my ears (the gospelly boys called out on the basis of strong biblical evidence for being ungospelly!):

‘What John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, and others associated with T4G (“Together for the Gospel”) and TGC (“The Gospel Coalition”) have been asserting to be the heart of the gospel is not even part of the gospel in Scripture.’

The take away message for the gospelly boys and those that blindly follow them is that what they call the gospel ain’t necessarily so just because they say it is. And using ‘gospel’ as their club’s approved prefix for everything under the sun may win them approval from their fellow gospel club members, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they know and understand the biblical gospel. They pride themselves on their correctness but often are more concerned with the projection of their approved frameworks of belief onto scripture, than concerned to start with scripture and work outward to life and belief.

Bates, McKinght, NT Wright are in this case urging us to look beyond received ‘gospel’ terminology and systems of belief and back at scripture to see what it really says the gospel is. Incidentally, that is how the reformation started, with Erasmus emphasising the opening up of Scripture in the mother tongue so that as the meaning became plainer, the received systems of belief in the then Church could be re-examined, inevitably resulting in reform to realign with scripture.

The focus of Erasmus’ work was to ‘let scripture loose to do its work’ (see his ‘On the Freedom of the Will’). Ironically the focus of the current reformed/gospelly tribe is to release book after book emphasising the ‘correct’ (according to them) terminology and systems of belief to project onto scripture.

Will some of the gospelly boys be brave enough to re-examine scripture, re-align their beliefs (and lives) to scripture and risk the wrath of their ‘gospel’ tribe? Let’s hope so.

(Sorry for the long comment btw)

Yeah, they can claim Jesus’ Kingship all they want, but I won’t believe it until they actually TALK about Jesus on a regular basis. They don’t. They talk about God and themselves.

Besides, I’ve heard more than one of them talk about how Jesus isn’t really important and “just” a sacrifice part of God’s plan. So I know not all of them believe this. They know that people are starting to notice their theological inconsistencies and are now trying to cover them up.

I think the real reason they don’t define any of these words is because their basic theology is wrapped up in the belief that they themselves are what’s really special and them being in those churches makes them more gospelly (laughed at that Ava!). Some of their young ones are true believers, but I don’t think many of these leaders are.

Many of them really can dumb down their beliefs to “God said I was special; if you want to be saved, you have to do what I say; if you ask questions you will never be saved; the end.”

It never fails to amaze me how people can create debate over something as simple as “God loves me just as I am.”

Evidence, once again, that New Calvinism preaches another gospel which is not ‘the’ Gospel at all. These are the men Scripture warned us about.

“There are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ … If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:7-9)

This is serious stuff! The T4G boys need to repent and get it right … or else!

“We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many Churches and among many who claim the name of Christ.”
++++++++

shameless use of aliteration… shameless, i say.

(i think they just didn’t know better. unless they really were trying to sound like Mother Goose after all.)

Gus,

Oh no. The auto correct did this to me and I was too tired to notice it. Thank you!!!

“utilizing the word *gospel* to describe themselves”

When the New Calvinist movement first came on my radar, the new reformers were tossing “gospel-centered” around for everything … gospel-centered books, gospel-centered missions, gospel-centered teaching, gospel-centered coffee, etc. I quickly learned that Gospel = Calvinism to this bunch, where reformed doctrine supersedes the Gospel of Christ, where the 5-points of reformed theology trump salvation through Jesus.

The New Calvinists have done a fine job of deleting a Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture by filtering everything through their reformed tenets of faith. The (distorted) writings of Paul are more important to them than the words of Jesus! They preach/teach primarily from the epistles – circling around a handful of misinterpreted passages – while largely ignoring the Gospels and the words in red.

New Calvinism essentially preaches that the essence of Christianity is found in their doctrinal propositions ‘about’ grace rather than a direct experience ‘of’ Grace, a personal encounter with Christ. Indeed, the new reformers mistrust anyone who professes a personal relationship with Jesus … they just don’t get it! Sadly, a great multitude within Generations X, Y, and Z have been deceived by their aberrations of faith.

elastigirl: (i think they just didn’t know better. unless they really were trying to sound like Mother Goose after all.)

The first time I read this sentence I thought I saw….”Mohler Goose”. My mind and eyesight are fuzzy lately.

Sarah: For a book titled The Explicit Gospel, I found essentially no gospel in it, but a whole lot of what I have learned through this blog is NeoCalvinist doctrine instead.

That was Matt Chandler’s objective. To him, NeoCalvinist doctrine = Gospel. His intent with that book was to indoctrinate rather than evangelize. There is no preaching of the Cross of Christ for ALL people in the New Calvinist camp … that is the explicit truth.

The pastor of the church I used to go to constantly retweets stuff from TGC men. His sermons (which I listen to online, reluctantly, when my husband does) seem canned, complete with fake laughs, as if he’s reading from a script. So much of it seems to be a regurgitation of the Gospel Coalition party line instead of coming from real interaction with Jesus Christ. I’m thankful that McKnight and Bates are speaking up. Maybe TGC will eventually wither up and die, but the true Gospel will live forever.

“Compromise of the Gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements, and the weakening of the Church’s Gospel witness.

We(men) believe that the answer to this confusion and compromise lies in a comprehensive recovery and reaffirmation of the Gospel – and in Christians banding together in Gospel Churches that display God’s glory in this fallen world.

We(men) stand together for the Gospel – and for a full and gladdening recovery of the Gospel in the Church. We are convinced that such a recovery will be evident in the form of faithful Gospel Churches, each bearing faithful witness to the glory of God and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” –T4G
++++++++++++++++++++++

so, their thesis statements sound like nursery rhymes….

as for subject matter: ha… i’m sure they have no idea, but they just retold the story of chicken little (casting themselves in the starring role as ‘chicken little’)

although never reaching climax.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.” Rom Now1:16

“But if, in fact, our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. Regarding them: the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Cor 4:3-4

“Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. You are also saved by it….For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” 1 Cor 15:1-4

It seems to me that salvation is intrinsic to the gospel.

It’s true that TGC has its problems, and that one of them is tying the word “gospel” to too many things, but I don’t think they’re wrong to emphasize the salvific aspect of the gospel.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): And the “purchaser” is still on the hook, always. These “salesmen” make sure the sale is never quite final, and the interest rates are astronomical!

BINGO

Jeff B,

Read Romans closely and notice every instance in which “wrath” is mentioned. You’ll find that for Paul, in Romans, “wrath” is “under the Sun”, much as it is in the OT. This is a very different conception of “wrath” than what underlies the T4G or GC conceptions of “salvation.”

Oldster: The pastor of the church I used to go to constantly retweets stuff from TGC men.

Oh yeah, that’s quite common in the New Calvinist world. It’s a way of telling the tribe “I’m one of you.” They jump out of bed every morning to search for tweets from their masters … Piper Points, Mohler Moments, Dever Drivel, etc. are then retweeted through cyberspace to the dudebros.

Oldster: His sermons (which I listen to online, reluctantly, when my husband does) seem canned, complete with fake laughs, as if he’s reading from a script. So much of it seems to be a regurgitation of the Gospel Coalition party line instead of coming from real interaction with Jesus Christ.

Borrowing sermons from one another is also quite common. The young reformers have no spiritual minds of their own; they look to the New Calvinist elite for sermon queues. Yep, “regurgitation” is the right word … the stuff they espouse is mindless repetition of information without analysis or comprehension. They are not true pastors/preachers at all.

“We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many Churches and among many who claim the name of Christ.”

Oh, what would God do without these brave men who have come to steady the Ark of God so it doesn’t fall into the ditch? Surely the gospel and faith in God would cease to exist without them!

And yet, we read in 1John, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” It is actually quite simple and accessible to anyone, no “gospel” organizations or leaders needed, just a simple faith within your own private heart.

I recommend the whole book of 1John as an antidote to all this rubbish these men are preaching. They see the gospel as a political kingdom to be administered here on earth and they want to be the ones in control of it, in the toll position. They want to subject believers to their fraudulent authority. But “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8. God is not constrained by them or their ideas, wishes or will.

Bridget,

No, and I should have. I have now. The two points of view seem to be so close that it might be an example of hair-splitting, though I could be wrong about that.

