I’m not a theologian, but I find it hard to believe that God who is love and delights in creation is going to send to hell ppl who have never heard the Gospel. How is that their fault/error? I agree that this feels like manipulation of the flock to make them feel guilty for not evangelizing harder.

Pete Enns (progressive Christian) has brought up this question: has the great commission been fulfilled already as far as spreading Christ’s name throughout the earth? (Yep, there may be some spots where it’s not known, but by and large, ppl are aware.) I lean toward a yes on this question. In my mind, that yes means I need to focus more on loving like Christ, instead of just getting His name out.

I am so weary of this. Growing up I remember the Sunday School classes that debated what would happen to those deepest in the African jungles that a missionary could not reach. The answer was that God would have some special dispensation to “save” them.”

The argument is based on the theory that God is such a jerk that everyone that has not heard the “word” burns in Hell, even if they were not in a position to hear it.

And once again in the world of NeoCals, the doctrine of grace crashes and burns . . .

I think about this a lot. I lean on Romans 10:13-14 to help me. I would agree with Platt but take no joy in anyone perishing.

Here is my dilemma from a conservative Baptist perspective: So if people hear the gospel and reject it, they go to hell….. but if they never hear the gospel they have a chance? Then I would argue that I may play a role in a person’s condemnation by sharing the gospel with them.

“Platt makes the typical argument that if it was true that those who have not heard the Word can go to heaven, then the worst thing a Christian could do is tell them about Jesus because they would be forced to respond.”

This is the very reason that traditional (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists should be concerned about the New Calvinist takeover of the SBC. Such preaching is contrary to the long-established mission of Southern Baptists (before Mohler and his NeoCal army) to take the Gospel message throughout the world. Perhaps this is why Platt recalled 1,000 veteran foreign missionaries when he was President of SBC’s International Mission Board. He cited a funding shortage, but perhaps his theology played a roll in it. No one would accuse the NeoCals of being evangelistic.

“ According to Calvinists, the hearer must respond in the way God created him to respond. He has no choice.”

This is not entirely accurate regarding what most Calvinists believe or teach. More accurately, they believe that none of us will choose Christ without the Holy Spirit regenerating our hearts. This is based on scripture which is believed to teach that apart from Christ, we are spiritually dead and blind and will not come to Jesus unless the Father draws us. Without this regenerating work, it is believed that all of us will choose to reject Christ in our spiritual deadness.

Calvinists don’t believe God creates people to respond a certain way. They believe He chooses whom will receive that gift of regeneration. It is by grace we have been saved, through faith… and even that faith is a gift, so that none of us may boast. Without that gift of faith, rejecting Christ will be all of our choices.

I’m not going to enter into a theological debate here. My main interest is in addressing an unintended misrepresentation. Often, as a Calvinist, I read things here (including in comments) that I feel are mischaracterizations or misrepresentations of what I believe or who I am as a person simply because I ascribe to Calvinistic theology.

I want to encourage greater care in referencing Calvinists as a group. They are a lot of arrogant, unyielding, too black and white Calvinists out there, but many of us strive to avoid being that way.

Ironically, most Calvinists would do well to embrace the humility of their namesake, who insisted on being buried in an unknown and unmarked grave and would roll over in that grave if he knew anyone was calling themselves a Calvinist.

I guess I have to ask if God can be defeated by the fact that missionaries didn’t make it to Tibet to preach the gospel in the 4th century? Or any place else for that matter. It’s like humans have this amazing power to defeat God’s desires according to David Platt.

For the record, Buddhism didn’t make it to Tibet (600s) until over a millennium after Gautama is supposed to have lived. It was just that isolated.

“People Who Never Hear the Gospel Will be Condemned to Hell.”

If this were true, it would be literally the most important — and absolute worst — fact in the world. Amazing how the Bible never once says any such thing, then.

One of the frustrations during the takeover at my previous church was that this sort of thing was turning us all into lawyers—reading the bible legalistically and defensively.

My own view is that “we don’t know” due to a paucity of biblical data, and that one’s views on this matter will ultimately depend on something else such as one’s underlying theology of “what God is like.”

OT says very little about post-mortem realities. The NT data that forms the strongest support for theories of unending post-mortem punishments comes from Jesus’ “gehenna” sayings and from the final chapters of Revelation. There are arguments that I find persuasive (see, for example, Brad Jersak’s “Her Gates Will Never Be Shut”) that Jesus’ warnings were about future “under the Sun” torments that would overtake the people of Israel in the soon-coming war with Rome. If that’s right, the strongest remaining textual support is the ‘fiery lake’ vision in the final chapters of Revelation. I don’t have a compelling alternative theory of what that vision refers to, but I do note that the non-visionary preface of the book says that the visions recorded in it concern things which must soon happen, and the non-visionary conclusion of the book says that “the time is near.” If these statements are not to be interpreted literally, I’m not sure what argument can be consistently made that the vision of the fiery lake must be interpreted literally.

—

I’ll note, finally, that there is an argument, that looks persuasive to me (part of the persuasiveness is probably rhetorical — the author, David Bentley Hart, is an excellent writer — but I think that the underlying argument is sound, and presents one with a dilemma about what it means to affirm that “God is good”) that conventional infernalist theology is incompatible with other aspects of theology, specifically the affirmation that God is both ‘good’ and ‘Creator ex nihilo.’

The full text seems to no longer be available at the publisher’s site, but at this writing, it can still be accessed here:

https://docslib.org/doc/11775852/god-creation-and-evil-the-moral-meaning-of-creatio-ex-nihilo

Susan: I’m not a theologian, but I find it hard to believe that God who is love and delights in creation is going to send to hell ppl who have never heard the Gospel. How is that their fault/error?

Jonathan Edwards is a hero to many New-Calvinists, so much so that you can purchase “Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy” mugs and t-shirts. In one of his writings, Edwards claims God’s glory requires he eternally punish evil, and that his goodness would barely shine forth without eternal evil. He said God needs to punish people eternally in in order to maximize the happiness of the saved.

