Thinking out loud…

I am glad that Mrs. DiPrima is able to find comfort in an unbearable situation. But I worry that her particular method of finding comfort is not going to be helpful to others.

Mrs. DiPrima says, “God receives glory when I’m more satisfied in him than in my husband, my children, a healthy body, or anything death might steal.” Reading this through the lens of a (recovering) control freak, the implication is that “God gave her cancer” (which she baldly states) because she wasn’t focused enough on Him. If she’d been more focused on Him, He wouldn’t have needed to give her cancer. Therefore, the cancer is her fault. I think it was Brene Brown who said that we become so focused on finding whose fault it is because it gives us an illusion of control.

I think the miracle is less that God gives us suffering in order to make something beautiful (aka “His glory), than that God can make something beautiful even through or in spite of tragedy.

After all, sometimes tragedy breaks people.

My much-loved grandfather is in the throes of dementia. And not the happily-blissfully-unaware dementia, but the paranoid-that-everyone’s-out-to-get-me dementia. This has stressed my grandparents‘ 60+ year marriage (one that I used to aspire to) more than poverty, more than the stillbirth of a child, more than caring for elderly parents, more than the suicide of an adult child, more than a cancer diagnosis, more than a broken femur at age 83 that required months of recovery. It is not beautiful to watch, and I frankly hardly see how God is being glorified in his dementia. Sometimes you do things just because it’s the right thing to do, with little thought for whether or not it “glorifies God.” (No offense, God. It’s just that right now Grandpa needs our energy more than You do. I’m sure You know how it is, having been a member of a very human family once, also.)

Sorry if that got a little blasphemous toward the end.

Read The Innocence of God by Udo Middelmann, son-in-law of the late Francis Schaeffer. Better yet, listen to his lecture you will find at the Lanier Theological Library 2013 page. He knows God doesn’t cause cancer.

A cancer diagnosis is one of those classic low points in life used by dodgy religious groups* and quack therapists to hook people. Like all the religious conversions in prison. It is sooo manipulative.
*Not just ones that might be considered ‘cults’ either.

It takes a MORE sovereign God to create a contingent universe containing us in His image. Adam and Eve were the longest ago people who could be remembered. God created us humans in a joint category contrary to the claims of the serpent (i.e worm) cult operative.

When means of subsistence and organisation changed, when metallurgy changed, there were more Falls. Culture heroes were people who were given glory but mostly underwent a nemesis.

Creation groans because it too is contingent. That is, neither random nor fixed. Eternity is a ground against which limits are set to possibilities (as A N Whitehead found from his maths).

There is no grace without providence. “Reformed characters” don’t talk about setting the example of beseeching and imploring our God to send His good angels.

In St Paul’s parlance, Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and Ascension stand in for each other. That’s why we can’t have Jesus, without Holy Spirit inbreathing PLUS the gifts unvetoed (strengthening soul competency like discernment in hard times).

God’s good angels are constantly joining in events in ways small (especially) and big. The outcome for your daughter was the actual outcome, not a statistic. Waves map possibility densities.

Our God desires all people’s integrity to be safeguarded and He came in order to ascend and show that if we bring sins (including our forebears’ and betters’) to Him we can be part of His help to those around us.

This poor woman’s and her husband’s codependency don’t show “so great a salvation”, but rather an excuse for becoming implicated.

Calvinism (the ironically named “work ethic” and high handed possessiveness) and its several theological twins =

1 – setting example of lack of attention to detail, hence London Transport outsourcers not maintaining the tram tunnel and trying to put their driver behind bars, hence the club in Durham making that fence fall down twice in one evening; designer frisson as profitable business modelling

2 – affecting the body image of all throughout society

3 – turning back the theology clock to Nimrod

I was young and now am old. I’ve been a Christian the greater part of a century. I have never heard a non-Calvinist believer say “Arminianism is getting me through cancer.”

Herein is the thing that bothers me most about the New Calvinists. You hear them talk a lot about their theology, about “Big God”, about Calvin, about living icons (Piper, Mohler, Dever, etc.) … more than Jesus. I’ve been through some tough bouts with health … my wife is going through one now … we both know that Jesus is helping us through it all, not our theology. Knowing Him is better than doctrinal propositions about Big God; the living Christ in our lives is more precious than gold.

I pray the best for Jenna and that she can experience Jesus carrying her through the tough days.

John Berry: A cancer diagnosis is one of those classic low points in life used by dodgy religious groups and quack therapists to hook people.

I wondered if anyone else was thinking this. That was my first impression when I saw the title of the article … a sick way to promote “Big God” theology. I’m sure that TGC and Mrs. DiPrima are passionate about this, but it is a misplaced passion.

His name is Jesus … not Calvin!

I am going to disagree with both Dee and Mrs. DiPrima. I agree that we live in a fallen world, and so tragic (from our point of view) things happen. Being Lutheran I accept the idea of paradox, which means that I think even those bad things are under God’s sovereign control. I also was taught that as a Wesleyan Arminian, so it isn’t exactly a Lutheran or Calvinist thing. In fact, dh was taught it as a child in the RCC.

When these bad things happen, and they will, our theology DOES either help us cope or not help us cope. If we assume we have the power to change the outcome through prayer we make God into our slave. If we assume we are NOT to pray and believe He CAN change the situation, we make Him an impotent God.

So what do we do? Like any trusting child of a wonderfully loving Father, we run to Him with the hurt and fear and the bad situation. We beg and plead for Him to change it. And then we wait to see what His answer is. Sometimes we get things fixed up (like Dee’s daughter) and sometimes we don’t (like my childhood school mate who did die of the brain tumor). In some situations that wait may take a long time…..like our son who has a brain not likely to be healed until heaven.

We can take heart if the answer is no healing that God is doing the kindest, most loving thing possible. And yeah, while some suffering is due to living in a fallen world (like three year olds with brain tumors) some suffering really is God dealing with us to better fit us for eternity (like some adults who find great purpose revealed to them in the midst of the suffering.)

And much as I hate to admit it, there are times God does, I believe, let the child with the tumor or cancer die not because we live in a fallen world, but to spare that child something down the road. My humanness wants to cry out to God “Well why not fix the kid now AND fix that situation?” but the situation itself down the road may be part of God’s plan.

As to the Titan, yes we live in a fallen world. From some of the news reports a case could be made the very human sin of hubris may have contributed to the implosion. That would be cold comfort to me if one of my family had been on it. It is one of those things that Christians should never say to the grieving family and yet, one of those things that may be a teachable moment on how sin infests our world for those not part of that suffering family.

In the same way, I would never have told Dee sin was causing her daughter’s issues, although the fall was an act of sin, and therefore in a sense sin really was the root cause of the disease.

Paradox.

Their god (calvinists) is a cruel and petulant monster.
And their religion really is sick.

dee: She reflects the beliefs of the theodudes and doesn’t understand why it doesn’t sell.

It continues to amaze me that so many otherwise intelligent people fall for New Calvinism.

“I dare not trust Calvin and his theology … but wholly lean on Jesus’ name. Why do you need Calvinism, when you have a solid Rock in Christ?”

Thank you, Max. Amen and Amen.

I dare not trust Calvin and his theology … but wholly lean on Jesus’ name. Why do you need Calvinism, when you have a solid Rock in Christ?

Yup! The Son of God suffered and died for us. He did not inflict suffering on others for His own glory, and He never will.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): He did not inflict suffering on others for His own glory, and He never will.

So how does this god glorify himself by hurting a little child?
I can see how Molech and Chemosh get off on it, so somebody help me out here, how does that work?

dee,

2 Corinthians 1-4
He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any kind of affliction, through the comfort we ourselves receive from God.

“Jenna believes that God gave her cancer “for His glory,””
+++++++++++++++

just starting out reading the article, and got this far.

totally honest questions:

-What is ‘His glory’?

-What does it mean for a person to do something to or for ‘His glory’?

-What does it mean that God does something ‘for His glory’?

Some of Calvinism’s odd attraction is that it provides a sense of “black and white” order for those who need everything to add up to 100. “God’s will” is such a pat answer for those who are unable to accept that life has random, unexplainable moments that are often unhappy, unfair, and heartbreaking. If everything is “God’s will”, what need is there for faith? Because everything that occurs is “God’s will” one merely needs to accept whatever is before them – be it good or bad – because God “made it happen.” Faith plays no role in such a system of belief.

Last year a 3 year old child of an extended family member accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. A terrible, terrible tragedy. The funeral service was one of denial. The child died “for God’s glory” and “many will come to know Jesus” because of this moment. There was singing and praising God. It seemed that crying was out of place. Normal grief did not appear to be allowed.

Calvinism creates a sense of denial that I, as a psychotherapist and former pastor, find troubling. The failure to face reality because there is some huge “purpose” behind it
is not a healthy walk with God or expression of faith.

elastigirl: they repeat the meaningless phrases they hear and then export meaning into them to make sense of their lives.)

They wouldn’t dare and do otherwise.
The fear of eternal hell can do wonders to keep them in line.

yeah, all this desperate need for certainty and answers…

imagine, taking the hugely complex complexities of life and solving all of them down like math. where all the variables are bible verses.

or idioms.

…i feel like i did when i first smelled fermaldehyde in biology class, age 12.

Dee, thank you so much for your kind words to me. “God did not cause her brain tumor. But, He took the experience and had us use it to care for others.”