Jeff B,

Romans 12:19

This makes no sense if Paul understands “the wrath of God” to refer to post-mortem punishments. There is no conceivable way that Paul’s readers, living humans, could displace post-mortem punishments by taking vengeance in the here and now. The wrath that they are leaving room for, God’s wrath, is likewise here and now, “under the Sun.”

Romans 13:4

It cannot be seriously proposed that the civil magistrates, entrusted with “the sword” to maintain order in the here and now, can be thought of as agents of post-mortem wrath. They inflict wrath here and now, that is, “under the Sun”.

FInally, the prime example is Romans 1, where Paul writes of the revelation from heaven of God’s wrath. But the following explication is clearly under the sun — idolators have their understanding darkened and are given over to disordered living and its consequences in their own bodies, ultimately terminating in bodily death. There is no hint of post-mortem punishments. The revelation of the wrath is “under the sun”.

Jeffrey Chalmers: True Grace says NOTHING we do merits True Grace……

And yet (my opinion) what we do matters very much.

Friend: Again I feel like a visitor from an ancient civilization, where seminarians graduate from rigorous academic programs knowing how to write and preach sermons, and congregations expect original insight every single time.

If our clergyfolk asked to hire a staff writer, I think we’d call the men with the butterfly nets.

I can say that during the takeover, at least, the idea of using someone else’s sermon was very strongly advised against. But the preaching professor was near retirement and I don’t know who Akin put in there.

Lifeway actually has a huge free sermon databank on their website with fully written sermons. I would have thought they would have charged for something like that, but everything is free. The couple I read have the theology but are not real appealing.

The end justifies the means is one of the core tenets of New Calvinism, even if they’ve stopped talking about that on TGC (you can still find it, though). If they have no problem taking over a church by force and tricking members into signing legal contracts they think will not allow members to leave, stealing sermons seems minor in comparison.

Samuel Conner:
Jeff B,

Romans 12:19

This makes no sense if Paul understands “the wrath of God” to refer to post-mortem punishments. There is no conceivable way that Paul’s readers, living humans, could displace post-mortem punishments by taking vengeance in the here and now. The wrath that they are leaving room for, God’s wrath, is likewise here and now, “under the Sun.”

Romans 13:4

It cannot be seriously proposed that the civil magistrates, entrusted with “the sword” to maintain order in the here and now, can be thought of as agents of post-mortem wrath. They inflict wrath here and now, that is, “under the Sun”.

FInally, the prime example is Romans 1, where Paul writes of the revelation from heaven of God’s wrath. But the following explication is clearly under the sun — idolators have their understanding darkened and are given over to disordered living and its consequences in their own bodies, ultimately terminating in bodily death. There is no hint of post-mortem punishments. The revelation of the wrath is “under the sun”.

It’s both pre-mortem and post-mortem punishments. Paul talks about everlasting punishment and everlasting reward in Romans 2. He references salvation from the “wrath to come” in 1 Thessalonians.

Dee,

Here’s a question for you:

Without justifying the 9Marks model—and I think it is flawed in many, many ways—don’t you think that a driver of the problem is that they are responding to an utter lack of church discipline in the evangelical world, especially the SBC/evangelical megachurch world? It is quite easy to be living in sin, for example, not seeking repentance at all, and come to the Lord’s Supper. I’ve been to many megachurches. It’s impossible to provide any kind of spiritual oversight to groups that large, and the megachurch is the goal of so much evangelicalism. I’ve been to evangelical churches where you had people who were living with their boyfriend or girlfriend in leadership roles and members in similar situations receiving the sacrament.

It’s easy in American evangelicalism to cheat on your spouse, get a divorce, get remarried and then just switch churches, no questions asked. I could go on.

I think the 9Marks and T4G discipline stuff is born of this reality. Sadly, they aren’t consistent, and people like Mahaney go undisciplined because of friendship and other issues. But they’re trying to respond to a problem that many evangelicals don’t even acknowledged.

You do have to have discipline for a church to be a church. But since we’re still sinners, the discipline is always going to be imperfect, and we should always be striving to make it more loving and more consistent. I don’t think you are advocating for no discipline, but sometimes it’s not clear to me what your position on church discipline actually is.

Robert: Paul talks about everlasting punishment and everlasting reward in Romans 2

Actually, this is only half-right, or quarter-right.

Paul does not apply the adjective “aionion”, which is commonly (but perhaps wrongly) translated “everlasting” or “eternal”, to “wrath” in Romans 2. He does apply that adjective to “zoe”/”life” in the text in question.

The distinction Paul seems to be making is between those who have a share in the life of the Age to Come (the “aion”), who will be granted resurrection, and those who will not, who will simply remain in “the grave.” The wicked will die bodily on the day of wrath and simply remain dead. This is a Hebrew conception, which should not be surprising, Paul being a “Hebrew of Hebrews”.

It is not hard to interpret “post-mortem” punishments in the wrath language one encounters in Romans, but I think those interpretations are imported from elsewhere. Romans on its own terms is strongly “here and now” with respect to punishments.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer described New Calvinism’s version of grace perfectly when he said:

“Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

With more emphasis on Calvin than Christ, the new reformers create disciples of reformed theology not Jesus. The frenzy of church planting in their ranks is more about planting theology than Gospel churches.

Without a preaching of the Cross of Christ and its saving power, true Grace cannot flow. New Calvinists DO NOT preach the Cross.

When New Calvinist icons get more sermon time than Jesus, God ain’t in the house. Jesus is seldom mentioned … Jesus!!

Without Jesus, dead religion prevails not the Living Christ; doctrinal propositions ‘about’ grace is a poor substitute for a direct experience ‘of’ Grace, a personal encounter with Jesus.

Cheap grace, nothing more.

Samuel Conner: It would probably be a good thing if the churches were to imitate God in holding the teachers to a higher standard (“judging more strictly”) than the taught. Until they do that, one may be justified in reckoning that the principal function of the 9M discipline emphasis is simply “control of the flock.”

Indeed! Until the pew turns the tables on the pulpit and calls aberrant preachers into account (as is greatly needed in New Calvinism), then the laity remains subject to manipulation, intimidation and domination by the clergy. Rebuke and correction of the pulpit is darn near impossible in New Calvinist church governance where “lead pastor” and his yes-men band of elders are in complete control. This is a system where those who need to be disciplined for exercising illegitimate authority over God’s people cannot be touched … IMO, that was a key consideration when launching 9Marks – protection of the new reformers from the reach of their congregations.

Max: Indeed! Until the pew turns the tables on the pulpit and calls aberrant preachers into account (as is greatly needed in New Calvinism), then the laity remains subject to manipulation, intimidation and domination by the clergy.

Wasn’t that one of the original Reformers’ major beefs about Romish Popery?
Heresy of Clericalism and Priestly Caste System?

Jeffrey Chalmers: We could all go on and on, like YRR do, and just about ever other Christian sect that claims it has “ recovered true Christianity”

The Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Moonies, the COGs, People’s Temple…

Samuel Conner,

Okay, I see your point, but I don’t think it applies to certain verses in Romans, such as 2:5, 2:8, 5:9, and 9:22.

Paul K: New Calvinists are obsessed with power, who has it and who doesn’t. It’s why hierarchy, church discipline, and gender roles are inextricable aspects of their gospel. In authority and submission is their salvation

That’s it! Without authority and submission, they are not saved. Without jots and tittles of law, they have no spiritual life. Without the preaching of the Cross of Christ, they have no salvation. Sadly, their striving for power is in vain.

Paul K,

Interesting thesis….. I have noticed “personality traits” that seem to be drawn to not just the YRR leaders, but to fundamentalist culture that I grew up with….. they like nice, neat little boxes for “everything” to fit into…. and they resort to their favorite guru to have the “answer”…

one of the “worst things” I could say when debating a particular “issue” with them is that I would say the issue is “gray” or beyond our human understanding… I was clearly, to them, either: compromised, carnel, ignorant, uniformed, or, just a plan fallen-away one….

Robert: I’ve been to evangelical churches where you had people who were living with their boyfriend or girlfriend in leadership roles and members in similar situations receiving the sacrament.