In another writing he wrote this:
“When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state, so exceedingly different from it! When they shall see how miserable others of their fellowcreatures are, who were naturally in the same circumstances with themselves; when they shall see the smoke of their torment, and the raging of the flames of their burning, and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the mean time are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity ; how will they rejoice!”

That writing goes on to describe how saved parents of the non-elect will have no pity for their own children, and will praise God as their children scream in hell.
(see https://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/contemplated.htm for the disgusting details). It’s no wonder that Calvinists can become hardened and cold in light of this teaching.

Ted: this sort of thing was turning us all into lawyers—

Walkin’ & talkin’ like the group that trolled Jesus back in his day. The “snakes”, “white-washed tombs”, and in the end the 30-shekels-for-an-execution (of the Son of God) gang. “Woe to” exponentially, Jesus said.

Maybe the reason they go on and on about the place of Eternal Fire is because that’s what’s on their own horizon. Projecting.

In any case, overreach, for sure.

Luckyforward: I am so weary of this. Growing up I remember the Sunday School classes that debated what would happen to those deepest in the African jungles that a missionary could not reach. The answer was that God would have some special dispensation to “save” them.”

I bet that debate included Romans 1:18-20:

“For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.”

ES: if one believes that God is both just and merciful

Many Christians, and Calvinists in particular, describe God’s justice and mercy like they are polar opposites, as in “some people experience God’s mercy, and all the others experience his justice.” But the Hebrew concept of justice is much more related to mercy than to punishment. OT justice is focused on putting things in the right order and doing right by people. It includes retributive justice, but not as its main emphasis. Isaiah 30:18 is an example:
“Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”
Justice and righteousness in the OT are nearly synonymous, so much so that the words for them are often swapped when translated into English.

Folks should have stopped taking Platt seriously years ago when he declared that a sinner’s prayer was superstitious.

No need to hide, Dee, not going to fire away at all. Our years among those of Wesleyan persuasion brought some different views than many today hold.

First, Platt does not consider universalism or conditionalism. Ok, for the sake of argument if he is correct regarding ECT, he as you said denies predestination by his own arguments.

Perhaps he should consider another view: as you said, or quoted, each person is responsible only for their response to the light they have. Many believe from nature, as Romans 1 teaches, all have enough light to respond. But assuming for arguments sake Platt is right and salvation requires hearing the gospel and responding to it, he should consider this: an omnipotent God would know before anyone comes into being whether or not that person would accept or reject Christ. An all loving God would make sure that all who will respond positively will get that opportunity. Therefore, no one will be in hell solely because they never got the chance to hear the gospel.

Basically Platt is playing an old card, long preached by some Baptists and some in hard core hell fire and damnation versions of Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian as well as Hauge Lutheran Christianity. This card puts the blame for one person’s damnation squarely on the shoulders of the people the preacher wants to have give more money, spend more time, or exert more effort to bring the preacher’s goals to fruition.

It flies in the face both of predestination and free will. It means if you choose wrong it somehow is my fault. Or it means if I disobey God you go to hell, not me.

Totally paints God out to be a monster, grants humans way more power over other souls than even God, and in general is just insanity.

But by Platt’s own testimony he has never, to use Baptist terms since he is one, gotten saved. His “faith” is purely transactional.

Max,

While not intending to defend Platt, I think there can be conscientious concerns underlying views such as this. In particular, I think that there are many people on the predestinarian end of the theology spectrum who are concerned to maintain a very strong distinction between grace and works as the ground of forgiveness. On the other side, it is possible to view “the sinner’s prayer” as the thing that saves oneself — and I have heard itinerant evangelists use language that suggests this, urging people whom they have led in “the sinner’s prayer” to look back to this prayer if they ever in future doubt that they are saved.

Many predestinarians reckon that regeneration precedes conscious faith, so that someone who prays “the sinner’s prayer” was already saved before they prayed.

It may sound like nit-picking, but the question of whether repentance is a fruit of regeneration or is its necessary precursor is important in certain theologies.

Max: My beef is not with the “Old” Calvinists, but the “New” Calvinists which declare they alone hold truth and that they have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the one true “gospel” that the rest of the church has lost.Stealth and deception are their modus operandi; arrogance is their mantle.

Yes! This is an excellent summary of the so-called new Calvinist approach. This very thing drove me from a 9Marx church into a kind and loving Lutheran community. It was not an easy exit, and I carry a good bit of anger towards my former church. Still, I am so thankful that my eyes were opened and that I was able to escape.

Also, I really appreciate the tone and tenor of the discussions here at TWW. The commenters don’t always agree, but there is always an underlying respect and kindness. A rare thing on the interwebs these days.

Regarding the fate of the unevangelised, WGT Shedd’s observations reflect the common view of the Reformed – “ It does not follow, however, that because God is not obliged to offer pardon to the unevangelized heathen, either here or hereafter, therefore no unevangelized heathen are pardoned. The electing mercy of God reaches to the heathen. It is not the doctrine of the church that the entire mass of pagans, without exception, have gone down to endless impenitence and death. That some unevangelized men are saved in the present life by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as it is of the later. The Second Helvetic Confession, after the remark that the ordinary mode of salvation is by the instrumentality of the written words, adds (1.7): “We acknowledge, meanwhile, that God can illuminate men even without the external ministry, how and when he pleases, for such lies within his power.” Westminster Confession 10.3, after saying that “elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases,” adds: “So also are all other elect persons [regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit] who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” This is commonly understood to refer not merely, or mainly, to idiots and insane persons, but to such of the pagan world as God pleases to regenerate without the use of written revelation. One of the strictest Calvinists of the sixteenth century, Zanchi, whose treatise on predestination was translated by Toplady, after remarking that many nations have never had the privilege of hearing the word, says (chap. 4) that “it is not indeed improbable that some individuals in these unenlightened countries may belong to the secret election of grace, and the habit of faith may be wrought in them.”
Similarly, Calvin’s view of Hell is worth noting – “ The lot of the reprobate
Now, because no description can deal adequately with the gravity of God’s vengeance against the wicked, their torments and tortures are figuratively expressed to us by physical things, that is, by darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth [Matt. 8:12; 22:13], unquenchable fire [Matt. 3:12; Mark 9:43; Isa. 66:24], an undying worm gnawing at the heart [Isa. 66:24]. By such expressions the Holy Spirit certainly intended to confound all our senses with dread: as when he speaks of “a deep Gehenna prepared from eternity, fed with fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it” [Isa. 30:33]. As by such details we should be enabled in some degree to conceive the lot of the wicked, so we ought especially to fix our thoughts upon this: how wretched it is to be cut off from all fellowship with God. And not that only but so to feel his sovereign power against you that you cannot escape being pressed by it”