You nailed it in that sentence. I would NEVER choose ill-health or other serious challenges. Nevertheless, without spending a lot of time overthinking this, my prayer has been (and continues to be), may God use this and somehow bring good out of whatever I experience, good or bad. And, please, engrave it deep in my heart. I do not want to repeat this particular lesson(s).

What Jenna has done is completely understandable given the circumstances she’s facing: she’s seeking meaning and justification for her suffering. She’s chosen to attribute it to God, which gives her the ability to categorize and diminish the seemingly random and pernicious nature of cancer. Reformed theology, for all its positive attributes (I’m mostly a fan), doesn’t leave a lot of room for mystery. In Jenna’s situation, mystery is not considered a friend because it cannot be tamed or predicted. I would be surprised if she thought through the implications of her statement, which were accurately presented by Dee.

I pray she finds emotional, spiritual, and physical peace and healing, and that she genuinely draws closer to God.

Burwell Stark,

i appreciate your kind & compassionate comment. i feel the same, despite not articulating it.

Anyone ever read Erich’s Fromm’s critique of Calvinism in “Escape From Freedom”? I will try to summarize – feel free to correct. With the transition from the middle ages to the modern, and the subsequent loss of communal organizations like the guilds, the feudal system, and the Catholic church, individuals felt increasingly more insignificant and anxious. Many tried to assuage this anxiety by submitting themselves to an overwhelming authority, Luther’s and, especially, Calvin’s God. The anxiety of insignificance was replaced by the significance of existing inside the irresistible will of a sovereign God in which everything was part of his plan. Later, with this anxiety increasing, another sovereign came along and offered the significance of existing inside his overwhelming will: Hitler.

Take it up with Fromm!

“Come to Calvin” moment! HAHAHA!

Interesting… my husband is a passionate, 5-point TULIP Calvinist. (I’m not.) We were both raised in the Christian Reformed Church. He is refreshingly unaware of guys like Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, orgs like TGC, or the YRR movement. He’s not complementarian.

He’s also been around illness his entire life.

His brother has bipolar, paranoid schizophrenia. His dad died of cancer when he was 19 (he dropped out of Calvin halfway through to take up his dad’s landscaping business & support the family, and as a result, it took him 10 years of working full time to get his bachelor’s degree at NJIT). His son as Asperger’s Syndrome. His mother had a chronic health condition from having had scarlet fever as a child, and was on death’s door many times over the years before she passed away.

And then his first wife passed away after a brutal battle with ovarian cancer.

I think Calvinism does genuinely give him peace, as a Christian. Maybe part of it is how his brain works, as an engineer. He likes order, systems. He’s spent his adult life working as a systems control engineer, while knowing that you can never control life. Or God.

But I’ve never heard him say that any of his struggles and grief in life gave God glory. Nor has he tried to find explanations for why things happen the way they do, either to himself or other people. He’s a very unassuming, and accepting person.

His late wife had prayed that he would live life fully, and love again, after she was gone. I do not believe that God gave her cancer for His glory. I don’t think (along the lines of Romans 8:28) that marrying my husband somehow made her death or her horrendous suffering “good.”

I do believe that my marrying him was an answer to her loving, faithful prayers. (Mine too, although I was only very sporadically praying for a Christian husband, without him in mind.)

I do think God can bring good out of evil, but I would never call that evil “good,” in the way that glorifying God is good. I think that cancer is evil, in the sense that it’s one of the many devastating effects of living in a fallen world. God did not design the world for cancer. He did not redeem the world through cancer. There will be no cancer in the new heavens, or the new earth.

I think we can glorify God IN our suffering. But I don’t think that the cause of our suffering is ever good.

I only skimmed the article, but the title is heresy. Someone at The Gospel Coalition should have picked up on that.

Jenna has clearly been reading John Piper.

About the only scriptural justification that comes to my mind, aside from Romans 8:28, which has been mentioned, is in John 9 where Jesus is asked, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” And Jesus answered, “Neither this one sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God might be revealed in him.” And then Jesus healed him.

But it was Jesus who healed him, not any theology. And that appears to be a one-off, to show the works of God in that case. Can we apply that to all cancer cases?

One more glib saying that comes to mind: Calvinism, like Marxism or any ideology or theology, can make a useful servant, but it makes a terrible master.

elastigirl,

Try and work it out

Beware of any theology that has all the answers by putting God into a neat little box.

Thank you, Ava. So much to chew on here.

Yes, and amen!

My husband actually had a close friend of his read portions of Hebrews 11 for our wedding! One of his fave chapters in the Bible.

<

So true. We also had an Advent-themed wedding because of what I learned from Rev. Fleming Rutledge about Advent really being a 7-week season, really starting at All Saints’ Day and focusing on Jesus’ 2nd coming before narrowing in on his 1st coming at Christmas.

So much to learn from blessed saints who have gone before us.

Ava Aaronson,

Thank you Ava. Reading what we are seeing.

dee: doesn’t sell

But designer frisson does sell. Unknowing outsiders model economic, mechanical and social crashes on their spiritual one (the power of dominionism already).

Luckyforward: Some of … of belief.

Exactly. (Applying to their high profile twin denominations as well.)

Ted: Someone at The Gospel Coalition should have picked up on that.

They did, that’s why it stands! They aim to attract what they will call disputaciousness (and isn’t). Carson and Keller trade on their deceptive image.

Ecumenism should be ground floor only. Seniors should stay in their own lanes and not “coalesce”.

Elizabeth: Rev. Fleming Rutledge

“Fleming Rutledge (born 1937) is an American Episcopal priest and author. Ordained to the diaconate in 1975, she was one of the first women to be ordained to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church.

“Rutledge is widely recognized in the United States, in Canada, and in the UK as a preacher and lecturer who teaches other preachers. Her particular expertise is the intersection of biblical theology with contemporary culture, current events and politics, literature, music and art. She has often been invited to preach in prominent pulpits. She is a noted Tolkien scholar, bringing a Christian perspective to the study of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien, who was a devout Roman Catholic.” – wikipedia

I was raised with and by Calvinists. Their theology allows them to emotionally detach from reality and grief…and in so doing…often allowing themselves to take a pass on getting real and sharing the pain of others. Their indifference is tragic.

Max: we both know that Jesus is helping us through it all, not our theology.

Quoting a former pastor of mine whom I highly respect, “It’s not WHAT you know, it’s WHO you know.”

Ava Aaronson,

Ava Aaronson: Elizabeth: Rev. Fleming Rutledge

Fleming Rutledge’s book The Crucifixion is very good.

Ted: Fleming Rutledge’s book The Crucifixion is very good.

Thx. For the recommend.

“The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ”, won Christianity Today’s 2017 Book of the Year Award – FWIW – not all CT’s award selections make sense.

I think both sides are doing the best they can to wrestle with a mysterious subject that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend or grasp.

One side is trying to deal with the problem of suffering by rooting it in God’s sovereignty over all things and his working everything for the good for those who love love him and for his own glory. But this approach raises difficult questions about the character of a God that would ordain suffering in some way for his own glory

The other side attempts to avoid this by rooting suffering in the fall, sin, and corruption of the world and human beings but this also raises character issues for God. How could God just sit and watch us suffer and do nothing, even if it is our fault? As a father, if one of my young daughters gets hurt or is suffering, I take action (whether they’ve brought it on themselves or not) because I love them and can’t bear to see them in pain. What would you think of me if I just stood there, saw them, and did nothing?

I think there is truth on both sides of this equation, but that in the end, we are trying to find a way to know the unknowable (from a human perspective). Job never got an answer to his question of “Why?” Essentially, God’s reply was “I’m God and you’re not.” But the ending of that book foreshadows the ultimate promise that God has made to all who are resting in Jesus Christ for eternal life… That no matter what we have to endure in this life, all will be made right and restored in the end.

Sarah (aka Wild Honey): intellectuals are drawn to Calvinism … deceived into thinking they were smart enough

Most intellectuals I know are not very smart. There’s a vast difference. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation.

Tom Rubino: How could God just sit and watch us suffer and do nothing, even if it is our fault?

The problem may be more acute than that. It appears that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo implies that God is responsible for the suffering that arises in the world He creates — He chose that outcome (assuming absolute sovereignty) or was willing to run that risk (assuming genuine contingency in the created world). I don’t see the flaw in David B Hart’s analysis of this (in his God, Creation and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo ). Hart doesn’t use this argument to reject absolute sovereignty, though. He uses it to argue that God will put everything right in the end (and, for Hart, this means “universalism”).

I think that theodicy remains a significant challenge for consensus Christianity.

Jenna believes that God gave her cancer “for His glory,” and she is comforted knowing that God wanted her to have this disease, “for His glory.”

“Don’t Waste YOUR Cancer.”
— The Pious Piper

Apparently God’s Glory is in our Death, Destruction, and Misery.
Just Because He Can.
In’shal’lah.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): God gave her cancer, and Calvinism is getting her through it??? God harms and Calvinism heals???

BINGO! (And I ain’t talking about Bluey’s little sister.)
Who needs Christ when you have CALVIN?
CALVIN who alone Has God All Figured Out.
Do they even know what they’re screaming from their rooftops?

Ava Aaronson: “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ”, won Christianity Today’s 2017 Book of the Year Award – FWIW – not all CT’s award selections make sense.

I just pulled it out of the pile. It’s a thick read, over 600 pages, but reader-friendly. She also recommends John Stott’s The Cross of Christ.

MOD: You put up your email address as your name. I changed it making a command decision it was likely a typo. GBTC

Elizabeth: I do think God can bring good out of evil, but I would never call that evil “good,” in the way that glorifying God is good.