Why is that (bf and gf living together) such an egregious ‘sin’?

Jeffrey Chalmers: they like nice, neat little boxes for “everything” to fit into … and they resort to their favorite guru to have the “answer”

To attempt to put the mind of God into a neat systematic box is to stand in arrogance before the Creator.

Jeff B: Romans, such as 2:5, 2:8, 5:9, and 9:22.

If you’re on a device bigger than a phone, you could do everyone a favor by posting those verses.

Friend: No you don’t. My church expects adults to be competent. If we want counseling from pastors, we can ask for it.

I don’t understand this comment. Counseling and discipline aren’t the same thing. Do your pastors allow impenitent adulterers to take the sacrament? Do they let child abusers work with children? If not, then they are engaging in discipline.

Headless Unicorn Guy: And reacting by going Full Honk in the Opposite direction.

“The Devil sends sins in matched opposing pairs, so in fleeing one we embrace the other.”
— attr to C.S.Lewis

Sadly, it is a human tendency. So why not make sure you aren’t embracing the opposing problem in arguing against the T4G crowd?

Samuel Conner:
Robert,

It would probably be a good thing if the churches were to imitate God in holding the teachers to a higher standard (“judging more strictly”) than the taught. Until they do that, one may be justified in reckoning that the principal function of the 9M discipline emphasis is simply “control of the flock.”

Agreed. But we’re all sinners. Very few people who go wrong set out saying, “I’m going to develop a theology to control the flock.”

Frankly, the big problem with the 9M model is less the emphasis on discipline and more on the fact that the leaders of each church are functionally accountable to no one. In a true congregational model, the congregation can oust the leaders. In a presbyterian model, higher courts can act. In both systems, it doesn’t always happen where it should. But at least it is possible. It’s not possible in elder-led models that have no higher court of appeal.

ishy,

It’s a good point. There is a resemblance to traditional (Westminster style) Reformed ecclesiology in that “teaching elders” (“gospel ministers”) are not considered part (“members”) of the local congregation. Of course, in “Paleo-Cal”-ism, the TEs are part of the regional presbytery, to which they are accountable and which can subject them to discipline. It doesn’t always work as intended, but it is better than no accountability at all.

Neo-Cals generally don’t have that supracongregational accountability mechanism.

It’s as though they have picked the bits that enhance their power, and left out the bits that restrain their power.

Muff Potter: Why is that (bf and gf living together) such an egregious ‘sin’?

Fornication. See 1 Cor. 6.

Paul K: If “discipline” means confronting particular types of sins (I’d argue sins like adultery, abuse, etc…), then I think “discipline” is necessary in a church.

Why? If my husband breaks my heart by having an affair, how is that automatically the business of the church? And if he abuses me, shouldn’t I just call 9-1-1? In both cases, what would the church do, besides try to force a reconciliation?

From my daily devotion, a passage I call “God will send a Prophet to save the land from destruction at God’s hand.” I guess John MacArthur is wrong about prophecy and prophets if they are that vital to the end times.

“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,’ says the Lord Almighty.
Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.’”

About 25 years into my time as an Evangelical, in my mid-40s and having lived more of life, the “gospel” of penal substitutionary atonement (God loves you – but really, he hates you because of your sin, and you have to die – but wait! Jesus took that punishment for you on the cross – so make a mental contract with him and all is good!) and the theology dependent on it became less coherent for me. That parenthetical note is caricature, I know, but based on the actual messages I was given. By that time I had some stiff questions. So I went to Scripture seeking answers from the text.

What I found was:

1) In the Gospels, Jesus’ announcement of Good News was “The Kingdom of God is where I am” – which is connected to the passage in Isaiah: “How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings Good News, announcing peace – proclaiming Good News: our God reigns.” So it is indeed about Jesus reigning as God and King. The rest of the Gospels talk about how he comes into his Kingdom (the Cross) and lays the ground for discussion of what that means.

2) In the book of Acts, when the first Christians go about announcing their good news, what is the point of their preaching? In every case save that of Stephen, who was doing something else with his speech, the high point of every single sermon was the announcement of Jesus’ Resurrection. On hearing this, people either said, “Tell us more!” or a riot broke out. So the Resurrection is also of utmost importance. In all of Paul’s letters, the Cross and the Resurrection are always mentioned in near proximity in the text.

This discovery led me down a several years-long path of further Scripture study and study of Church history and early Christian interpretation of Scripture (with much help from Protestant N.T. Wright), to something completely unexpected and out of left field: Eastern Orthodoxy. Which has such a different view of God: He is truly good and loves mankind, always working to bring people to himself – and one of his hands isn’t tied behind his back because of our sin. We don’t have to live in (the wrong kind of) fear of God – waiting for some kind of other shoe to drop. In addition, there is a much higher view of what it means to be human – why our sin is so destructive, and why the power of death had to be demolished. (See Heb 2.) The theology is a seamless, coherent whole, with Jesus and his incarnation, death and resurrection at the center – the Starting Point and lens through which everything is seen.

I know Dee has reasons for saying her family were not Christian. I think also in play is that they were ignorant (for whatever reasons) of the profound depth of Christianity that was their patrimony – not only the things that were behind the cultural expressions, but so very much more. I’m glad she has found a home in a liturgical church 🙂 I understand very well why Martin Luther was so keen on “assurance”. One thing about which I have come to confident assurance is that God is much more merciful than we permit ourselves to believe.

D.

elastigirl: “We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel Church.”

1) Gee, I wonder why that isn’t in the Nicene Creed?

2) That sounds amazingly communistic, and I’m not even kidding.

ishy,

Yes, they are selected more carefully. At least that’s the goal. Getting ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America, for example, is an arduous process. Although a lot of the new Calvinist Baptists do have some theological education, in Baptist circles anyone can get ordained. There aren’t a lot of hoops to jump through.

The process doesn’t work perfectly. And there are parallels in the Lutheran Church and other denominations. But it’s something.

Friend,

I’m referring to situations in which someone in the church is revealed to be having an affair or abusing someone and expects to continue as normal in the life of the church while continuing the relationship or abuse. I’ve heard of stories like this. It would be odd for church leadership to not confront sins like these. If the person’s exposed, keeps doing it, and leaves the church – I’d say let them go. Pursuing people for discipline after they’ve left is the really weird part.

Friend,

Okay.

Rom 2:5 – “But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.”

Rom 2:6-8 – He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth, but are obeying unrighteousness;”

Rom 5:9 – “Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.”

Rom 9:22 – “And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?”

Robert: Athanasius—present at Nicea—and others have no category for professing Christians who are able to join the church (by baptism) and yet refuse to.

… The point of church discipline is protection for innocent parties, assistance to those stuck in grievous sin, and the holiness of the church. … Otherwise, the church is just an ordinary social club, not the bride of Christ.

Some Christians, such as Quakers, do not have the sacrament of baptism. And I would disagree that Christians are required to have lifelong membership in the church. Many folks at TWW are Christians who left church after spiritual abuse, and you’re implying that such folk are not Christian (therefore what? destined to burn for all eternity?).

Regarding a straying husband, not all affairs are with the wife’s mother (ew). I would be mad as a wet hen, but would not want my husband to be excommunicated pending repentance. My own hope would be to assess the situation in maximal privacy and focus on the infidelity alone. It would be awfully hard to stay in a church where everybody knew we had patched things up.

In the case of abuse, the victim should be able to request and receive support from the church. Unfortunately many churches tend not to believe wives.

I’m not sure the “holiness of the church” is the same as the holy private behavior of every member, with all obliged to belong and attend for life. That gives the church too much power, and takes away the free will of the Christian.

Jeff B,

Thank you very much. That’s helpful. 🙂

Paul K:
Friend,

I’m referring to situations in which someone in the church is revealed to be having an affair or abusing someone and expects to continue as normal in the life of the church while continuing the relationship or abuse. I’ve heard of stories like this. It would be odd for church leadership to not confront sins like these.If the person’s exposed, keeps doing it, and leaves the church – I’d say let them go.Pursuing people for discipline after they’ve left is the really weird part.

I partially agree, but would empower the victim/survivor to say, “I don’t feel safe with my spouse in the building.”