Platt’s theology is the logical outcome of both the Calvinist and Arminian views, both of which focus on the legalities of our guilt before God (see Ted’s comment above). If you read the sermons in the book of Acts (except for Stephen’s – he was doing something else), you quickly see that the whole point of the good news the first Christians announced was the Resurrection. Our ultimate problem is the consequence of lack of trust in God at the first – severance from the Source of Life (you will die) and thus fear of death, the power of which is used by the enemy to keep us enslaved to sin – Heb 2. If the power of death is broken, then we are set free from that slavery to live as the human beings God created us to be, empowered by the Holy Spirit. Our ultimate issue is not guilt but rather mortality. It’s there, all through the New Testament – death, Christ’s and that of Christians as well (either actual bodily death or figurative dying) is always connected to the Resurrection. That’s why EOrthodox theology sees what the GodMan Jesus Christ our savior accomplished over that weekend in AD 33 as One Thing: Pascha.

There are historical and philosophical reasons why guilt became the main problem in western Christianity. It was never so on the Orthodox and Syriac side of things. Yes, we are guilty, but what good does it do to be forgiven if there is no Resurrection? Being judged by the light we have been given isn’t simply a way to mitigate the horrific Calvinist view of God – it was the teaching of Christianity until pretty much the 10th century.

Just fyi, Fr Farley is not Greek; he’s a priest in the Orthodox Church of America, which has its roots in the missionary activity of Russian monks in Alaska at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. My parish is OCA, and most of us are not “ethnic” Orthodox. (And no, our ruling bishop is not the unfortunate, misguided and probably very frightened fellow in Russia; ours lives in the DC area.)

D.

Susan: I’m not a theologian, but I find it hard to believe that God who is love and delights in creation is going to send to hell ppl who have never heard the Gospel. How is that their fault/error?

Because Gawd Hath Said, of course.

This dilemma was hashed out in the early Middle Ages with the concept of “The Baptism of Desire” and “Virtuous Pagan”, personified by Emeth the Calormene in Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle.

I agree that this feels like manipulation of the flock to make them feel guilty for not evangelizing harder.

i.e. “Wretched Urgency”, in the words of the prophet Internet Monk:
https://imonk.blog/2016/04/07/64264/
(Archive site; pictures missing, hard to navigate unless you know what to look for.)

No exceptions huh? (from the title of the main article up-top)
Let me say it out straight, the god manufactured by Platt and his tribe is a monster.

What seems to us a hopeless condemnation of ‘those other sinners’ crashes into Christ’s recorded words in St. Matthew’s Gospel and comes into conflict with the Christ Who had pity on those who ‘were without a shepherd and were weary and worn and fainted’ . . . .

So, what DOES the Lord Christ use as a way to ‘measure’ a broken human’s soul ? Was there maybe even one forgotten act of kindness somewhere on the journey that ‘mattered’ in God’s Eyes as an eternally meaningful act of love freely given without thought of self???? and is there, in some ‘final’ moment, a ‘redemption’, a ‘healing’ that we cannot fathom in that ‘space’ between the final moments of the ‘life’ and the ‘death’ of a human person? is some awakening of renewed life still possible in that moment ???

Is there anything rational or logical about the kind of saving love shown by God when we look at Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?
No.
Not in our world.
Only in the Kingdom of God can we see, with our eyes opened, the great Mercy of God that is Our Lord Christ

Ken F (aka Tweed): 2) Every argument against Calvinism is rejected as a misrepresentation of Calvinism.

And thus further PROOF of Calvinism via the “No True Scotsman Calvinist” route.
Like any Conspiracy Theory’s True Believers.

Samuel Conner: he NT data that forms the strongest support for theories of unending post-mortem punishments comes from Jesus’ “gehenna” sayings and from the final chapters of Revelation.

Remember that “gehenna” was also the name of the Jerusalem City Dump, which sounds like a discard pile. The Hinnom Valley, defiled as a location of human (child) sacrifice to other gods.

If that’s right, the strongest remaining textual support is the ‘fiery lake’ vision in the final chapters of Revelation

I also read somewhere that “lake of fire” could also have been an idiom for a volcanic vent.
Anyone remember Halemaumau crater at the summit of Kilauea?

Headless Unicorn Guy: And thus further PROOF of Calvinism

I am becoming convinced the only people who truly understand Calvinism are ex-Calvinists. Many ex-Calvinists spent decades studying the deep things of Calvinism as firm believers in Calvinism, but even they get accused of not understanding Calvinism after they reject it. There is an assumption that no one who understands it can reject it.

Muff Potter: Let me say it out straight, the god manufactured by Platt and his tribe is a monster.

They make his wrath/hate certain but his mercy/love contingent, because his glory requires it.

Need I say it?
Only God gets to be God.

Lowlandseer: Now, because no description can deal adequately with the gravity of God’s vengeance against the wicked,

In Calvinism, what difference do preaching and prayer make since the non-elect cannot choose to escape hell and the elect cannot choose to escape heaven? Weren’t their destinies determined in eternity past with no regard to anything they choose?

Ken F (aka Tweed): Many Christians, and Calvinists in particular, describe God’s justice and mercy like they are polar opposites, as in “some people experience God’s mercy, and all the others experience his justice.”

I’m very familiar with this definition. It is definitely what I grew up with.