Calvin (like Mohammed) solved the Paradox of Evil by putting God beyond Good and Evil, i.e. God Wills What God Wills, and who are we to call it Evil? Corollary: If God Wills It, It is Automatically Good. Even if it makes god into a Cosmic Horror like Cthulhu.

The Paradox of Evil:
1) God is All-Powerful.
2) God is All-Good.
3) Evil Exists.
Any two of the three, no problem.
All three, you have a Paradox.
(Paradoxes exist. Deal with it. Preferably not like Calvin or Mohammed.)

Elizabeth: So much to learn from blessed saints who have gone before us.

But who needs “So-Called ‘Saints'” when you “Have SCRIPTURE(TM)!!!!!”
That was the drill when I was In-Country, not Calvin.

I kept having this mental image of those Uber-Christians actually finding themselves in the presence of God, and turning their backs on Him so they could use His Shekinah as a reading light for their Bible Study.

Max: My hope is built on nothing less
than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;

Max, have you ever heard the filk of that that goes:

“My hope is built on nothing less than
Freeze-dried foods and Smith and Wesson.”

Was real popular around Y2K, even in the churches.

dee: I was a bit of a control freak until my daughter got sick. There’s nothing like a possible terminal illness to wipe away any thoughts one can control things.

“Everyone’s got a perfect plan.
Until the first time they get hit.”
— boxer Mike Tyson

Headless Unicorn Guy: “Everyone’s got a perfect plan.
Until the first time they get hit.”
— boxer Mike Tyson

“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower)

Senecagriggs:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.”
― R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God: Know God’s Perfect Plan for His Glory and His Children
______

In this, he agrees 110% with Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers, where when a piece of cloth “burns”, Al’lah is Willing the cloth out of existence and Willing the flame, smoke, and ashes into existence, No Connection Whatsoever.

P.S. Did Wondering Eagle actually kick you off, or did his blog (and/or Jack from Canada’s counter-trolling) just get too hot for you?

Woo.
Been on a roll this morning.
Who needs drugs when you have insomnia?

Max: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”(Dwight D. Eisenhower)

“A [protest] demonstration is thoughtfully planned but organically executed.”
— Garry Trudeau, early Doonesbury

Headless Unicorn Guy: Who needs Christ when you have CALVIN?

Jesus died and rose from the grave, to sit at the right hand of our God in Heaven.

OTOH, who is Calvin? And who resurrected the Calvin skeletal remains, to place his sorry-a** dust and ashes on a pedestal as their idol to rule their churches beyond the grave, where he actually still resides? So, the dead now worship the dead? Pathetic. The dead ARE worshipping the dead. Have at it, I guess. It’s a choice. Dead end, going nowhere fast, choice.

Muff Potter: How did this mindset get started and woven into evangelical protestantism to the point where the Almighty gets cast as a self-absorbed cosmic narcissist?
Anybody?

It comes down to biblical literalism.

This is God’s creation. Everything in it is in his control. He can intervene, Jesus proved that but he doesn’t (unless you’re Pentecostal and believe he’s raising the dead in India) or if you believe your prayers have been answered, it’s very arbitrary.

In the cases of abuse by those who serve him, he does not intervene, or even when the most heinous crimes are committed from the Holocaust, to the killing fields of Cambodia, to serial killers and on and on.

A past murder case has been in the news. Paul Bernardo was a serial rapist and killer. In 1992 he abducted, tortured and killed two teenage schoolgirls. One was held for 24 hours, the other for three days. You can spout the “free will” argument at me all you want, but if Jesus can provide wine for weddings and curse fig trees, I don’t think intervention here is entirely out of line.

If god is in control and has demonstrated he can intervene in the past for trivial events like a wedding, can feed the five thousand, and rain food for the Israelites in the desert then none of this makes any logical sense.

So the conclusion is, god allows it. And since god cannot be evil, there must be some good purpose to it. So these events happen for his “glory”.

For strict literalists there can be no other way or the whole thing collapse like a game of Jenga.

This is not to denigrate the happy endings of those who survive events like cancer (I’ve had a medical scare with my son so I get it) but now I’m in inclined to believe that God/Jesus/spirit doesn’t really play a role.

It’s up to us to act in the face of injustice and adversity. As that great prophet Smokey the Bear states “only you can prevent forest fires”

Muff Potter: How did this mindset get started and woven into evangelical Protestantism to the point where the Almighty gets cast as a self-absorbed cosmic narcissist?

Projection. By the self-absorbed grifting theo-bro narcissists.

Parishioner: “My young friend died in a car accident.” Or, from cancer, whatever.

Preacher-boy: “There, there, Dear. It’s for the glory of God [Projection], and for MY spectacular event of the preaching of the Gospel, with attendees or giving units, right here down in front of my pulpit.”

With Theo-boys that use the church for grift: Everything is leveraged for narcissistic supply. (But not for God; He doesn’t need this.) Theo-boys, the middlemen, live on the dole, using their church to “pay” for their “gift” of pastoring given by the Holy Spirit to their church, so everything is all in for their paychecks.

Jesus was never a narcissistic showman like what we see in churches. Jesus often said, “Tell no one,” after performing a miracle. He would also refuse to talk about certain subjects that have been used for Evangelical marketing purposes in our day (End Times literature & films & conferences & tapes, ad nauseum, for example):

Matthew 8:4; Matthew 9:30; Matthew 12:16; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 21:27;

Mark 1:34; Mark 1:44; Mark 3:12; Mark 5:43; Mark 7:24; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:26; Mark 8:30; Mark 9:9; Mark 9:30; Mark 11:33;

Luke 4:41; Luke 5:14; Luke 8:56; Luke 9:21; Luke 9:36; Luke 20:8.

Abigail:
I was raised with and by Calvinists. Their theology allows them to emotionally detach from reality and grief…and in so doing…often allowing themselves to take a pass on getting real and sharing the pain of others. Their indifference is tragic.

Like the one intellectual snob I encountered many-many years ago who lived so detached in his head that he described all-out nuclear war as “only a three-point-seven gigadeath situation”.

Jack: If god is in control and has demonstrated he can intervene in the past for trivial events like a wedding, can feed the five thousand, and rain food for the Israelites in the desert, then none of this makes any logical sense.

So the conclusion is, god allows it. And since god cannot be evil, there must be some good purpose to it. So these events happen for his “glory”.

Or, the interpretation is that the one who suffers and is not divinely rescued, somehow deserves it. They’ve brought a curse on themselves.

Or, the interpretation is that the one who suffers NEEDS the suffering as some type of character lesson, to get them in shape, as their character is deficient (similar to carrying a curse, like above).

Bah, humbug.

Job never got the why answered. But it certainly wasn’t either of these two aforementioned.

The long game is the presence of God throughout. And resolution with God in Eternity, where the unfortunate rich man burns with thirst and the anawim like Lazarus can’t reach him as it’s too late. (It behooves the blessed to share with the qualified needy now.)

We also are witnesses to the sufferings of the saints throughout history, and the sufferings of Jesus. We belong. It’s a blessed belonging.

I’m very grateful to Dee for this heartfelt post.

Rather than the volumes upon volumes of effective work that destroys calvinism, I rely upon a verse that clarifies and underlines the loving character of God:

“…the last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

At one point I had to tell the preschool staff I might not live to see Christmas with our little boy.

How dare anybody tell me what to think about life-threatening illness.

Believer: tired old soul

“I will still be the same
when you are old and gray,
and I will take care of you.
I created you. I will carry you
and save you.”

(Isaiah 46:4)

Here’s a prayer that helped me enormously:

This is another day, O Lord. I know not what it will bring forth, but make me ready, Lord, for whatever it may be. If I am to stand up, help me to stand bravely. If I am to sit still, help me to sit quietly. If I am to lie low, help me to do it patiently. And if I am to do nothing, let me do it gallantly. Make these words more than words, and give me the Spirit of Jesus. Amen.
—Book of Common Prayer

Friend,

Beautiful. Thx for sharing. Very helpful.

Ava Aaronson,

You are most welcome.

I find the problem of evil and suffering deeply troubling. It is the central challenge to Christianity.

I’ve found the most peace and comfort by letting go of a engineer’s perspective of searching for cause and effect in the question “Why?” and replacing it with a focus on “Who.”

Who? Jesus: past, present, and future. So far, mostly the future has been mentioned in this thread, where Jesus will “wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

But there is also Jesus past and present.

Jesus past:
His life and character: He is the “image of the invisible God” and as He said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Compare any mental construction of who God is with Jesus who came to us so that we see God’s character in terms we could understand.

His suffering: He suffered the things we suffer : rejection and betrayal and abandonment by his own family and community, physical pain, sexual humiliation while being beaten and mocked while naked, spiritual separation from the Father on the cross. He understands.

His death : Whenever I’ve heard Is 53 taught, the focus has been on Christ’s death for our sins. I am not a theologian, but when I read vs. 3-5, it seems to me that he bore on the cross, not just our sins, but our suffering. (I’ll use words from several translations.)

He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows (suffering, great pain) and acquainted with grief; (familiar with pain, familiar with sickness)
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely our griefs (suffering, sicknesses) He Himself bore,
And our sorrows (pain) He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

(On Biblegateway, you can search parallel translations for a few verses. Since I can’t read Greek or Hebrew, I find it helpful to see the various ways a word can be translated. )

I’ve never seen this expounded on (though it wouldn’t surprise me if the Eastern Orthodox teach on this
dainca, Do you know?), but it seems to be saying that not only did he lead a life where he, too, suffered, but that in addition to our specific sins, he also bore our specific sufferings on the cross.