Regarding the difference between the church and the world, or between the church and a social club: the church should be feeding the hungry, clothing the unclad, and caring for widows and orphans. Teach kids and adults to read. Build houses for the homeless. Teach a man to fish. All of a sudden there’s something to do besides talk about Mrs. Smith’s sorrow over Mr. Smith’s roving eye.

Friend,

I’m saying that a person who never returns to church except in the most extraordinary circumstances has no good reason to believe that he or she is a Christian. I am hard pressed to think of any place in the United States where it would be completely impossible to find a decent church.

In a church that did this right, the only people that would know about it are the church elders in the case of repentance, if it were more or less immediate. In fact, I’m not sure you wouldn’t even have to talk to the elders if the offending spouse were to repent immediately and you all were to work things out. Official discipline is more for things like public sins.

Both Jesus and Paul specifically command church discipline. If we say, “well, I don’t want my church to discipline people,” then our problem is with the Savior and His Apostles.

As far as holiness, you can’t divorce the holiness of the whole from the holiness of the individuals. That’s why there is discipline for public, grievous sins. But this must be coupled with the love that covers a multitude of sins. Not all sins are worthy of discipline. Some in the 9Marks crowd go overboard and discipline sins that shouldn’t be disciplined or in disciplining things that aren’t sins at all. I would venture that they are the distinct minority. In most of the church, nobody is disciplined for stuff that should be disciplined.

Robert: The people who wrote the Nicene Creed and most Christians throughout history have affirmed that it is impossible to be a Christian…able to join the church (by baptism) and yet refuse to.

Friend: Some Christians, such as Quakers, do not have the sacrament of baptism.

Charles Spurgeon,”The Common Salvation”

“truly spiritual people…are all one in Christ Jesus and their salvation is in all respects the same…You shall take a high churchman who is a truly spiritual man—and there are such people—and you shall set him down side by side with the most rigid member of the Society of Friends and when they begin to talk of Jesus, of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul and the desire of their hearts after God, you will hardly know which is which! The nearer we come to Him, who is the salvation of God, the more plainly we see that among the children of God the basis of agreement is far wider than the ground of division.”

“Does the Father smile on all His children and do we frown on half of them?…the last thing I should attempt would be to wall in my own special company and say, ‘The temple of the Lord are we’. I would not wish to set a fence round about the baptized, and say, ‘These are the church of Christ, even as many as have been immersed in water that they may be buried into His death’. Beloved brothers and sisters, our Lord has a people that are on other points as right as right can be, who on the point of baptism are as wrong as wrong can be! But, for all that, they are His people, and in other respects are sound in the faith and valiant for the Lord our God…there is a common salvation enjoyed by the Arminian as well as by the Calvinist, possessed by the Presbyterian as well as by the Episcopalian, prized by the Quaker as well as by the Baptist. Those who are in Christ are more near of kin than they know, and their intense unity in deep essential truths of God is a greater force than most of them imagine—only give it scope and it will work wonders. As for us, let us not be among the men of whom Jude says, ‘These are they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit’.”

Robert: Fornication. See 1 Cor. 6.

The context (who it was written to and what it elucidates) is pagan temple prostitution.
I no longer believe it’s a ban on all forms of human sexuality apart from marriage.
I’m also convinced that it can be evaluated on a case by case basis, and not just an across the board prohibition for all times and all places.

Robert,

“Because the whole point of the church is to provide accountability and, in your case if this example were true, protection. …

The hoped for result for both of you, depending on the abuse (in this case hypothetical) and your husband’s response is a better relationship or your having assurance to divorce with a clean conscience.”
++++++++++++++

frankly, the last thing i would want would be for church leaders, because they are church leaders, to interfere in my private business. why do church leaders automatically get to be the middleman in very private matters? yuck.

in such a hypothetical situation, if we thought church leaders were well-suited for the task, we would call on them for accountability measures.

i am perfectly capable of finding and choosing my own accountability, as is my husband.
———————

“In the case of physical abuse, a good church would…tell your husband that he was most likely going to hell until he repented …”
++++++++++

really? how do you know?

what’s the sliding scale for ‘most likely going to hell’?

what about how about lying, deceiving, fraud? how about destroying someone’s life (career, social life, etc) by blackballing in the community through church discipline?

i imagine gluttony is not on the list. 😐

abuse is deplorable. but i truly don’t think any of us humans are able to make such a declaration.

Jerome,

Well, I’ll be. Spurgeon and I agree on something. Except that Quakers are not Trinitarians; they believe in the Inner Light, based on John 1:9, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”

I will not be ordering the “Spurgeon is my Homeboy” t-shirt, though. 😉

Paul K: Has anyone read Erich Fromm’s “Escape from Freedom”? I’m about 2/3 through it. His analysis is that the positive aspects (increased freedom for the individual) of the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of Capitalism and Democracy also gave rise in humankind to increased feelings of anxiety, insignificance, and powerlessness. For people with authoritarian characters (or traits), an escape from these feelings is sought by losing one’s individuality in complete submission to a totalitarian authority be that a dictator, fate, or one’s concept of God. Fromm believes Calvin’s concept of God was an attempt by him to assuage deep feelings of anxiety and insignificance by losing himself in complete submission to God as a personification of fate.

This makes a lot of sense but I would argue that this trait of temperament predates the reformation and goes back to the beginning of the human race. Some people are not comfortable with freedom and seek authoritarianism.

Muff Potter: Robert: I’ve been to evangelical churches where you had people who were living with their boyfriend or girlfriend in leadership roles and members in similar situations receiving the sacrament.

Why is that (bf and gf living together) such an egregious ‘sin’?

And, secondly, what is that to Robert? Does his relationship with God depend on theirs? Take the plank out of your own eye, those who think like Robert, and you follow Christ. You can only control your own relationship with God. And be careful of praying, “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not like other men.”

I am quite content with the red letter portion of scripture.

Robert,

“I am hard pressed to think of any place in the United States where it would be completely impossible to find a decent church.”
+++++++++++++

you’re getting a lot of response on your comment here.

why not one more! :|)

sure, there are decent churches. this is what will happen:

i will hyperventilate

panic

the music, which i loathe, is so invasive it will worm its way into me and be playing my head all day

the sermon will be too long, boring, and i won’t remember a darn thing

i’ll be pressured to join 1 if not 2 groups. the material we study will be either totally stupid or calculated propaganda

it will expressly NOT be time well spent.
——

i’ll be pressured to volunteer elsewhere, with a variety of manipulation and guilt tactics.

i’m a woman, so more often than not i will be denied eye contact, ignored. i will be invisible.

the time and energy spent are eaten up by the church machine, to keep it running.

in the end, church will expect more and more of my time and energy, to feed the perpetually hungry church machine. **not to do anything for the city, nothing for the community outside the church, but all for the church itself**

there will be no time or energy for my neighbors, my neighborhood, my family, my extended family, my community…

the church will claim it all for itself. to build itself up. to make itself look good. to make it as marketable as possible.

and to keep me so connected to itself and so busy i won’t have the presence of mind to rethink it all. to prevent me from speaking up, and to keep me from leaving.

it will be a toxic, life-taking experience
———-

and on the last day of my life, i will look back and say,

“I did it! i went to church! therefore i’m a christian! i checked all the right boxes!

i was miserable, had difficulty breathing, felt panic every week, lived a life of pretend happiness, had no time for anyone or anything except church…

but i did it!”
——

i have much higher hopes for my life. for me, my family, my friends, and to leave the world a cleaner, safer, more peaceful and healed place.

elastigirl,

I failed to say thank you for encapsulating what many of us on TWW have experienced in the counterfeit church in America … the places that Robert calls “decent”, which can be found throughout the United States.

elastigirl,

Seriously elastigirl, and I don’t mean to sound pat, cliche-ish, or trite, because I respect you’re feelings. But Lutheranism isn’t anything like what you’ve described.
I’ve been giving serious thought as of late to going back to Lutheranism (ELCA, the liberal wing).

SiteSeer: Well, you got that wrong. And who set you up as the judge?

Please show me in the New Testament where the Apostles think it is ordinarily possible to be a Christian and not be in the church. Sure there are exceptions. John on Patmos.