I’ve had several life experiences that taught me a much different perspective that didn’t fit my theology. My idea of justice and mercy became much more symbiotic, rather than opposites. It is both just and merciful to the victim of crime to expose the crime. Likewise, it is both just and merciful for the perpetrator to be held accountable in some fashion – so they have the opportunity to address their behavior and whatever caused it. But interestingly, many punishments, purely because they do not restore the state of being prior to the infraction, are neither just nor merciful. That is what God does. He can restore, and administer justice and mercy to both parties. Interestingly, I find it easier to forgive my enemy when I have a symbiotic definition of justice and mercy.

And I agree, justice is more about doing what is right than about punishing what is wrong. It’s about righting the wrong. Fixing it. Repairing it. Mercy is about seeing the wrong in the first place. Kind of? I’m still working this out.

christiane: Do neo-Calvinists so cherry-pick their ‘man-made’ theology from certain parts of scripture that they MISS the whole teaching that God’s grace is given to the humble of this Earth, and not to the self-righteous pride-filled know-it-alls??????

Funny thing about Pride… it’s not always easy to spot your own. Or to correctly identify which attitudes are pride and which are counterproductive self-flagellation. We often get it backwards.

From the article:

“Platt asked if there is “any greater injustice than 3 billion people going to an eternal Hell while all the people who know how to go to an eternal Heaven sit back and do little to nothing?” 

“”We spend most of our money on ourselves. We give some of our money to churches and ministries. And we spend most of that money in churches and ministries on making ourselves more comfortable in our churches and ministries. And then there’s a small percentage of the money that we give to churches and ministries that goes toward what we normally call missions overseas to other countries,” Platt said.” He added that roughly 1% of American Church funds regularly go to missions to reach the unreached people groups overseas.

“”We’re fooling ourselves if we think we’re passionate about giving to missions while we’re ignoring 3 billion people who’ve never heard the Gospel,” he stressed. As his sermon came to a close, Platt told the crowd that they “have been put in a time and a place where there are more opportunities to get the greatest news in the world to people in the world than ever before.””

From the 2018 article here entitled ,David Platt Steps Down as President of the SBC’s International Mission Board’:
“983 Southern Baptist missionaries and 149 staff in the U.S. accepted the IMB’s offer of voluntary early retirement or resignation”

One of Max’s comments from that post seems particularly relevant:

“As I understand it, “voluntary” meant that they had to accept the offered retirement/resignation packages promptly since there would be no guarantee of any provision for them later. Platt cited an IMB funding shortage in his reduction of these veteran foreign missionaries (primarily non-Calvinist), but SBC during the same period spent $60 million per year to plant 1,000+ churches led primarily by New Calvinists. Reckon what theological persuasion new missionaries will be if/when IMB returns to better financial health? Such leaders in corporate America are are called axemen – they are used on a short-term stint to reduce workforce and budgets.”

One question is: where are the accompanying words of caution and condemnation for those entrusted with leadership of entities like international missions boards that may not seem to properly prioritize distribution of resources nor exhibit sufficient transparency, accountability, and oversight as an organization? If an encouragement seems to be give, give, give, wouldn’t such a track record work against people feeling confident to give in a major way to such organizations, which would seem to put the onus on those in charge to focus their energies on addressing that thoroughly and quickly?

As the gist of what is being sent appears to concern people’s outreach priorities, why does does it appear we haven’t ever gotten a sufficient, readily-available breakdown from people involved during what Max described about the IMB as to why things went the way they did, as well as where things currently stand?

Plus, what about the concern that has to be present as to what the current crop of Platt / TGC / T4G / NeoCal / SBC seminary-influenced outreach workers would actually see as the Gospel message and what they would teach? I recently saw some reports from someone connected with overseas outreach who if I recall correctly was trying to “plant“ a church, had pictures of the materials for study that included works from John MacArthur, and had a picture with a certain SBC seminary official associated with the family sendoff.

Given the track record there and questions of transparency, priorities, etc., couldn’t there be issues of confidence as far as how financial support of those connected to such intuitions and movements would bear fruit? Is an issue Platt and others might want to focus on — besides a focus on people potentially being selfish— be the issue of people having reticence of support related to previous and / or current experience with outreach organizational shortcomings? Could that reticence concern how outreach support is used (and sadly, how trustworthy or not many of those currently being sent out are as far as doctrinal, theological, and overall priorities)?

Ken F (aka Tweed): Many ex-Calvinists spent decades studying the deep things of Calvinism as firm believers in Calvinism, but even they get accused of not understanding Calvinism after they reject it.

Well, it should be obvious, that if they really understood it, they wouldn’t have rejected it. Or perhaps, if their teachers hadn’t done such a terrible job of explaining it wrong, they wouldn’t have rejected it. (SA)

My personal experience is that I was trying to make sense of the idea that God is Providential and Omniscient. And somehow had to deal with the fact that the Bible clearly states that we have free will, and will be held responsible for our choices. And God is merciful. How do those things work together? I eventually came to the conclusion that this paradox is better explained as one of the mysteries of God (like the Trinity) rather than trying to logic it out to the bitter end.

Calvinism provides one explanation, but the logical conclusion of that explanation is that God is the author of both good and evil, which any decent Calvinist will absolutely deny. The challenge is that Calvinists do not agree at which point they exit the that logic’s trajectory. So you have some teach much closer to the line where God becomes both good and evil, and others exit much earlier. And each of those is convinced that theirs is the actual Calvinism.

Then you have the fact that some Calvinists (like my parents) were raised in other Christian variations and have mitigated some of the Calvinist beliefs with other ideas. But they raised their kids in Calvinism without the benefit of any other teaching regarding free will, and their kids come up with a WAY stricter version of Calvinism, and the parents are a bit clueless as to why. My mom and I have had this conversation, where it turns out, her Calvinist views have always been mitigated by her Anglican upbringing and her Moody Bible Institute education. That is how she somehow taught me that God had pre-picked my future spouse, when she didn’t actually believe that. Boy was she surprised, when as a teen I parroted this back to her. And I was surprised when she told me that no, she didn’t think that God had a one and only specific person planned for me since the beginning of time, but that I had responsibility for choosing.