Jesus present. Several places Jesus makes it clear that He experiences our suffering Himself: “Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these (sick, in prison, hungry, homeless, stranger,etc) , you did it to Me.” “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” Emmanuel. God with us. God suffering with us.

Focusing on Jesus past, present, and future is the only answer I have to the great question of “Why?” I can’t answer the “Why?” but I can love and trust the “Who.”

I hope that Jenna experiences Emmanuel, Himself. He is not an “ism” whether Calvinism or any other kind.

Eyewitness,

“but it seems to be saying that not only did he lead a life where he, too, suffered, but that in addition to our specific sins, he also bore our specific sufferings on the cross.

Jesus present. Several places Jesus makes it clear that He experiences our suffering Himself…

Focusing on Jesus past, present, and future is the only answer I have to the great question of “Why?” I can’t answer the “Why?” but I can love and trust the “Who.”
+++++++++++++++++

hi, Eyewitness.

yes, i, too have gotten comfort and encouragement from Jesus past, present, & future.

i love that he’s a human, just like me. like in tarzan (the Disney animated feature), he notices that his hand doesn’t quite fit his adopstive ape-mom’s hand, as a reminder that he doesn’t quite fit in. he’s an outsider.

then when he meets Jane, he finally finds someone just like him – whose hand matches his.

i take great comfort in that Jesus’ hand matches mine. He’s just like me.

quite frankly, I think Jesus feels the same. i am just like him. (& just like you, & all of us). he belongs.

i can conceive that God/Jesus/HS can be lonely. there really is no lone like them.

Eyewitness: I’ve found the most peace and comfort by letting go of a engineer’s perspective of searching for cause and effect in the question “Why?” and replacing it with a focus on “Who.”

I’ve also found it helpful in some situations I have encountered to focus on “What?” What are you saying to me, Lord?

Friend: I concluded that God was saying the same thing all the time: God is with me in good moments and bad.

Immanuel: “God with us”

elastigirl: i’d like to hear more about how Jesus’ past impacts you on a practical level.

i do take stock in the passage “by His stripes we are healed”, as relating to physical/psychological/emotional injury & infirmity.

i’ve lost quite a bit of my…, oh, perhaps vision or conviction on that, and many other ‘christian’ things, too.

i’ve purposely drained myself of as much magical fancifulness and faith in idioms…and faith in faith itself… in search of the few brass tacks that it all boils down to – that i can apply in a practical way.

i think i’ve found a few of the few of them.

i’d like to find the practical brass tack that stems from “he also bore our specific sufferings on the cross” (Isaiah 53).

can you comment on your thoughts on that?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “practical” and your question has made me think further. So let me know if I’m not answering your actual question and some of my answer may well be “I don’t know.” I will probably have to share in pieces as I am likely to be interrupted soon and later, will be preparing for potentially dangerous weather.

I think actual beliefs translate into actions, so I think there are implications for our own behavior of Jesus taking on our pain, affliction, sorrows, etc. on the cross in addition to our sin versus if the cross was only about sin.

The practical application that it’s NOT is that we can therefore expect instant physical healing in this life if we have enough faith. He died for sins, yet nearly all streams of belief allow that we still sin in this life. So scratch that one.

One practical application would change the church’s understanding of the reality of pain, affliction, suffering and therefore how the church responds to pain and the seriousness with which God treats it.
Suffering is deep, it’s real, and not some shallow thing that is glossed over by God and therefore shouldn’t be glossed over by us, either. (Human beings, not just Christian human beings, have a tendency to gloss over pain of others and offer a “cheer-up, dearie” or “buck-up son” “comfort” to the afflicted. I remember being shocked as a young adult when a friend’s spouse died, and people started in with the false comfort at the memorial service. “You’re still young. You’ll find a new spouse!” And within a couple weeks, people expected things to be getting back to normal and began to verbally chastise. False comfort, platitudes and blaming others for their pain are ways to make ourselves (not the sufferer) feel better and relieve us of the burden of caring.
But wouldn’t Jesus bearing pain/afflictions/suffering on the cross give it the kind of weight that would as a practical matter cause us to also weight it heavily too and walk alongside them for as long as needed?

I think another practical application would be how the church deals with survivors of abuse.
If a church or an individual doesn’t have a category for a problem in this world other than “sin”, then it feeds into sin-leveling and “both-sidesing” in abuse situations. (Yes, he hit you and that was wrong, but he was tired from a hard day of work and came home to a messy house and the dinner he was expecting wasn’t ready. You need to own your part of the sin.) It’s a horrible mistake to treat a wound as a sin issue. It is guaranteed to cause a larger, deeper wound. If Jesus bore sin only, then abuse is reduced to a sin and forgiveness issue. So the survivor’s role is to forgive and presumably that fixes everything and she or he can “move forward.” And if the survivor isn’t moving forward, it’s therefore sin. Some churches categorize anyone recognizing the impact of afflictions as getting that insight from “modern psychology” as opposed to “biblical counseling” and therefore that can be dismissed. But what would be the difference if churches instead had a rich understanding of how God views suffering? Wouldn’t their care be more victim-centered? Would it not follow that we should be doing all we can to dress the wounds?

Need to go for now.

Eyewitness: I remember being shocked as a young adult when a friend’s spouse died, and people started in with the false comfort at the memorial service. “You’re still young. You’ll find a new spouse!”

It’s hard to imagine that people can’t just keep their pieholes shut and realize that they’re only sprinkling salt on the wounds.

Eyewitness: Human beings, not just Christian human beings, have a tendency to gloss over pain of others and offer a “cheer-up, dearie” or “buck-up son” “comfort” to the afflicted.

This speaker terms it, “Spiritual Bypassing”:

https://youtu.be/b9T9s6DUcIo

… using the spiritual (verses, teaching, some sort of spirituality) to ignore or bypass or override instead of addressing human need, pain, suffering, mystery, and such.

elastigirl: A. his glory: the wondrous light-filled radiance emanating from God’s magnificence and greatness

B. tortuous pain & concomitant devastating grief

C. “for his glory”: pumping up, adding to, and enhancing the wondrous light-filled radiance emanating from God’s magnificence

i’m climbing the walls with perplexity as to how A + B = C, and how A + C = B.

When Dr Michio Kaku was asked what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole, he stated “a singularity”.

When asked what that is, he said “it’s a nice way of saying – we don’t know”

I’m sure there’s an answer, and I have my own thoughts but ultimately – I don’t know.

Eyewitness,

Thank you, Eyewitness, for taking the time to share your thoughts. I can see you put a lot of effort into that. I appreciate your thoughts on caring (without platitudes & pat answers) for people in pain.

“I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “practical””

yes, what do i mean…

well, i just went down a wormhole putting together this grand Scooby Doo metaphor…

but for now i’ll just say not all truths have practical application (like, ‘the glory of God’).

i’m interested in the few truths that actually have application that is first possible, then practical. do-able, & actually helpful to me & others.

and it seems like an excellent way to do God proud.

As a lifelong Christian, I will venture one suggestion.

When you’re gravely ill, the person you need to focus on is YOU.

If you focus outward—on your family’s hardships, on the work you struggle to do, even on Jesus—you might be too upset to cooperate fully in medical decisions, and to rest as you undergo treatment.

Patients deserve the best treatment available to them, without guilt or pressure. They deserve love, comfort, and help. Jesus understands this. He is not a narcissist. I daresay he wants you to show up for appointments and get as much sleep as you can.

Interestingly enough, the understanding of God’s providence and evil according to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is not substantially different than the classic Calvinist understanding of God’s providence of evil as given in the Westminster Confession of Faith

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=P&word=PROVIDENCE

https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_05

Muff Potter: How did this mindset get started and woven into evangelical protestantism to the point where the Almighty gets cast as a self-absorbed cosmic narcissist?
Anybody?

Looking at 3 different responses:
1. Biblical Literalism, from Jack.
2. Projection: God is every much a self-absorbed narcissist as the TheoBros perceive/project him to be. (yours truly)
3. Scare tactics to control people, from elastigirl.

All food for thought.

Jack,

“But if your sole motivation is to secure a place in heaven because you fear heck then you’re in it for the wrong reasons.”
+++++++++++++++++

It seems to me that much of christianity amounts to doing what’s right because “the bible tells me so”, and to please God.

The christian avoids sin because God wouldn’t be pleased with them.

It seems so very self-centered. “How many God-points can i rack up?! How shiny can I keep my crown?! How happy can I make God?”

At the very least, it’s so God-centered.

I don’t think God gives a rat’s a$$ about God’s so-called glory. I think God would prefer it if people forgot about themselves & “Guys, quit with all flattery and adulation and just do the right thing. You’re making this much harder than it needs to be.”
.
.
I look at my agnostic cousins… they are very honest (they don’t permit themselves to lie – “because that would be wrong”, in A’s own words.) And they are very compassionate – because they feel compassion for someone suffering.

Imagine that.

Someone in the evil, worldly world feels compassion and acts on it. For no other reason than they care about the other person. They didn’t need any book or any pastor or so-caled devotional or christian how-to book to tell them these things.

this is old news. but felt like sayin it.

Denial = a river in Egypt AND AMBIGUOUS LOSS OF DOCTRINE.