SiteSeer: And, secondly, what is that to Robert? Does his relationship with God depend on theirs? Take the plank out of your own eye, those who think like Robert, and you follow Christ. You can only control your own relationship with God. And be careful of praying, “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not like other men.”

Sorry, but that’s not it at all. I’m a sinner just like everyone else. But Paul expressly says that public impenitent sin harms all believers, not just the individual sinner. Cleanse out the leaven he says in 1 Cor. 5 lest it ruin the whole bunch. You don’t do this quickly or haphazardly, but you do it.

It’s ironic you are getting upset at this on a blog that rails against the church (rightly so) for tolerating public, grievous sinners such as Tullian, Feltner, et al. Is kicking them out saying, “I thank God I’m not like you.”

The church is a collective body. We should all be concerned for the holiness of one another. The Apostles certainly command us to be.

Friend: I partially agree, but would empower the victim/survivor to say, “I don’t feel safe with my spouse in the building.”

Regarding the difference between the church and the world, or between the church and a social club: the church should be feeding the hungry, clothing the unclad, and caring for widows and orphans. Teach kids and adults to read. Build houses for the homeless. Teach a man to fish. All of a sudden there’s something to do besides talk about Mrs. Smith’s sorrow over Mr. Smith’s roving eye.

Sure the church should be doing all that. But you don’t have to be a church or even a Christian to be doing all of that. In fact, non-church organizations often do a much better job of such things. That stuff is good and important, but the primary mission of the church is to do what only the church can do—preach the word, administer sacraments, administer proper discipline.

Muff Potter: The context (who it was written to and what it elucidates) is pagan temple prostitution.
I no longer believe it’s a ban on all forms of human sexuality apart from marriage.
I’m also convinced that it can be evaluated on a case by case basis, and not just an across the board prohibition for all times and all places.

This isn’t quite right. There were pagan temple prostitutes in Corinth of course, but the list of sins involves things that are quite possible apart from such contexts and, indeed, are condemned in other contexts as sin.

We know what the first century Jewish sexual ethic was and we also know that Jesus and Paul and the other Apostles would sanction extramarital sexual activity would make them non-Jewish. In fact, from what we have in the NT, Jesus and the Apostles were even stricter on this matter than the Jews of their day.

So yes, the people “living in sin,” as it were, are in grave, grave danger. So says the Bible. So says the church universal until the 1960s or so.

elastigirl:
Robert,

“I am hard pressed to think of any place in the United States where it would be completely impossible to find a decent church.”
+++++++++++++

you’re getting a lot of response on your comment here.

why not one more! :|)

sure, there are decent churches.this is what will happen:

i will hyperventilate

panic

the music, which i loathe, is so invasive it will worm its way into me and be playing my head all day

the sermon will be too long, boring, and i won’t remember a darn thing

i’ll be pressured to join 1 if not 2 groups.the material we study will be either totally stupid or calculated propaganda

it will expressly NOT be time well spent.
——

i’ll be pressured to volunteer elsewhere, with a variety of manipulation and guilt tactics.

i’m a woman, so more often than not i will be denied eye contact, ignored.i will be invisible.

the time and energy spent are eaten up by the church machine, to keep it running.

in the end, church will expect more and more of my time and energy, to feed the perpetually hungry church machine.**not to do anything for the city, nothing for the community outside the church, but all for the church itself**

there will be no time or energy for my neighbors, my neighborhood, my family, my extended family, my community…

the church will claim it all for itself.to build itself up.to make itself look good.to make it as marketable as possible.

and to keep me so connected to itself and so busy i won’t have the presence of mind to rethink it all.to prevent me from speaking up, and to keep me from leaving.

it will be a toxic, life-taking experience
———-

and on the last day of my life, i will look back and say,

“I did it!i went to church!therefore i’m a christian!i checked all the right boxes!

i was miserable, had difficulty breathing, felt panic every week, lived a life of pretend happiness, had no time for anyone or anything except church…

but i did it!”
——

i have much higher hopes for my life.for me, my family, my friends, and to leave the world a cleaner, safer, more peaceful and healed place.

I don’t know what happened to you and I’m sorry for it. I hope that you are in good, ongoing counseling for it and pray that you find some release. But just to be clear on two points.

1. Joining a church doesn’t make you a Christian. I had a pastor who said, “sitting in the church on Sunday makes you a Christian just as much as sitting in your garage makes you a car.”
2. A church that demands all of your time isn’t healthy or godly. It’s more like a cult. Run away fast.

Paul K: Fromm believes Calvin’s concept of God was an attempt by him to assuage deep feelings of anxiety and insignificance by losing himself in complete submission to God as a personification of fate.

I wonder if this was also true of Mohammed?

It is said that “Calvin Islamized the Reformation”, and “complete submission to God as personification of Fate” is also a major characteristic of Islam (whose name means “Submission”).

Paul K: This is why the New Calvinists are obsessed with power, who has it and who doesn’t.

“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort

dee: there are many people who think they are not living in sin yet they are. A former pastor calls it *cooking the books.*

Thanks for all of your responses on this topic today. Very helpful.

If churches had half a brain, they would welcome and love young adults and let them see healthy marriages in a Christian community. Instead, many churches rail pointlessly against things like women’s employment, and then wonder why nobody wants to get married in church.

Robert,

“When you read the early church fathers, they are insistent that the church is a formal organization and that membership in the church is necessary for salvation…”

“…Because it is assumed that you can’t be a Christian without being in the church.”

It’s not an absolute thing…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. “membership in the church is necessary for salvation” — that sounds absolute.

Then you say, “It’s not an absolute thing.”
—-

tell you what:

this is a perfect example of what i have heard professional christians say my entire life.

they frame something in absolute terms. as a persuasion tool. i could argue as a manipulation tool. to persuade people by scaring them into it.

then, when a person actually thinks things through (what a concept, ‘actually thinking things through‘), they realize there are too many things that don’t fit into the ‘absolute black-&-white’ premise.

in fact, the person realizes that not even the professional christian lives according to this ‘absolute black-&-white’ premise.

and the person challenges the professional christian.

they point out that the inference and implication of the professional’s ‘absolute black-&-white’ premise (indeed, the only logical conclusion) is that going against it / doing the contrary means your eternal destiny will be hell, not heaven.

at which point, the professional christian manages to somehow argue that yes, it’s absolute, but not always, but yes, it’s absolute. in order to be a christian you have to do this, but not always, but if you don’t do it you aren’t a christian.
——

it’s like they either haven’t thought through the practical and logical contradictions and impossibilities of what they are say are mandates,

or they are afraid to admit that what they’ve built their faith, career and reputation on is not absolute at all.

they are afraid to confront they might be in error. they are afraid to go against the party line. there is simply too much to lose.

Max: Yep, “regurgitation” is the right word … the stuff they espouse is mindless repetition of information without analysis or comprehension.

“Duckspeak” — Reciting the Party Line without activating any neuron above the brainstem.

Meredithwiggle: I don’t even know how to separate out this theology from Christianity. Penal Substitutionary Atonement WAS the gospel in the church I grew up in. And I’ve turned my back on it, but it feels like turning my back on Christianity.

I went through the same a few years ago. After being called a heretic I did a ton of reading on PSA. I posted quite a few links on the interesting items link on TWW, so you should be able to find them if needed.

Very recently I got into a discussion about this with an old friend who referred me to the gold-standard book on PSA “Pierced for Our Transgressions.” I had avoided reading it until now because I did not want to waste my time and money on it. But I finally broke down and got a copy. I am about half done with it and I am shocked by 1) their incredibly sloppy use of words, 2) their incredibly sloppy use of logic and 3) their deplorable misrepresentation of what early church fathers actually taught. The more I read this book the more it cements my earlier assessment that PSA is false. The authors are either incompetent, blinded by bias, or maliciously deceptive.

GK Chesterton wrote said something along the lines that he became a Christian not because of the great arguments made by Christians, but rather because of the terrible arguments made by atheists. I find a similar dynamic with this book.

elastigirl:
Robert,

“When you read the early church fathers, they are insistent that the church is a formal organization and that membership in the church is necessary for salvation…”

“…Because it is assumed that you can’t be a Christian without being in the church.”