“… and establish a Continental Reich meant to last a thousand years.”

… from Ken Burns’ The US & the Holocaust.

ES,

“Interesting. I’ve seen people treat the sinner’s prayer as superstitious. I’ve also seen people treat quiet time as superstitious. And really every other form of religious practice. But any of it can be practiced in a way that is not superstitious.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

as in ‘new agey’?

-since God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are invisible…

-yet every belief and theory christianity says it embraces indicate that ‘they’ are here now in the moment…

-and what’s more, are within us…

…seems to me at some point the practice of such theories will of necessity resemble something called ‘new agey’

or at the very least physically expressive and experiential (along the lines of charismatic/pentecostal).
.
.
unless theory and practice are unwittingly divorced from each other (due to logic leaps because one is uncomfortable with the obvious logical implications)

Mr. Jesperson: Platt is an arrogant false teacher …

… but only one example of many in the New Calvinist movement.

ES: I’m still working this out.

Me too. But it’s becoming more clear to me that God’s justice and mercy are not opposites. His justice is not without mercy, and his mercy is not without justice.

Max: an arrogant false teacher …

… but only one example of many in the New Calvinist movement.

And another quote:

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy?” -George Orwell, 1984

ES: Well, it should be obvious, that if they really understood it, they wouldn’t have rejected it. Or perhaps, if their teachers hadn’t done such a terrible job of explaining it wrong, they wouldn’t have rejected it.

What’s there to understand?
An autocratic tyrant who rules by whim and fancy.
No recourse or redress for said tyrant’s subjects.
No wonder the Enlightenment birthed new ideas that challenged the old ways of thinking.

John Stott would disagree.

ES: The reality is that there are a significant number of people who claim that inerrancy is a recent doctrinal claim (last 200 years or so) and that it isn’t historic. I haven’t had a chance to research this for myself yet.

Like the rest of fundamentalism, it’s a fearful reaction to modernity.

Literalism, like any fundamentalism, is/shows a lack of faith. It tries to put the divine in a box of our own making.

ES: What does “inerrant” mean?

Exactly. It has become a litmus test. Still, the question remains on why God left such a thin trail of crumbs to follow in so many places in the world.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

I have the books but you can read it free here to avoid any misrepresentation or misunderstanding on my part. Start at p262.

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QachilrcTtNkMrNaFrRF8EiM9_2pKZ7Gpv3W4gFV3pdQHNr4FmEEbGlGljlwSicd9fQLnkK6f1AFg5se6eG64EUG5Tvt8jXdM0Tyx1hSwQx6ugMw2cCQuU9wehop_LZbvvJq-Ahyxvr4hFJ4Wcdf3vMMPCFY_mK07bTR8_KU-6kgjlD__jkDATgp2F9UpNLu7OUFuW-L_Ww0_fEwHXYZRE8rimOM8kPtYOT-3u7IEA-gV9sFbGiJfBfWrH8im1P1gSBSVsLD

elastigirl: unless theory and practice are unwittingly divorced from each other (due to logic leaps because one is uncomfortable with the obvious logical implications)

A classic example of this, is the BIG NO NO in some theology circles of using water as an analogy for the Trinity. It can get you accused of the heresy of Modalism.
And yet the same theo-dudes will prattle on with thousands of words that are almost completely divorced from every day practical reality.
I think that those guys have lost the charge in their gravity boots and they float about in a kind of ethereal/semantic never-never-land.
Let me go on record by saying that I think that water is a beautiful analogy for the Trinity.

Muff Potter,

“lost the charge in their gravity boots”
+++++++++++++++

that got one of the first smiles of the day

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Thin trail of crumbs, or is it all we can really “understand”?? As I keep saying, the older I get, the more I am amazed at the physical world, and the more I learn, the more I realize I do not understand it… how much more “metaphysical” concepts like G&D??

Jeffrey J Chalmers,

“Thin trail of crumbs, or is it all we can really “understand”??”
++++++++++++++++

sort of like the physics class i’m required to take at the moment…

the instructor more or less says, “I laid it all out for you! it’s right there, it’s obvious!”

i more or less say, “‘tcha, you did no such thing. but go ahead, illustrate it 12 ways to Sunday and i still won’t see it.”

Lowlandseer: Yes. Reformation Heritage Books.

They charge $38 per volume. I don’t plan to buy it just to read one section. It would be great if you could summarize the main points that address my earlier comment.

ES,

Very interesting thoughts

ES: So the idea to me of believing prior to having the knowledge or comprehension to really understand what salvation is all about, is not all that strange. You just work out your salvation as you grow.

Unfortunately, the whole Revivalist shtick has left a lot of Christians with the idea that Salvation has to be in a certain way (Altar Call/Sinner’s Prayer after the Age of Accountablity) causing Instantaneous Total Sanctification (no growth necessary). And it has to be a Moment of Decision/Damascus Road Spectacle or it isn’t real.

They don’t acknowledge that catechism at an early age or “working out your salvation as you grow” as Real Salvation. It has to be a fully-remembered Moment of Decision AcceptingJesusChristAsYourPersonalLORDandSavior (and may as well be all one word). Nothing else counts.

And God have mercy on those who do NOT remember the exact year/month/day/hour/minute/second they were Saved.

The idea of Instantaneous Total Sanctification upon Salvation is also a trap. What if now you’re Saved(TM) but you still have the baggage from before? This can lead to some really psychotic delusional levels of Pretending.

Wild Honey: This works both ways. If generic-you can’t claim a role in another individual’s condemnation, neither can generic-you claim a role in their salvation.

So much for the size of your Crown of Glory (position and rank in Heaven) being entirely dependent on the number of Souls (not people) YOU Saved. It isn’t about your Sales Record, who sells the most Fire Insurance policies with or without the complementary Rapture boarding pass.

ES: Funny thing about Pride… it’s not always easy to spot your own.