Bob M,

“I do not apologize for my frame of reference. And I am sure Max and all the rest of you will scorn me,”
++++++++++++++++++

is it scorn to say i observe that you are very insensitive?

Bob M,

Here’s the thing, unless you all are going to deny God’s omnipotence and/or omniscience, you have the same hard questions that all theists have. Why is it better for God to merely allow someone to suffer something horrible than it is for God to ordain it for a good purpose that we often cannot fully explain on this side of glory? When God allows the murder or whatever of an innocent person, do you really think He has absolutely no purpose behind it? Somehow I doubt that.

This isn’t unique to Calvinism. The problem of evil is something all forms of Christianity must deal with, be they Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist, Thomist, or something else. And the only answer possible if you don’t reject God’s omniscience and omnipotence is that God has a good reason for allowing evil to take place. And a good reason that is almost always beyond our grasp.

Did those infant boys “deserve” to be killed by the angel of death in Pharaoh’s day? God sent death. What about the disease, etc. that was unleashed by the plagues in Egyptians, including children who presumably never owned an Israelite slave? God sent plagues. What about the children in the cities of Jericho and Ai? God told the Israelites to kill everyone in those cities.

These are hard questions that even non-Calvinists have to deal with. A strong doctrine of original sin and a purposeful providence has some answers, though not exhaustive ones. And there are plenty of non-Calvinists who teach both. Including Lutheranism, many forms of Arminianism, Thomists, Molinists, etc.

Maybe Calvinists at times can be faulted for too quickly providing a pat answer, but that’s it. Every other form of historic Christian theism has to deal with these questions, and the answers they provide aren’t going to be any “better” than Calvinism.

If God in no sense whatsoever intends for a child to get cancer, why doesn’t he stop it?

I have a child with a rare genetic disorder that has required multiple risky surgeries and who is also autistic and may never be able to live on his own or have a “normal” life. Does God have a good purpose for this even if I cannot fully explain it? The alternative is that God has no good purpose or that He has an evil purpose for it. The second is a non-starter; the former is a God who can’t keep His creation under control and therefore can’t actually help me or save me. Maybe something is going to happen that he didn’t anticipate or can’t control to throw his whole plan off track.

I have no great love for the Gospel Coalition, but this post seems very wrong-headed. When the woman says Calvinism is getting her through cancer, she means that the doctrine of God she has received is giving her comfort and peace—that is, God is getting her through cancer. That is what she means on any charitable reading.

Bob M: Max and all the rest of you will scorn me

I don’t scorn ‘you’, Bob … I just have trouble with your theology as I read the whole of Scripture.

Jesus never promised that things would be easy. But, He did promise that He would always be there for us. Immanuel … “God with us”

Friend: God planned your attempt to establish yourself as a better Christian than the rest of us. Bravo.

All is as Allah wills it.

Wow. A woman struggling with a cancer diagnosis and the treatment it requires writes a simple article about her experience trusting God, and the WW crowd piles on! There is some pretty nasty stuff in these comments. I think the title that she chose (if she chose it at all) was ill-advised and misleading. Most of her thoughts are fairly conventional and devotional and, for the most part, well within the bounds of historic Protestant piety. I wish she didn’t quote John Piper, whose ministry has bent too far in the ‘sovereignty of God’ above all else direction (unlike his hero, Jonathan Edwards). I do not pay any attention to TGC, YRR, Mohler, 9Marks, Dever, or anyone else in the neo-Calvinist circles, so I am not defending anyone except the woman who wrote that article. Having said that, the venom and spleen-venting that runs through so many responses is, in my mind, inexcusable and way out of touch with basic NT ethics. If anyone reads my response, I’m prepared to be on the receiving end of it myself. Bring on the caricatures, stereo-types, and guilt-by-associations that I’ve seen so often in the WW responses. I think the repsonses, over the years, have redirected a valuable contribution to accountability in American evangelicalism toward some weird group catharsis.

Bob M: And I have seen suffering, just as painful as yours.

Bob, thanks for the reminder. There was a time in my life when I could not conceive of anyone being comforted by the God you describe. Your comment reminds me that, truthfully, many are comforted by a god who controls every moment and molecule. While I do not believe that is the One scripture describes, or life reveals, I’m reminded that many require a deterministic god to see him as sovereign and powerful.

Max: These new boys on the block are a totally different breed … they move by stealth and deception, worship dead and living reformed idols, and proclaim Calvinism to be the one true gospel.

“Stealth and Deception” — You mean LYING? Angel of Light Mask or not?
Max, who do you know who’s described as The Father of Lies, and can Appear and an Angel of Light?

Headless Unicorn Guy: The Father of Lies … can Appear as an Angel of Light

I fear he has taken up residence in much of the American church.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

Well said elastigirl, and I concur.
I can no longer acknowledge a god whose only goal is to aggrandize himself with notions of ‘glory’. What does that mean anyway?
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, isn’t anything like the hardcore reformed claim He is.

The Book of Job is not an instruction manual.

dee,

While I disagree with some of the Biblical arguments in Dee’s post, it is the content and tone in *many* of the comments (not all!) that I find off-putting. If I were editing the original article, I would have strongly recommended some changes in the title and the wording. At the same time, I think the author is trying to articulate a doctrine of God’s providence, which is widely held by Protestants of most stripes. It is a wholly Biblical doctrine. It is an effort to hold together God’s sovereignty over all that He has made and human suffering–especially when the sufferer belongs to God’s family. This is a delicate subject because it touches our emotions so directly. So I would edit the TGC article *and* I would respectfullyu challenge a few of Dee’s points, which represent her effort to get answers to the same or similar questions. All of that is fine and can be done charitably. My concern is with the free-for-all nature of the comments section, which contains a number of comments that are hardly charitable and are often nasty. I’ve been in and out with WW for years now, but more out than in for the last couple of years because–so it seems to me–many of the commenters strike me as waiting for the latest post so that they can start in on how much they hate X, Y, Z. I am a Reformed pastor (I’ve distanced myself from ‘Calvinist’ because that term has become useless and a stumbling block) and I endorse whole-heartedly many of the causes championed by WW. But I wince when I read so many angry comments that sound to me disconnected from Jesus’ own way of responding to error among his people. I don’t want WW’s good work to be spoiled by them.

Max: Yes.I would say that the Wartburg community wholeheartedly agrees with that assessment of Dee’s post and comment thread.The only folks that “the WW crowd piles on” are the NeoCal leaders who influence/indoctrinate such aberrant positions about the things of God.

Could God have prevented or stopped any of the evils Dee mentions in her post?

G Smith,

Max: Yes.I would say that the Wartburg community wholeheartedly agrees with that assessment of Dee’s post and comment thread.The only folks that “the WW crowd piles on” are the NeoCal leaders who influence/indoctrinate such aberrant positions about the things of God.

Could God have prevented or stopped any of the evils Dee mentions in her post?

Muff Potter: I can no longer acknowledge a god whose only goal is to aggrandize himself with notions of ‘glory’. What does that mean anyway?

It means when your God is like that, you are going to be a sucker for any Utterly Selfish Egomaniac with Power. After all, He Acts Just Like God, He Must Be GOD! (Or His Anointed Channeler!)

THAT is the type of God and Faith an egomaniac dictator would cultivate among his Objects.

Not to be content with abstract criticism … Here is a partial list of quotations that 1. create crude stereotypes of Calvinists or 2. misrepresent what the writer actually wrote or 3. are just nasty for the sake of it (?).

I’m a Calvinist (strictly speaking), but I prefer to find my place in the Reformed tradition. I’ve read thousands of pages of John Calvin’s writings and thousands of pages of (for example) N. T. Wright’s writings. None of these comments indicates a direct knowledge of Calvin’s faith and piety. These comments certainly do not describe me! Westboro Baptist is Calvinistic? Maybe, and the Ku Klux Klan’s membership is white only!

“Believing that God is torturing you is unironically one way (a bizarre one) out of the problem of evil. If God hates you and wants you to suffer there’s none of this messing with trying to explain why God allows suffering. Westboro Baptist church are, of course, Calvinists and have perfected this approach.”

Mrs. DiPrima says, “God receives glory when I’m more satisfied in him than in my husband, my children, a healthy body, or anything death might steal.” Reading this through the lens of a (recovering) control freak, the implication is that “God gave her cancer” (which she baldly states) because she wasn’t focused enough on Him. If she’d been more focused on Him, He wouldn’t have needed to give her cancer. Therefore, the cancer is her fault. I think it was Brene Brown who said that we become so focused on finding whose fault it is because it gives us an illusion of control.

I see Calvinism from afar.
I see a people who are CERTAIN of their OWN salvation and who also firmly believe that ‘the lost’ were condemned by their ‘god’ for his own ‘glory’ even before they were born. Pre-destination . . . Pre-destining an infant to hell with NO CHANCE of salvation seems to make ‘the neo-Calvinist god’ a monster. There is so much evil in this perverse religion that it now has become the basis for a dominionist viewpoint of political government . . . where ‘the saved’ can punish ‘the lost’ in the name of their ‘god of wrath’. In the words of author Anne Lamott, ‘You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.’

therein lies hatred for the poor and the helpless, a hatred that renders them as ‘disposable beings’, already doomed by THE ‘god of wrath’ to a misery that permits the rest of us to be free of any efforts to help them . . . . a page right out of Le Guin’s dark story: ‘The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas’

God gave her cancer, and Calvinism is getting her through it??? God harms and Calvinism heals???