It’s not an absolute thing…”
++++++++++++

1.i thought “christian” was based on Jesus Christ, not on the early-church-fathers.

why does it matter what the early church fathers thought?

The original question to which I was responding was, and I paraphrase, “Why isn’t church membership in the Nicene Creed if it’s so important.” The Nicene Creed was written by the church fathers. That’s why I responded the way I did.

But yes, Christian is based on Jesus. The same Jesus who died for his church and has no category for a follower who is not in a church except in extraordinary circumstances.

dee:
Robert,

Paul’s journeys, Paul in prison, the many, many people who lived in rural areas (Ive seen them) and can not get to a church. They didn’t;’t have cars back then. I’ve seen this with my own eyes. You should take a trip to Greece sometime and see the real situation.

Dee, these are all EXTRAORDINARY circumstances (excuse my yelling, LOL). And sure, people didn’t have cars back then. They also all lived within walking distance of the village church by and large.

All I’m responding to are comments that are saying Jesus gives a special dispensation to people who were hurt by the church that they never, ever have to go back ever again. If you were abused by a pastor and have to stay away for months or years, I get it, I really do.Stay away. But dDon’t think that you can stay away for decades. It’s not good for the abused person. Find a good church where the people are reasonable. Get counseling. Get medication for panic attacks. This isn’t that difficult in most places in this country. A good church will even help you get counseling. I live in central Florida, and there are dozens of churches that have reputable counseling ministries or who will refer you and even help pay for your counseling. I’m not talking about poor nouthetic counseling; I’m talking about good counseling.

I know the dynamics of abuse are complicated, but at some point, the wounded person has to stop assuming that all churches are going to destroy him/her. Because in that case, the wounded person is actually sinning against lots of people by assuming they are out to get him/her. This stuff has to be worked through in counseling. If after 30 years one still has such problems that they can’t ever be in a church without a panic attack, then the problem isn’t the church anymore—it’s the person. He/she needs good counseling, medication, a combination. He/she hasn’t found healing. It’s sad for the wounded person.

I’m not trying to beat up on the victims. I hate what the Tullians and the Feltners and the Mahaneys of the church world have done. I’ve suffered through severe depression myself (not church-abuse related). There were days, months, years I didn’t want to go to church and in fact didn’t ever go. I didn’t want to do anything. Now, by God’s grace, I’m in a good place through the help of past counseling and ongoing medication. What I’m saying is the victims of abuse—for the sake of their own sanity and spiritual and relational health—need to find the counseling/medication solution that allows them to go back.

dee: I bet there are many people who think they are not living in sin yet they are. A former pastor calls it *cooking the books.*In fact, I could well debate that things did not change in the 1096s but it occurred long before that,.I put together a 2 year course on church history which I taught in a couple of churches. Try not to faint that a woman could do it.

I talked about heresies that Aros in the early church and continued throughout the millennia.The 1960s changed very little .

Why would you assume that you would be incapable of teaching a church history class? I imagine you did a great job. You are a good communicator. Oh, and I would happily sit in a Sunday school class taught by a capable woman, so please don’t assume otherwise. Some of the best theology teachers I have ever had have been women.

My point was that the church did not officially approve of such things prior to the sexual revolution. Did they look the other way at times? Sure. Sinners run the church, it’s all we have to run it. But to my knowledge, there wasn’t any church leader or council prior to the 1960s saying that it was just great to engage in fornication. Were there heretical groups? Sure. But the official church, RC, EO, or Protestant? Honest question—do you know of orthodox Christian councils, creeds, theologians who taught that it wasn’t a sin to engage in sex outside of marriage?

Meredithwiggle: I don’t even know how to separate out this theology from Christianity. Penal Substitutionary Atonement WAS the gospel in the church I grew up in. And I’ve turned my back on it, but it feels like turning my back on Christianity.

Meredithwiggle, I’ve been on a similar journey and PSA holds less and less weight in my personal theology. And yes, for a time it did feel like I was leaving Christianity. Feels more now like I’m returning to the heart of God in Christ.

My desire is to follow Christ Jesus, empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit and no longer be a follower of men.

Meredithwiggle: “There aren’t words to describe how horrific and excruciating it is that when Francine {Rivers} is describing what love means, her definition matches that of conservative Christianity’s perfectly. When they say that God loves us, what they mean is that despite all his wrath and fury, he doesn’t murder us where we stand, and we’re supposed to fall down on our faces in worship. “I want to kill you, but I won’t,” is part of the bedrock of evangelical theology, and it’s incorporated into any theological discussion of God’s love. It’s sickening.”

And how do you survive in the Hands of this Always-Angry God?

Become More Christian Than Thou, More Pious Than Thou, More Devout Than Thou, hitting all the metrics and then some. And always Praising and Glorifying Him, no matter what.

Like the court of a Caligula where you stay alive by laying on the flattery thicker than the other guy.

Meredithwiggle,

Ken F (aka Tweed),

The iceberg (PSA) tipped for me when I realized that it was nothing more than a lofty repackaging of human sacrifice. There’s no way around it (PSA), it is what it is.

Robert: If someone has been abused and can’t go back right away or even for a few years or months, that’s one thing. But there’s no out in Scripture that says, “if the church harms you, you are free never to be in the church again.”

What if that person is physically and emotionally incapable of going to church for the rest of his or her life? Is that person no longer a “real Christian”?

The issue isn’t whether or not there are “decent churches” somewhere out there. It’s whether God is so weak that he can’t include as his children those who can’t bring themselves to some building. Or so heartless that he refuses to do so.

Rivergal,

Thanks so much, Rivergal. It is so heartening to know I’m not alone.

Meredithwiggle:
Rivergal,

Thanks so much, Rivergal. It is so heartening to know I’m not alone.

You are absolutely not alone. It’s just that there is so much noise from the hyper-fundies and YRRs doubling down that it’s hard to hear the rest of us talking.

I went from being fundamental and dispensational, then migrated into the camp of Puritan worshiping New Calvinists. Then in the mid 2000s one little book opened a crack that became a fissure. Before I knew it was happening or even the term faith reconstruction, I was in the midst of the process. Thank God for it!

Wild Honey: John wrote his epistles to his “children,” “the elect lady [a woman elder, perhaps?] and her children,” and “Gaius” (who it is unclear from the text whether he is an elder, given that John mentions writing separately to the church in this same epistle).

“Gaius” was also THE most common Roman man’s name of the time. Even more common among Roman men than “Miryam” (Mary) was among Jewish women.

Or like “Bruce” in that Monty Python skit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojhtq51Ya8

Jeffrey Chalmers: Unfortunately, HUG is correct…. I have see exactly the same thing, multiple times. Sometimes, of the “estenials” is missing, or replaced with another “essential”, but is always the same mind set…

As I said, “That Way Lies Madness”.
I know that from my experience inside the bubble, at a time and place when Papa Chuck’s Calvary Chapel way of doing things Dominated like the Draka. Even though the not-a-cults I got mixed up in were in no way connected with CC, the CC viral DNA/RNA had penetrated and taken over.

Headless Unicorn Guy: As far as I know, NOBODY knows just who “Theophilus” was. I have even heard he could have been goyisha, maybe even a sympathetic ROMAN official. (Paul Maier used this speculation at the end of his highly-accurate, historically-documented historical novel Flames of Rome.)

My point exactly.

Wild Honey:
Robert,

This has been an interesting conversation to follow.

Just an observation in your comment of the intended audience of books of the New Testament being either the church or elders/shepherds.

Luke wrote to “Theophilus.” It is unclear to me from looking at the text that he is an elder.

Peter and James wrote to “the exiles” and “the 12 tribes of the dispersion,” respectively. This sounds more to me like any individual who followed Christ, not to a formally organized body of believers.

John wrote his epistles to his “children,” “the elect lady [a woman elder, perhaps?] and her children,” and “Gaius” (who it is unclear from the text whether he is an elder, given that John mentions writing separately to the church in this same epistle).

This seems like an awful lot of exceptions for so broad a statement.