And with changes in English (fastest-mutating language in human history), what in the Bible was translated as “Pride” today might be more accurately translated as “Egotism” or “Egomania” or “Megalomania”. Where your exalted opinion of your SELF crowds out external reality.

In recent correspondence, my writing partner told me that the word “Fool” in the proverb “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God” might be more accurately “Sociopath”.

ES:
Headless Unicorn Guy,

Interesting idea.

Actually gives it a little more depth; the word “gehenna” to a listener of the time would immediately resonate with all those contexts. Too many Christians only recite the surface “plain words” like an MP3 playback with little or no understanding of what can lie beneath.

Muff Potter: Let me go on record by saying that I think that water is a beautiful analogy for the Trinity.

No analogy’s going to be perfect, but the water one is actually very clever when you understand the properties of water:

There is a “sweet spot” of temperature and pressure called “the triple point” where water can simultaneously exist as a solid, liquid, AND gas at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point

Headless Unicorn Guy: And God have mercy on those who do NOT remember the exact year/month/day/hour/minute/second they were Saved.

What is really funny about this is that my mother does remember. It was August 3rd, 1986. She was packing for a move and it was a really inconvenient time for her three year old to announce that we had to pray RIGHT NOW!!!!!! Apparently, I prayed a 3 year old interpretation of the sinner’s prayer (that I had never been taught because we weren’t in that kind of church, and I was barely 3, and couldn’t be left in the nursery because of epic melt-downs ie: not even pre-school) and then I proceeded to have a day and night, permanent change in behavior.

But I remember absolutely none of it. All I know is the still small voice that has “always” been there.

ES,

believe….saved….
++++++++++++

seems to me “faith” inherently occupies a murky, mysterious gray-scale world where there are precious few dark charcoal and quite pale things.

i mean, God is invisible, how can it not be?

it is a mistake to make faith fill in the missing black and white things. the end result is a totalitarian regime.

thus and therefore, seems to me much more weight can be given to anecdotal stuff than in a courtroom or logic laboratory.

(faith and rock-solid, iron-clad case are incompatible)
.
.
so, now i’ll share something anecdotal which to some degree factors into how i see things.

a friend went to visit another friend’s husband who had perhaps a day or two left to live. he was a blue collar worker, rough around the edges, not a religious person.

my friend recounted the visit. the husband was not awake. suddenly he rallied, became very alert, and declared “God is amazing!!” he was lucid. there was some more verbal exchange for a while, then he went back to his state of ‘sleep’ (or whatever state a person in that stage of life is in).

hallucinations? maybe. but i wonder what the liklihood is for hallucinations which when lucid are described in God-terms, for someone who hadn’t previously engaged with belief in God.

it seemed to my friend and the others in the room that he had had a glimpse of something imminent that was extremely good.

something which even a person not schooled in religion of any kind somehow knew was God.

this, along with a number of other things I’ve observed and experienced, do not fit the neat & tidy black & white world of the codified christian party line regarding “saved” and “belief”.

so we’re navigating a grayscale world.

I stopped believing in Hell a long time ago. It feels much more merciful and ethical to go through life not assuming that God wants to punish people for all eternity. A lot of Christian ideas about Hell come from medieval times, not Christian Scripture.

Of course, a lot of people point to verses and say I’m going straight to the place I don’t believe in. They say I’m not a Christian. These comments are absolutely threats, rather than friendly warnings. The more I hear them, the more they sound like a certain movie character shrieking, “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!”

elastigirl: this, along with a number of other things I’ve observed and experienced, do not fit the neat & tidy black & white world of the codified christian party line regarding “saved” and “belief”.

so we’re navigating a grayscale world.

And this is something that I have slowly, recently been exposed to, which is why I’m not so sure about what I thought was so true.

Jack,

it is true – everyone’s mileage varies.

was there real butter and real maple syrup in the dream of the pancakes? i have to know.

elastigirl: if that’s not good enough for this deity, so be it. (although i don’t believe that)

I’m with you elastigirl.
In their world, you (generic you) can never be good enough for God.
God can never be satisfied with anything short of perfection.
And because of this, he had to…….
And on and on it goes.
As a father and a grandfather I don’t reject my progeny because they fall short of perfection. So long as they do the best they can with what they’ve got, I’m a happy camper. I hope the Almighty feels the same about me.

This very question caused me a lot of distress throughout my youth. The utter injustice of it all made me constantly search for reassurance that most people will not go to Hell, especially ones who never heard of Christ. Growing up in other places and other religions and only rejecting Christianity because that’s how you were taught–I hoped for their salvation as well. I prayed fervently for everybody I heard about who had died, and even those I never heard of, that they had repented before death.

This eventually drove me to Orthodoxy because their view of Heaven/Hell/salvation was a lot more loving than anything I’d been hearing in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical world. I still pray for the dead and the living, but without feeling that they’re going to burn in Hell if I don’t.

Lowlandseer: You tried to divert the conversation away from these points and I referred you to sources that might help you which you declined.

You are consistently uncharitable towards me. Why? I asked for a summary so I could understand, and you refused. Then you gave me a link to a 779 page work in Latin, and then told me to go look for the English version in a place that apparently does not show it for free. How was that helpful? And now you insult me. Why? Why did you refuse to summarize the main points of what you wanted me to read? Or provide a link in English?

Did every one forget this passage from Romans 1?

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19, ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;6 for God hath shewed it unto them.
20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Ken F (aka Tweed): Why did you refuse to summarize the main points of what you wanted me to read?

Obviously Ken, you are not theologically adept or astute enough to understand the fine points of reformed doctrine, so why waste time trying to help you? When it comes to Scripture, you need to forget being taught by the Holy Spirit and merge your mind into the teachings and traditions of men … then you will understand. (all of this tongue in cheek, brother)

The “Greatest Commission” was given to Jesus Christ by His Father …”conquer death and the grave by taking away the sins of the world”. He did that on the cross and it was accomplished for all people of all time. He will also graciously and scandalously give belief and faith to all in the proper time (ex. the Apostle Paul). Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess (praise) Him! Amen!