I read the TGC post. She gives me the distinct impression that she believes that God is torturing her (one of His “elect”, no less) for His own satisfaction, and Calvinism is the only thing that can save her. I think she has that backwards. Since it was posted on TGC website, I assume the whole TGC crew has it backwards.

This poor woman’s and her husband’s codependency don’t show “so great a salvation”, but rather an excuse for becoming implicated.

Their god (calvinists) is a cruel and petulant monster.
And their religion really is sick.

Apparently, New Calvinists prefer to think of the essence of Christianity as a set of rigid doctrines about “grace” rather than a direct experience of Grace. A dead Calvin vs. a living Christ.

Some of Calvinism’s odd attraction is that it provides a sense of “black and white” order for those who need everything to add up to 100. “God’s will” is such a pat answer for those who are unable to accept that life has random, unexplainable moments that are often unhappy, unfair, and heartbreaking. If everything is “God’s will”, what need is there for faith? Because everything that occurs is “God’s will” one merely needs to accept whatever is before them – be it good or bad – because God “made it happen.” Faith plays no role in such a system of belief. — Last year a 3 year old child of an extended family member accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. A terrible, terrible tragedy. The funeral service was one of denial. The child died “for God’s glory” and “many will come to know Jesus” because of this moment. There was singing and praising God. It seemed that crying was out of place. Normal grief did not appear to be allowed. — Calvinism creates a sense of denial that I, as a psychotherapist and former pastor, find troubling. The failure to face reality because there is some huge “purpose” behind it is not a healthy walk with God or expression of faith.

Calvinism appeals to those who want certainty because of its (supposedly) tight doctrinal consistency. As someone wrote above, Calvinism’s god is a most cruel deity. That god is not worthy of worship.

I think Sproul worships a puppet master.
I believe God has the absolute ability to control every molecule, but I believe that most of the time, He chooses not to control anything. I believe God gave us free will. I believe Adam and Eve had free will —— I don’t believe that God’s promises would been necessary if He had controlled them Adam and Eve …… and if He controlled us.

Jesus died and rose from the grave, to sit at the right hand of our God in Heaven. — OTOH, who is Calvin? And who resurrected the Calvin skeletal remains, to place his sorry-a** dust and ashes on a pedestal as their idol to rule their churches beyond the grave, where he actually still resides? So, the dead now worship the dead? Pathetic. The dead ARE worshipping the dead. Have at it, I guess. It’s a choice. Dead end, going nowhere fast, choice.

God planned your attempt to establish yourself as a better Christian than the rest of us. Bravo.

Friend: God planned your attempt to establish yourself as a better Christian than the rest of us. Bravo. — All is as Allah wills it.

Robert,

just make your point directly.

elastigirl: Jenni deserves all our compassion. It is our fault for not conveying that. (presuming to speak for others, here)

I’m going to disagree.

Nobody has anything but compassion for Jenni. That’s clear to me in the post and in the comments.

This is commentary on a worldview.

This worldview twists reality. People get to heaven because they were elected, nothing is earned.

Predestination – that god is glorified in events like Holodomor or the killing fields or the Rwandan genocide or even more mundane events like a automobile accident or aneurysm is as much clockwork universe as any atheist could conceive.

It tells me clearly that nothing matters.

I can’t imagine anything more hopeless or nihilistic.

This worldview had no justice in it. Abusers, criminals and monsters have no accountability. Worse, they could be one of the “elect”.

Yes, you could spend eternity with such “great” men as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. They were into torture so would have a hoot of a time watching the darned burn!

Jesus isn’t speaking to me, so hopefully I’m not elected into this version of paradise.

Is this what Christianity is heading to?

The coffin containing my faith has so many nails in it that you can’t see the wood anymore.

Believer: Bob, thanks for the reminder. There was a time in my life when I could not conceive of anyone being comforted by the God you describe. Your comment reminds me that, truthfully, many are comforted by a god who controls every moment and molecule. While I do not believe that is the One scripture describes, or life reveals, I’m reminded that many require a deterministic god to see him as sovereign and powerful.

That is a mischaracterization of my point.

Friend: the demand of rejoicing and betrayal were depraved

Sorry, should say “the demand of rejoicing and celebration was depraved.”

Friend: I profoundly disagree. At a funeral for a young mother who left behind a devastated husband and small children, the whole congregation was told to rejoice and celebrate God’s Perfect Plan in taking her to heaven at age what… 25? No, the demand of rejoicing and betrayal were depraved, horrible for the family, a betrayal.

The rush toward “good purposes” leaves out the very same human emotions that God gave us. When a beloved and needed person dies, we suffer. The shortest sentence in the King James version is “Jesus wept.” He wept for his friend who died. Yes, I know what happened next. But remember, “Jesus wept.”

Well, there’s a haphazard poor way to make an ill-timed comment about God’s plan. You don’t do it the second a tragedy happens.

But if a tragedy happens and God could have stopped it but didn’t, don’t we assume that He had a good reason for not doing so even if we do not know the full reason on this side of glory?

elastigirl:
Robert,

not stopping horrific events is much different than dreaming them up, wanting them to happen & thus putting plans together to orchestrate them with maximum pain and torture.

the problem of evil sucks.but what you propose is a different kettle of fish.

Actually, no it’s not.

If God could stop it and yet did not stop it, then in *some* sense he wanted it to happen more than he didn’t want it to happen. And you’re left with the same problem.

As far as the other comments, who said God “dreamed them up” ? No classic Calvinist confession of faith says that.

Some of the horrible events that happen in this world are in themselves maximum pain and torture on this side of heaven. So if God doesn’t stop them, He is in *some* sense orchestrating them, even if incorporating them into a plan. Of course, I guess you could say God doesn’t have a plan. Which would make it worse than Calvinism.

Any historic Christian view of the problem of evil must say that for *some* reason, God wanted a world, where horrible tragedies happen more than He wanted a world where no child ever would die of cancer. Only way out is to deny God’s omnipotence. Even denying omniscience really won’t do because even if God couldn’t see the future, He could still intervene once the evil starts so as to make it not as bad as it could be.

But if you deny God’s omnipotence, then he can’t help us.

Robert,

“who said God “dreamed them up” ? No classic Calvinist confession of faith says that.”
++++++++++++++++

the main point people are responding here is the statement, “He ordained my cancer before I was born…To be blunt, God gave me cancer, and he gave it to me for his glory.”

if God ordained horrific circumstances… if God gave someone cancer or caused someone to be r—- and t——- and m——- (can’t say all the words anymore), then in *some* sense he dreamed them up & orchestrated the circumstances to happen just as they did.

of course no classic Calvinist confession of faith says that. but it is the logical significance of the words.

just like all the other times i’ve observed christians defending themselves or their influencer hero by saying “i never said that!” “he never said that!”.

of course not. saavy marketing would never present something in terms that would discredit & disqualify it, and repel & repulse the buyer.

‘That’ (whatever self-disqualifying thing) was couched in some christianese jargon like a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, the implied significance of which is not lost on a scrutinizing audience.

elastigirl: “He ordained my cancer before I was born…To be blunt, God gave me cancer, and he gave it to me for his glory.”

Well spotted, I lost sight of that.

As I keep saying, God shows more sovereignty by making us IN HIS IMAGE IN A CONTINGENT UNIVERSE.

Either that was inserted after Jenni handed over her piece or she is obediently copying received sloganry.

So called “confessions” (not a concept Jesus taught) are all poisonously imbalanced.

Even “better” calvinists are denying my God’s (perhaps not their god’s) sovereignty. They are asserting their own sovereignty.

As I keep saying, the ONLY glory of God is the fruit of the gifts of ordinary believers, unvetoed.

G Smith: Sproul worships a puppet master

Sproul (Senior, the possessive and “righteous” one) condemns the honest Kant which shows me Sproul instantly.

Falwell (Senior: possessive and “righteous”) the teacher of materialism shows me Falwell instantly.

G Smith: I believe God has the absolute ability to control every molecule, but I believe that most of the time, He chooses not to control anything.

“Yes, God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.”
— William of Conches, 11th Century (prob after hitting his breaking point in a theological debate)

G Smith: But I wince when I read so many angry comments that sound to me disconnected from Jesus’ own way of responding to error among his people. I don’t want WW’s good work to be spoiled by them.

Comments here do not spoil Dee’s work or Todd’s. Each comment reflects the person making the comment. Together on TWW we get somewhere, even if we sometimes annoy each other. I’d rather read honest, civil challenges than the cookie-cutter agreement found (enforced) on many Christian blogs and accounts.

Grave illness and death create strong emotions and thoughts. People need and deserve to air their struggles, to make sense of new hardship, even to cry out in blame and anger. Jesus met all of these reactions as he approached Lazarus’s home. Even knowing that he would raise Lazarus, Jesus absorbed the anguish, and felt it himself.

Robert: Only way out is to deny God’s omnipotence. Even denying omniscience really won’t do because even if God couldn’t see the future, He could still intervene once the evil starts so as to make it not as bad as it could be.

Headless Unicorn Guy: God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so

Jack: Jack on Thu Jun 29, 2023 at 01:00 AM said:

Robert: But if you deny God’s omnipotence, then he can’t help us.

If what you say is true then God’s not doing a good job.

In my young day every agnostic child knew the way round the paradoxes AND felt no obligation (even from families hurt by churches) – because the agnostic teachers had no problem with it. It’s only since the power grabber Stott substituted his non-Christ that newer generations haven’t had the chances we had. Since I looked into what those who study Nature and time found – such as A N Whitehead – I see we kids of then had been right all along.