You are right about Theophilus not being an elder (maybe he was, maybe not, we don’t know). But as far as I am aware, virtually all NT scholars believe that the Gospels were intended to be read not just by individuals but by many people.

John is writing to an elect lady who is either a codeword for “church” or a woman who is part of a church who meets at her home. One could possibly argue that she is a female elder, but that seems unlikely for the simple fact that there just aren’t any female elders in the NT. But even if it is so, my point stands regarding the NT being written for the church.

James and Peter—writing to groups (elect exiles and such). I think the burden of proof here would be to show that these aren’t organized bodies or several organized bodies that shared the letters given that we know that the Apostolic practice was to preach the gospel and organize a church wherever they did preach the gospel.

All of that is to say that the NT has no category for a Christian who is able but refuses to join a local body of believers. That tends to be foreign to us, partly because we can just go to any bookstore and buy a Bible. That was impossible until 200 years ago or so. In the early church, the only way you were going to hear the Scriptures is if you were a part of a local body that received a letter from an Apostle or a body that had a collection of letters/gospels/OT.

Robert: Orthodox Calvinism teaches that human beings are true agents who bring true causes to pass.

The exception to the rule is the only thing that really matters: whether or not one will spend eternity in hell. Per orthodox Calvinism (oxymoron), humans have no choice at all in this matter because it was set by an unchangeable eternal decree. There is nothing anyone can do do get on or off the list. If that is not fatalism I don’t know what is.

Meredithwiggle: I’m not at the point where I can read the books; it would be too triggering.

I certainly would not recommend reading pro-PSA books until you are well grounded in the alternatives. If you are up for a positive alternative, I recommend “A More Christlike God” by Brad Jersak. It is not just another theological rant. It is one of many very good resources out there that expose the errors of PSA.

Ken F (aka Tweed): The exception to the rule is the only thing that really matters: whether or not one will spend eternity in hell. Per orthodox Calvinism (oxymoron), humans have no choice at all in this matter because it was set by an unchangeable eternal decree. There is nothing anyone can do do get on or off the list.If that is not fatalism I don’t know what is.

In any system where God knows the future, there’s nothing anyone can do to get on or off “the list.” Your “free will” is an illusion. It perhaps existed in eternity past, where somehow you made your decision in God’s mind and he learned about it before you ever existed. But once he knew it, he can’t unknow it. He created the world knowing everything you would ever do, including typing in these comments, and when you woke up this morning, you could do nothing except come to this blog, read the comments, and reply. Whatever color shirt you are wearing, you could not wear another.

If orthodox Calvinism is fatalism, so is every theological system except Open Theism or Process Thought.

Now I don’t really want to argue Calvinism. I just want people to stop the lies and the smears. I don’t like it when people say non-Calvinists believe God isn’t sovereign. Why don’t you extend the same courtesy.

Ken F (aka Tweed): I certainly would not recommend reading pro-PSA books until you are well grounded in the alternatives. If you are up for a positive alternative, I recommend “A More Christlike God” by Brad Jersak. It is not just another theological rant. It is one of many very good resources out there that expose the errors of PSA.

See my comments above on perhaps not wanting to jettison PSA too quickly. I think that if you jettison it, you are effectively saying that God doesn’t really care if someone like Jules Woodson ever gets justice.

Robert: But yes, Christian is based on Jesus. The same Jesus who died for his church and has no category for a follower who is not in a church except in extraordinary circumstances.

This is “institutional” thinking, IMO. Jesus died for the church? What is church? Have you ever done a deep dive on the origins of the word, church? It’s interesting. Scholars can’t agree.

Maybe we could call it, “Jesus died for individuals who assemble due to their belief in Me”? I don’t see any support for group salvation. But it’s typical of church (and governments) to play down the “individual”. Easier to control people.

The thing is, it’s voluntary now just as it was in the beginning. There were many centuries it wasn’t voluntary. How sad. I doubt that sort of mandatory church discipline made better followers of Christ whether Protestant or Catholic.

Here is what I love about it all: You are free to try and convince folks of your views. I am free to not give you permission to let it bother me. At all. 🙂

That’s my encouragement to people who get caught up in church drama circles. If they ask. “God within us” means we have as much access as anyone else. But, adulting is hard.

In any assembly or configuration of believers, people are hopefully maturing. At the same time, some need to go it alone for a while. Paul did. For some, it’s getting alone, cutting out the noise of the titled “experts” who have to take into consideration the mortgage payment on the building. Don’t discount that. It’s huge.

I view the assembly of the “called out ones” more as fellowship. Some have more experience than others they share. There are different gifts being used to help one another. Sometimes they just shared food and thanked God. We tend to overcomplicate it with org charts, doctrinal checklists and legal designations.

My view of scripture is Jesus kept it simple. We overcomplicate it.

Robert: Don’t let the fact that the 9Marks guys can be legalists blind you to the fact that the NT expects people to be in the church.

Once again, the little village church you mentioned could be a really, really bad church. Look at what was going with the Corinthians. I would not be surprised if a bionic of folks walked away form the weirdness. And having visited Corinth, I am of the opinion that there was probably a dearth of churches.

Think about something. I am one who has always searched for a church and has been a member of the church with which I affiliated. Yet, given what I see and given what I experienced in a former church, I get why some people walk away. But as Tolkien said…”Not all who wander are lost.”

dee: Say something a certain way and then one is accused of causing division or “hurting the feelings” of a senior pastor.

AH, the Exquisite Sensitivity to any slight to themselves (real or imagined), combined with utter indifference on how their own actions not only slight but harm others.

“There is no You, There Is Only MEEE!
There is no You, There is Only MEEEE!”

Max: Adherence to the “system” of all 5 points = “real” Calvinist. Anything short of that is not Calvinism, in the true sense of the word.

And when “More Elect Than Thou” One-Upmanship sets in, look for 6 Points, 7 Points, etc.

dee,

Dee,

Goodness gracious. Let me remind you again that your church teaches predestination. Even sin Lutheranism, God chooses to save only some. He might want to save everyone, but he doesn’t choose to save everyone.

Dee,

Well, in Paul’s day, there was probably one church. And you had to be a part of that church to hear 1 Corinthians

And yes, I understand why some people walk away. That doesn’t mean they should walk away and never come back or that God allows them to walk away and never come back. I understand why some abuse victims or rape victims never trust a man ever again. Does that mean they have the right not to trust a good man or that they are not somehow sinning against him?

Good grief again, you are Lutheran. How do Lutherans teach that we are assured of salvation? Through Word and sacrament. Without the church, there is no ordinary possibility of assurance in Lutheranism because you have no access to the preached Word or the sacrament.

dee,

If you love Jesus, you will love what He loves, and He loves the church. You can’t love the church in the abstract. If someone tells me that he/she loves Jesus and yet he/she doesn’t think they need to find a church, then I have no reason to believe their profession. If you tell me you are Lutheran and you hate what Lutherans love and stay away from Lutheran worship and fellowship, why should I believe you?

I’m really not trying to be harsh here. This idea that it is possible to follow Jesus without being a part of the church—in ordinary circumstances—is simply foreign to Scripture. The Reformers didn’t say, okay, “you’re all on your own now. Rome really abused you, so it’s okay if you stay away forever.”

And again, Dee, your church practices closed communion. That says something about whether they believe being joined to a church is necessary for salvation. It’s not necessary in an absolute sense, but it’s a fruit of salvation.

It’s like good works. Doing good works doesn’t get me into heaven. But if I’m going to heaven, I’m going to do good works. This is basic Reformational teaching, even of your Lutheran church. And one of those good works is gathering with believers for worship and fellowship.

If you live in the middle of rural nowhere, where the closest church is 100 miles away and its a bad, abusive church, that’s one thing. It’s quite another if you live in any reasonably densely populated area in this country. And when I say “good church,” I don’t mean a church where you like the music, or the youth group, or whatever. I’m talking about a church where the leadership isn’t abusive and where the teaching is reasonably orthodox. Lots of people don’t find a church they are comfortable with because of superficial reasons (not saying that’s you).

Lydia,

I don’t disagree with much of what you said. But salvation is both/and with respect to individuals and the group. Jesus saves me through my individual faith, but he doesn’t save me alone. I am united to Him and through Him to all other true Christians.