Tom Hill,

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
++++++++++++++++

who are “they”?

Ken F (aka Tweed): Wouldn’t that be a pot complaining to the potter about another pot?

That is the entire Christian experience, to many Christians on the giving and receiving ends.

Friend: That is the entire Christian experience, to many Christians on the giving and receiving ends.

Very true. It’s easy to cause damage by equating a person’s theology with their identity. I see this occur in at least two ways:
1) Attacking a person rather than the theology they push, and
2) Feeling attacked as a person when it’s only one’s theology being attacked.

Ideas, such as theologies, are cold and lifeless, so they should be attacked without mercy so that good ideas will stand and bad ideas will fall. But people should be loved, honored, and respected. I don’t always get this right, but I try.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

But, as we are seeing in our current culture in ‘Merica, religion and politics are many peoples WHOLE identity.. I say this with deep sorrow also…

Muff Potter: I’m with you elastigirl.
In their world, you (generic you) can never be good enough for God.
God can never be satisfied with anything short of perfection.

Never mind Fear, Utter PERFECTION is the Mind-Killer.

ES: How could anyone claim that intelligence has any role in salvation?

I’m sure they have a Verse for it.

How could anyone call a God like this merciful?

The Predestined Elect who KNOW they are His Speshul Pets.
“Pull up the Ladder – I’M RESCUED!”

christiane: HOW can Platt OPENLY say he knows the Mind of God, when the sacred Scriptures tell him that God’s Ways are far above our ways and God will do what He will do???

Ah, but CALVIN has God All Figured Out.

Bridget: But where does God, himself, claim this about his glory? I’ve read through the Bible several times and don’t recall this claim by God.

Because it’s not there.
It has to be manufactured by using inference and clever word sophistry.

Samuel Conner,

I have experienced exactly the same thing, MANY times..

Tom Hill: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Well that stinks. I’m neither Jewish nor Greek. Just thinking of my wasted childhood in Sunday school.

Samuel Conner: Theological ideas have implications that many people consider to be of paramount importance, and that can arouse strong reactions when faced with questions or competing ideas.

Very good point. I went through the same pushback on YEC, and other topics such as PSA, nature and duration of hell, sacraments, etc. It is very much like a joke I heard many years ago. A guy walked into a public outhouse and saw another guy going through the contents of his pockets to dump everything into the hole. When asked what he was doing, he replied, “I dropped a quarter down there, and I’m certainly not going in there for just a quarter.” It’s the slippery slope pushed to absurdity.

Lowlandseer: I don’t think I’m uncharitable to you at all; I

I asked an honest question and you attributed ill motives to me. You assumed the worst about me and gave me the run-around. That was not charitable.

Calvinists constantly complain non-Calvinists don’t understand Calvinism. But when we ask penetrating questions that could help us understand we are are typically insulted or dismissed. Why are Calvinists so dodgey? Why won’t they answer reasonable questions that could make a difference? Why do they so consistently avoid dialogue? In my experience, Calvinists are the best apologists against Calvinism. They give me no reason to believe in it, and many reasons not to.

Ken F (aka Tweed): I went through the same pushback on YEC, and other topics such as PSA, nature and duration of hell, sacraments, etc.

This is why people in the fundagelical fold—especially children—are not supposed to know anyone who believes differently. They might see other Christians, or Jews, atheists, Sikhs, et al., who are well adjusted, not dancing naked around fires, jumping into bed with strangers, robbing banks, and doing all the other thousands of things that people supposedly do if they think the world is older, or women are allowed to work.

Related: I will Venmo $5 to anybody who can diagram that sentence. 🙂

dee,

Hi Dee. Here’s a link to the blog:
https://capstonereport.com/2019/11/15/decadence-in-the-church-lifestyles-of-the-rich-radical/33272/amp/

And because I don’t know the blogger and where they got their info, here’s proof of address:
https://nuwber.com/person/563a1a74a219445d524179a8

If you go to the Fairfax county property appraiser site, it says “owner name withheld by request”. Hmmmm…

MJD:
I think CS Lewis got it right. Regarding Platt, he’s a world class hypocrite. He’s founder, CEO and Chairman or Radical…an organization that raises money to reach the unreached…hence the sermon to line his own pockets. Radical’s annoying ads used to be all over my Facebook feed with the preposterous claim that 3.2 BILLION people haven’t heard the gospel. Pretty crafty and manipulative to synergize your sermons with your side gig. The kind of craftiness that allowed him to buy an $800k house at the age of 40. And his book Radical preaches against wealthy living while he flys first class to his photo ops.Who knows if he even believes what he’s preaching….always follow the money…

You can claim 3.2 billion people haven’t heard the Gospel only if you have a rather sectarian definition of “the Gospel.”

Oh, and I’m exceedingly glad that Platt will not have anything to say about my fate when I breathe my last.

Why is there any gospel message at all if one need not hear it and repent and believe (Mark 1:15)? Why did Jesus die if one need not acknowledge his death and resurrection as needful for salvation? Why would Jesus require his disciples to go and make disciples if it’s not necessary? You don’t answer any of these questions and these questions have nothing to do with your disgust with all things Calvinistic. BTW: I’m no fan of David Platt – I find him as hypocritical as you do.

Gus Nelson,

As an exercise, try asking a question: what is worthwhile about Christianity if the threat of eternal suffering is taken away? Is fear the only incentive that matters? Or is a whole way of living summarized in the Sermon on the Mount?

Friend: As an exercise, try asking a question: what is worthwhile about Christianity if the threat of eternal suffering is taken away? Is fear the only incentive that matters?

All too often, YES.

“If you can’t love ’em into The Kingdom, SCARE ‘EM INTO THE KINGDOM!”
— KBRT morning host, when the station was going downhill around 1990

And one side effect of this is to arrest Christians’ moral development at the toddler level:
AVOID PUNISHMENT AT ALL COSTS.

Muff Potter: Because it’s not there.
It has to be manufactured by using inference and clever word sophistry.

Remember where the word “sophistry” originated.