Jack, I always understood your good reasons to be a sort of agnostic, and this is also why I am a Trinitarian Henotheistic Cafeteria Agnostic – agnostic as to distortions and poisonous baggage – for some “unfortunate” reason that has me not going with almost all “christianity” in England these days.

Asking our God for help for everyone in a contingent world is our calling UNLIKE what intrusive and possessive religious superiors preached (who want us to be their inert playthings and not in our God’s image). The Psalms and “morning and night prayers” and Dan 9: 3-21, are meant to serve the world through believers thus.

The only glory will be if we see the relation gifts will bear to providence, once upper middle class England gets to resemble Ukraine / Belarus / Syria / Honduras (places that aren’t on far continents).

G Smith: I wince when I read so many angry comments

TWW is on a mission to inform and warn. Many commenters have experienced abuse, including spiritual abuse of aberrant belief and practice. Their comments sometimes have an edge of raw truth-telling as they attempt to prevent others from wandering into the valley they traveled through. The teachings and traditions of mere men have done a lot of damage to folks. TWW commenters share their experiences here for those who have ears to hear.

elastigirl:
Robert,

“who said God “dreamed them up” ? No classic Calvinist confession of faith says that.”
++++++++++++++++

the main point people are responding here is the statement, “He ordained my cancer before I was born…To be blunt, God gave me cancer, and he gave it to me for his glory.”

if God ordained horrific circumstances… if God gave someone cancer or caused someone to be r—- and t——- and m——- (can’t say all the words anymore), then in *some* sense he dreamed them up & orchestrated the circumstances to happen just as they did.

of course no classic Calvinist confession of faith says that.but it is the logical significance of the words.

just like all the other times i’ve observed christians defending themselves or their influencer hero by saying “i never said that!” “he never said that!”.

of course not.saavy marketing would never present something in terms that would discredit & disqualify it, and repel & repulse the buyer.

‘That’ (whatever self-disqualifying thing) was couched in some christianese jargon like a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, the implied significance of which is not lost on a scrutinizing audience.

Well, it’s contra classic Calvinism to say that God gave her cancer directly, which is really why TGC isn’t the best source for classic Calvinism.

But again, even if one says God gave cancer for some good purpose that we cannot yet fully understand, that’s not substantially different ultimately than saying God saw cancer was coming and He allowed it for some good purpose that we may not yet fully understand.

I guess you could deny that God has some good purpose in allowing evil to happen, but I’m not sure how that’s a comfort.

Max: TWW commenters share their experiences here for those who have ears to hear.

Amen! Max, Amen!

Michael in UK: As I keep saying, God shows more sovereignty by making us IN HIS IMAGE IN A CONTINGENT UNIVERSE.

i.e. Schrodinger’s Cat on a cosmic scale?

Either that was inserted after Jenni handed over her piece or she is obediently copying received sloganry.

i.e. Reciting The Party Line?

Friend: Please do not tell me what I need.

Amen Friend!
Amen!
So many of them are like Job’s ‘counselors’.

Jack,
You’re NOT helping my case, Jack.

Max,

Amen.

Just a thought….and omitting details partially because it’ll keep my comment shorter, and partially because so many of you are well-versed in the Bible. And I’m intentionally condensing and simplifying parts of the Bible.

No offence to anyone intended, and my apologies if my words don’t express my thought clearly….

A Christophany is when Jesus appears in some way in the Old Testament, although He has not yet been born.

In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to do many bad things to Job.

Satan is the god (lower case “g” intentional) of this world.

Many people ask questions like “why do bad things happen to good people?”, or question why God allows things like wars, and many other bad things.

Could it be that the example of Satan and Job is to prepare people for what life will be like in the New Testament when Satan is the god (lower case “g” intentional) of this world?

Perhaps people forget or don’t know that Satan is the god (lower case “g” intentional) of this world? And I’m NOT writing that sentence to provide an excuse for people who use the “Satan persecution card” — the one(s) that so many Wartburgers are familiar with, read about, hear, etc.

Headless Unicorn Guy:
Jack,
You’re NOT helping my case, Jack.

Sorry about that, but the tornado warning lifted without a single tornado touching down

Happened while we slept…. doing nothing works!

I finally understand the meaning of it all….

Praise be!

Geoff Smith,

I appreciate your comment. what about telescoping out a little and seeing a more holistic picture.

as i see it, comments are addressing not individuals but the practice of religion that is manipulative, dishonest, & corrupt on the one hand,

using God and scripture for self-serving ends,

and passive, compliant, and enabling of the former on the other hand. also for self-serving ends.

(being passive in this context is easy, convenient, and seems to be motivated by an overriding concern to keep oneself as sinless as possible — caring more about oneself than what is right and the human beings harmed by wrong)

it’s all just beyond egregious.

especially because christian practitioners as described hide behind God and Jesus in their self-centered actions/inactions that have cruel consequences for others… not unlike a human shield.

comments are not aimed at individuals so much as addressing what have become intolerable facets of our religion.

Our religion, which has been a huge part of our lives full of meaning and community

which influencers have hijacked & destroyed so much so that many of us have had to leave it (in various ways).
.
.
a question for you: what warrants anger? something(s)? nothing?

Friend: Healing is different from a medical cure. I certainly did receive healing: I was prepared to face any outcome. Do not dismiss the importance of that.

Not trying to dismiss that. But did you never pray for a complete physical remission? BTW, I am a cancer survivor. It was a very treatable cancer that has a very high cure rate, but nevertheless I do know something about which you speak.

I also received effective medical treatment. Doctors generally hesitate to use the word “cure” for certain conditions. The treatment was available to me through health insurance, facilities in my region, a high degree of clinical skill, evolving treatment protocols, helpful neighbors, a reliable car, an ambulance, the interstate highway system, and other miracles of faithful collaboration.

God has given me one mortal life. Life expectancy in America in the 1700s was about 35 years. Does the more-than-doubling of life expectancy show God’s omnipotence? If so, perhaps that is because God inspired humans of all backgrounds and beliefs to work together worldwide.

The Calvinist doctrine of God’s providence would say that God works through all these things to provide effective treatment for at least some people who have cancer or another disease. God’s omnipotence doesn’t force a choice between God does everything and humans do nothing and humans do everything and God does nothing.

Regarding God eliminating cancer in the new creation, I am probably too dumb to understand what that means. Have faith in one thing: I do not ponder or yearn for proof of God’s omnipotence. Please do not tell me what I need.

You’re not too dumb! Let me explain myself better. I assume that as a professing Christian, you belief in the resurrection of the dead and the final, ultimate state of creation to be a restored heaven and earth in which there is no sickness whatsoever (or any tragedy). This is the historic biblical and Christian teaching. It’s not uniquely Lutheran, Calvinist, Roman Catholic, etc.

Assuming you believe that (cause if you don’t, there are bigger problems), then you believe God will one day produce a creation in which there is no cancer because there is no sickness. And part of the Christian hope historically is looking forward to that day of resurrection and the new heaven and earth. The alternative would be that you will have cancer forever. I’m almost certain you don’t believe that and are, in fact, looking forward to a day in which you won’t have to worry about tests for cancer markers, tumor growth, chemotherapy, radiation, etc. because you know there’s a day coming in God will wipe out all cancer forever.

Now, if God is not omnipotent, then all of that is mere wishful thinking. Moreover, if God is not omnipotent, then whatever healing you have received thus far is pure happenstance. I suspect you hold to neither point, which is why I said you actually do need God’s omnipotence.

Robert: 1. I don’t know where you are getting the first point from. It’s certainly nothing taught in the Calvinist confessions.

2. “God’s gangsters get to heaven”? Don’t know what that means or what you are alleging.

3. Abuse, sadly, is rampant everywhere. Why is it rampant outside the church in secular spaces like the public schools?

4. “Why does anyone follow this? The only thing keeping Christians good is the fear of having your chestnuts roasting on open fire while your co-relgionists laugh in comfort at the glory of it all.”

I’ve yet to meet another Calvinist, let alone any kind of Christian, that says the ONLY thing keeping Christians good is hell. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but maybe you can produce some Christian confession of faith that teaches this?

1. You’re saying that bad is good because it glorifies god.

2. See post on Andy Savage or pick one of the many Catholic priests over the years or mark Driscoll or Jim Bakker or swaggart or Falwell or any of the other comeback kids.

3. When I did go to an evangelical church, much was made of the standard being higher but since bad is good and it’s all preordained then no standard is needed.

4. If you don’t follow Jesus you go to heck… it’s punishment vs rewards. It’s right in the bible. Multiple entries. So that doesn’t figure into the Christian worldview? That super sucks if you’re not elected. Wasting all that time and money but god still sends you to heck. All for his glory so it must be good.

elastigirl: comments are not aimed at individuals so much as addressing what have become intolerable facets of our religion

There are, however, occasional comments aimed at individuals such as NeoCal icons like Piper, Mohler, Dever et al. who have promoted intolerable facets of our religion. Is this not OK on Christian watchblogs which inform and warn about such aberrations of faith? There are thousands, perhaps millions, of New Calvinists who would not agree that they are off-track. But, by and large, Christendom has opted out of this radical fringe of reformed theology with their numbers representing a miniscule percentage of all Protestants worldwide. In this particular blog piece, the majority of comments have been directed at the ideology which prompted Mrs. DiPrima to proclaim that Calvinism is getting her through a health crisis, rather than Mrs. DiPrima herself.

Jack: It’s right in the bible.