Scripture says that Jesus died both for the individual (loved me and gave himself for me—Gal. 2) and the collective (his bride, the church, Eph. 5).

Here’s the problem—as Americans (I assume you are American. If not, sorry!), we are incredibly individualistic. We tend to think that the only thing that matters is “my personal relationship with Jesus.” As long as we have that, we’re golden. Well, if that were true, then all the stuff the NT says about the church is completely superfluous. And it overlooks the fact that the NT and OT was given to the body as a whole.

Does a personal relationship with Jesus matter? Absolutely! Without it, no salvation! You don’t go to heaven simply by joining a church! Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. But Cyprian was right to say that you can’t have God as Father without church as mother. And even when Paul had to go it alone, he always talks about how much he longs to be reunited with his churches (see Philippians, for example).

The 9Marks guys are pushing back against hyper-individualistic Christianity. They’re doing it poorly at times, but they’re responding to an extreme that says the church doesn’t matter. Maybe I’m reading unfairly between the lines, but a lot of the comments here carry the flavor of the latter.

Robert: I just want people to stop the lies and the smears. I don’t like it when people say non-Calvinists believe God isn’t sovereign. Why don’t you extend the same courtesy.

What lies and smears?!? Are you saying that Calvinism does not teach unconditional election? All I said was Calvinism is fatalistic when it comes to who is and is not saved because no human can change the divine decree made in eternity past. How is that a lie or a smear? This is not an issue of being courteous. Rather, it is an issue of the facts about what Calvinism teaches.

Robert: Without PSA, we are effectively saying to Jules—”You know what happened to you? God thinks it was no biggie. You don’t deserve justice.”

Your argument here appears to be based on justice being very narrowly defined in only a criminal/legal sense. The OT idea of justice includes that, but also much, much more. It is very closely linked with righteousness, which is all about setting things right. This includes things like taking care of the oppressed, being good citizens, creating edifying art, building good biuldings, and all kinds of other things that involve the right way for humans to live. Surprisingly, OT justice and righteousness are also related to mercy.

As for justice being served. Justice has not been served just because the appropriate parties have been punished. It is only served when the victim is made whole. Part of that includes punishing the perpetrator, but if it stops there it does not restore the victim. This is why Jesus’ promise that he makes all things new so important. One day things will eventually be put right. This is when juatice will be served fully.

Your argument for PSA depends on rejecting the OT view of justice and adopting a strictly criminal/legal view of it.

Ken F (aka Tweed):As for justice being served. Justice has not been served just because the appropriate parties have been punished.It is only served when the victim is made whole. Part of that includes punishing the perpetrator, but if it stops there it does not restore the victim. This is why Jesus’ promise that he makes all things new so important. One day things will eventually be put right. This is when juatice will be served fully.

Your argument for PSA depends on rejecting the OT view of justice and adopting a strictly criminal/legal view of it.

No, and you just agreed with my argument, I think. You said that justice involves wholeness for the victim—I agree. And you said that wholeness for the victim includes punishment of the crime.

Without PSA, there is no punishment for the crime.

Do we want to reduce the cross to PSA? Of course not. But under your own definition of justice, victims get no justice without PSA. At best they get incomplete justice.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

I can relate to this comment!

Dee,

This is from the Missouri Synod website:

“God, before the foundation of the world, from pure grace, because of the redemption of Christ, has chosen for His own a definite number of persons out of the corrupt mass and has determined to bring them through Word and Sacrament, to faith and salvation.”

You are complaining about a doctrine that your church teaches! That’s the same way most Reformed people construe election.

I don’t really want to argue election. I would just prefer it if all the “haters” on election recognize that it’s not a Calvinist distinctive.

Your church is just as predestinarian as mine!

Lydia: I can relate to this comment!

It drives my wife crazy. My fatal flaw is I cannot easily let doubts fester. So I dig.

My best advice to PSA advocates is to avoid recommending the book “Pierced For Our Transgressions” to those outside their bubble. I am nearly finished reading it and nothing has done more to illustrate to me the absurdity of PSA than this book. The fact that they had to resort to lying and flawed logic sealed it for me. But I suupose it is great reading for those inside their bubble.

Max: That would be John Piper.He added Point 6 and Point 7 to his personal Calvinism resume.The sixth point = double predestination.The seventh point = best-of-all-possible worlds.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

Now comes the EIGHTH point.
Then the NINTH.
Then the TENTH…

And the Game of One-Upmanship continues ad infinitum.
“ME SHEEP! YOU GOAT! HAW! HAW! HAW!”

Ken F (aka Tweed): There was nothing quick about my rejection of PSA. To my shame, I got way too OCD in investigating the arguments from both sides.

Though PSA is not a doctrine you want taught to you if you’re OCD.
(For that matter, neither is “Rapture Porn” or “Persecution Porn”. Too likely to trigger a runaway OCD paranoia cascade.)

I remember an old Rachel Held Evans blogpost titled “Ask an Aspie” about how “Those with Aspergers’ traits are advised to steer clear of ‘certain types of churches’.” (We can guess what those “certain types” are.) And that should hold for OCDs, too.

Robert: But I’d be careful about determining truth by counting noses. 75 percent of professing Christians worldwide (if not more), believe that they will earn heaven by doing good works. (RCs, EOs, even many Protestants functionally).

Note the unspoken assumption that RCs and EOs are ALL into Works Salvation.
Coup Counted.

Muff Potter: I’m an old drunk with 24 years sobriety who remembers the old AA saying:
— KEEP IT SIMPLE —

I’m an old geek with 24 years in Microsoft Windows and SQL Server who remembers the IT version:
— KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID —

Headless Unicorn Guy: Note the unspoken assumption that RCs and EOs are ALL into Works Salvation.

I get the sense that Robert has not spent any significant time trying to honestly learn about RC or EO from knowledgeable insiders.

Serving Kids in Japan,

Whether a person who dies having utterly forsaken the church and yet professes Christ is in heaven or not is not for me to decide. All I am saying is that I have no good reason to believe that anyone is a Christian who does not love who and what Jesus loves. And Jesus loves the church.

Yes, he brings the sheep home. Where is home? The sheepfold with the other sheep. It’s the church. It’s not Jesus and the sheep in the wilderness forever.

Max: Which, of course, is not truth.This is the standard Calvinist argument against non-Calvinist faith.I have been a Christian for 70+ years and have known only a few believers working their way to eternity.The vast majority I have worshiped with believe that accepting Christ – by their own free will, with a genuine belief in Him and obedience to His commands – will see them to Glory.But, no use fussing with you about this … you have been indoctrinated lock, stock and barrel based on your other comments in this thread.

Max,

Do you affirm justification by faith alone? If yes, then you aren’t into works salvation.

You don’t have to be a Calvinist to affirm justification by faith alone. Lutherans affirm it. Anglicans affirm it. Methodists affirm it. Every tradition that traces itself back to the Reformation.

The Christian world (2 billion plus) consists of something like 1 billions Roman Catholics and 400 million or so EO. That’s 75 percent of professing Christians affirming a system that is works salvation because both of those groups anathematize Protestants on this very matter. It’s not crass works salvation that says grace is unnecessary. It’s a system that says grace is necessary but not enough.

I’m emphatically NOT saying that Calvinists are the only ones who trust in Jesus alone for salvation.

Robert: How do Lutherans teach that we are assured of salvation? Through Word and sacrament. Without the church, there is no ordinary possibility of assurance in Lutheranism because you have no access to the preached Word or the sacrament.

Note how Word and sacrament was changed to the preached Word and sacrament. Typical switch, or addition, however one views that.

Bridget,

In Lutheranism, as in other Reformation traditions, the idea of Word and sacrament is the read and preached Word and sacrament. It’s in all the Reformation confessions. And until widespread literacy, the only way to get the Word of God was to hear it read and preached. Historically, books have been very expensive and only a few people could read.

I’m not changing anything. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I’m just pointing out that attacks on what I am saying about church membership are at odds with the confessions of the very church that Dee is a member of. Attack what I am saying and you are attacking traditional Protestant theology. Maybe that theology is wrong; just recognize what you are doing.