With a Greek philosophical school called the Sophists, who were so into rhetoric and debate that they bragged they could argue anybody into believing anything. ANYTHING.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

“Ever wonder if Theology’s gone off the deep end and nobody will admit to it?”
+++++++++++++++++

‘tcha…yes

at some point, it implodes.

treating people the way you want to be treated emerges tall and structural in the wreckage.

indestructible, really.

as i see it, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are standing tall next to it, too.

that’s enough. for me, at least.

Ava Aaronson: No longer worshipping God in Spirit and Truth, as Jesus said we should.

In my 70+ years of doing church in America, I can count on one hand the number of churches where I have found that dynamic in motion … where Spirit and Truth were elevated about the teachings and traditions of mere men … where the people of God were unified by fellowshipping together in the Holy Spirit … where you could feel the presence of the Lord because He alone was worshipped. Most churchgoers have never experienced this due to the spiritual leadership crisis in America. Sad.

When I think of Platt and other New Calvinists who have brought another gospel (which is not ‘the’ Gospel) into SBC, I’m reminded of a Scripture:

“If I merely preach the Gospel, I have nothing to boast about, for I am compelled that is, absolutely obligated to do it. Woe to me if I do not preach the good news of salvation!’ (1 Corinthians 9:16 AMP)

Muff Potter,

Ken F (aka Tweed),

The problem I find with many Calvinists is that they are more verbose than the Bible. They end up claiming and saying what God never said.

Tom Hill:
“The word “they” in the text in Romans 1.20 refers back to those who “hold the truth in unrighteousness,” i.e., those who reject the truth of God as revealed to them as stated in Romans 1.20.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

So if someone (who has never heard of Jesus) looks at bugs or rocks or plants and Jesus as described in the New Testament doesn’t occur to them, its eternal torment for them?

I’m in line with earlier contributors (e.g., HereIStand, Lowlandseer) regarding the frequent comments about Calvinism in comments on this website. I first found this site due to Dee’s wonderful work exposing the awful truth regarding Iain Campbell (and still pray for Anne, her children and their community). But I find the constant referencing of Calvinism most unhelpful. I am well aware of the conundrums raised in the debate, having taught biblical and systematic theology for 20 years prior to a disabling illness. But it seems churlish to me to denigrate in a group-chat style setting the teaching of evangelicals of the calibre of Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Warfield, Machen, Lloyd-Jones, Stott, Packer, Keller etc etc. Plus it’s possible to work with other believers who differ as to whether regeneration precedes faith, just as Whitefield in the early years of the Great Awakening entrusted his many converts to Wesley, with whom he differed on these things. As I see it, the constant referencing of Calvinism distracts from the important work of exposing the abuse of women and children in our churches and is better suited to a site dedicated to those themes. That said, I remain very glad for this website. Personally, I thank God for Dee’s work on Campbell and although I don’t live in the USA I have learned here, with much consternation, about the membership covenant nonsense at Chandler’s church (and presumably at other similar churches?), which is a clear abuse of power – along with their appalling, public shaming of a woman with a peadophile husband – as well as what’s unfolding within the SBC and more.

Stu J: But I find the constant referencing of Calvinism most unhelpful.

It would not be such an issue if the New-Calvinists did not push their Calvinism so hard, as if Calvinism is the only viable version of Christianity. The “constant referencing of Calvinism” starts with the Calvinists themselves because they push it so viciously. And we are supposed to shut up and be glad to hear their propaganda? It is pertinent to this post because Platt has been such a forceful pusher of Calvinism, and his teaching here.is not consistent with Calvinism. I would not write about Calvinism it it had not been so destructive to me and to members of my family.

Ken F (aka Tweed): It would not be such an issue if the New-Calvinists did not push their Calvinism so hard, as if Calvinism is the only viable version of Christianity.

Oh, like this quote from the high calibre Dr. Mohler:

“Where else are they gonna go? I mean, what options are there? If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing. There just are not options out there. And that’s something that I think frustrates some people. But when I am asked about the New Calvinism, I will say just basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is gonna answer the questions? Where else will they find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect? This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing Paul said. They want to stand with the Apostles. They want to stand with old, dead people. And they know they are going to have to if they are going to preach and teach the truth.” (Dr. Albert Mohler, President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

No other options out there?! New Calvinism is the only expression of Christian faith that preaches and teaches truth?! All non-Calvinists have had it wrong for the last 5 centuries?! Whosoever-will from every tribe, tongue and nation may not come to the precious Gospel of Christ?!

This is the very reason that 90+% of believers have rejected the tenets of reformed theology for the past 500 years. “My way or the highway” rhetoric from folks of the calibre of Al Mohler is not helpful. New Calvinists are known for their arrogance, not their love.

Re elastigirl: yes, as the scripture in Romans 1 says, they are without excuse. Further, read Psalm 19.1-6 which confirms Romans 1…creation confirms the self-revelation of God in creation as stated in Romans 1.20.

Ken F (aka Tweed): And we are not allowed to say even a word against them

… while their words dig a deeper hole for themselves. New Calvinism will pass from the scene after it has done its damage; all aberrant movements of faith eventually run their course.

Max: No other options out there?! New Calvinism is the only expression of Christian faith that preaches and teaches truth?!

Hey, Calvary Chapel and every One True New Testament Church started by every Reverend Apostle Joe Soap three weeks ago claims the Exact Same Thing. There Can Be NO Salvation Outside of US, The Only True Christians(TM)!

Jack: I don’t get that.

Neither do I. Much of what is called evangelicalism assumes a holy and righteous God cannot tolerate us as we are, so his default disposition toward us is wrath, often described as white hot wrath. Think “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.” They make has wrath certain and his grace conditional on either choices he makes (e.g., unconditional election) or choices we make.

The ancient liturgies describe God as the lover of mankind, where his disposition toward us is always love and grace (even when he corrects us). Evangelicalism forgets that God is Christlike.

Ken F (aka Tweed): Evangelicalism forgets that God is Christlike.

That’s because Christ ‘is’ God … much of Evangelicalism has forgotten that, too.