By their standard of “interpretation” which is the only “true” one yeah.

Robert: any kind of Christian, that says the ONLY thing keeping Christians good is hell. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but maybe you can produce some Christian confession of faith that teaches this?

I’ve met some, and “confessions of faith” are so variable in content and status AND difficult to interpret that what we are told takes precedence and IS the “confession”.

Friend: omnipotence

You don’t need Robert’s “view of God’s omnipotence”, you need mine instead, which is the same as you have got already. Taking his words literally traps you in his template and doesn’t address the issue. How many times have I explained how language carries meeanings?

Jack: doing nothing works!

But you’re not “called to do” anything like that. Gifts (unvetoed) to humanity (which does include some who aren’t like TGC) are diverse. That is the beauty of true agnosticism surely!

Geoff Smith: caricatures of believers in other traditions, then mock them, insult them, and dismiss them

I think you need to critique the TGC because the TGC is who people I know follow. The TGC is constructed to not be answerable and to appear invisible.

The TGC IS the “other tradition”. High handed, possessive and improvident.

Also “new creation” is supposed to tell us something about God’s values, not specific concretes (agnostic children knew this 55 years ago).

Jack: there’s not even any moral equivalency, it’s all planned … Sure explains evangelical hatred of pretty much anything not evangelical

I wonder more and more what is “behind” the empty-headed cold hearted sloganeering I encounter around me. Stott, a Holy Ghost denier and politician, copied the snobbish possessiveness and improvidence of bishops Ryle and Winnington-Ingram, and that is how he has sunk all the denominations. Lloyd-Jones, from a poor background, loved all the denominations and wanted to strengthen everybody.

R L Ellis (1817-59), and William Whewell (inventor of the word “scientist”) sought to relaunch Francis Bacon balancing both induction and deduction because they found Bentham was shoddily reacting to his deficits. Bacon broke off his “Instauration” when he found that truth conflicted with his dictatorial politics. Bacon was like Macbeth on a bad day and Hamlet on a good day. The shadowy elements hiding behind Jenni need to try which cap fits them, and publicly rectify their stances. It’s our duty to pray with trembling, that our spiritual betters don’t blaspheme Holy Spirit by utilitarianism.

dee: arguing with a Calvinist or Reformed or whatever name feels best is a task left up to optimists. I know. I tried. And it isn’t worth the time.

And it’s the same old tired argument. I know of no other expression of faith in which adherents are indoctrinated with canned Q&A. Do they go through some sort of Sunday School training for that?! Arguing with one of them is like arguing with all of them. I learned a long time ago that debating jots and tittles is not preaching the Gospel … no use wasting a lot of breath doing it. But sometimes you just have to shout to try to get their attention when they are obviously on the wrong track … New Calvinism being the most recent example of reformed belief & practice gone awry. Sometimes they listen … their Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine hasn’t gained much traction … Christendom spit up on that one!

dee: Anyone who looks out at the stars knows that God is omnipotent. That is not the point. The question is whether God can allow things to occur that, in the big picture, will not change His overall will. However, arguing with a Calvinist or Reformed or whatever name feels best is a task left up to optimists. I know. I tried. And it isn’t worth the time. Instead, I fight abuse, sexual, physical, and spiritual, and continue to read.
Now I am turning my eye to the Calvinist PCA crowd, which seems to think that someone must believe in God to bear witness to the abuse. Too bad the men who are judging aren’t tellingthe truth even though they believe in God. Fascinating crowd.

If you look at the stars and know that God is omnipotent and believe that God allows things that are not going to disrupt His “overall will,” then you also know that God is ultimately behind cancer in *some* way because He very well could have stopped it but did not. In *some* sense he preferred a world with cancer in it than one that does not have it. And so, you’re still left with the same questions as the Calvinist. God wanted a world in which I would have cancer and in which I would have a child with severe developmental delays, autism, and other problems more than he didn’t want me to endure those things. God wanted a world in which your daughter had cancer more than he didn’t want her to have cancer.

Why? Well there’s only so much we can say, but the non-Calvinist position doesn’t make the question go away or answer it any better than the Calvinist one does.

Turning to the PCA crowd, you’re actually not representing what was decided at the general assembly, at least not entirely. The stuff about background checks was not “rejected.” It was sent back to the presbytery for more work on the proposal. I don’t agree with all of the reasons the overtures committee suggested that the proposal be rejected, but some of them are worth considering. If you’re going to say “must do a background check,” which I’m in favor of by the way, you better specify what that means exactly or it’s going to be useless.

As far as the atheist testimony, I’m still torn on it. I would suggest that you watch the assembly debate about it before you opine on it. Have you done that? Do you realize that the man who gave the report suggesting that the PCA reject the overture publicly testified, to near tears, to the fact that his own daughter was assaulted and yet still thought it was unwise to allow atheists to testify **in church courts.** Make of that what you will, but don’t make of it the big old mean PCA doesn’t care about abuse survivors.

As far as the other stuff in the article, I don’t know enough about the specific cases to comment intelligibly except to say, IF the accusations are true, then there has been a failure. IF the accusations are true, the victims should also be pursuing civil criminal action. I don’t know if they are doing that. And I haven’t heard the testimony or seen the evidence.

Jack: 1. You’re saying that bad is good because it glorifies god.
2. See post on Andy Savage or pick one of the many Catholic priests over the years or mark Driscoll or Jim Bakker or swaggart or Falwell or any of the other comeback kids.
3. When I did go to an evangelical church, much was made of the standard being higher but since bad is good and it’s all preordained then no standard is needed.
4. If you don’t follow Jesus you go to heck… it’s punishment vs rewards. It’s right in the bible. Multiple entries. So that doesn’t figure into the Christian worldview? That super sucks if you’re not elected. Wasting all that time and money but god still sends you to heck. All for his glory so it must be good.

1. That does not follow because the teaching is not that badness in itself glorifies God. What glorifies God is how He works through even bad things to achieve good purposes. Surgery in and of itself isn’t good because it causes pain and suffering. But it can be used to accomplish greater goods such as the removal of cancer.

2. Well I see no evidence that any of those men have actually repented of their sins, so I have no good reason to believe any of them is a Christian. The people following them may think otherwise, but I would say they are either ignorant, deluded, or fools.

3. None of that follows.

4. It figures into the Christian worldview, but it’s not the only reason why people should do good. We should do good because doing good is actually how we fulfill our nature or created end. We should do good because other people are made in God’s image and thus have an inherent dignity. On the other hand, if there are no rewards or cursing in an afterlife, then the most you can say about any evil thing is “I don’t like that” and the fact that you are against abuse is mere personal preference.

dee: It is wording like this that gets Calvinistas in trouble. It is self-congratulatory, a nod at your superior understanding of God’s omnipotence. Darn, this frustrates me. Did they teach you how to say things in love and humility in Calvin School? This comment shows me why you do not understand why I look at the comments differently.
I am a conservative Lutheran. I get omnipotence. I have loved the God who created this fantastic universe since I became a Christian. That is why you see so many pictures of the universe in my posts. You appear to be saying that it is your way or we are just simpletons.
I am not going to debate you. I know exactly how that conversation will go since I’ve had it many times. If you haven’t read this blog, let me tell you that I have read all the usual Calvinists/Reformed crowd and a great deal of Calvin’s Institutes. I have not experienced the “burning in the bosom” conversion to Calvinism, but I have experienced that in my turning to our Lord. You can do better.

If you get omnipotence, then you know that God very well could have chosen to stop your daughter from getting cancer and yet did not do so for some good purpose even if you may not know what that good purpose is. That isn’t a uniquely Calvinist view. It’s the LUTHERAN view for crying out loud. God can doing anything that is logically possible and consistent with His holiness. That’s just basic Christianity—Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism.

I don’t care about converting you to Calvinism. I want you to have better critiques of Calvinism. We Calvinists need it.

dee,

dee: Finally, one thing that I can agree with you. It doesn’t make it go away. However, I believe my position better represents the love of a God who can go way beyond a simple binary “this or that” response.
However, I am writing a critical post about a woman a well-respected pastor abused, and I need to work on it for a few more hours. Understand this. I know your arguments. I know what you will say if I say one thing or another. This is nothing I can say that will change your mind. It is primarily useless, but I try a bit now and then.
I have to laugh. Whenever I mention Calvinism in a title, men (mostly men) prove to that little blogger who is causing so much uproar why she is wrong about not being a Calvinist. Look at the number of comments on this post. It’s the same old, same old.

I do appreciate that you let me comment here. And honestly, I’m not looking to change your mind. I know it’s very unlikely. I just think that if you’re going to critique Calvinism, you can do a much better job. You assume a whole lot in the post about what Calvinists think and do based on what this one woman wrote.

I do like the questions at the end of your post, and they’re worth thinking about, but they seem to assume some things about Calvinism that just isn’t reflected in our confession. Not looking for you to respond, but I’ll answer them as best I can:

• I do not believe that God gave my child a large brain tumor. I do not think he gives little children horrendous illnesses “for His glory.”

I don’t believe God reached his hand down and gave your child that tumor either. Scripture does say that God can and does send disease at time (look at the plagues), but making the one to one connection between disease and sin today is essentially impossible. In light of the Bible’s teaching that God does everything for His glory and because God’s glory is good for His children, I would say God allows some children to have illnesses, though I also cannot fully explain on this side of glory why and how the illness will ultimate manifest His glory. It will never do so in itself but only part of a wider plan. Even if you don’t accept that, you at least believe God had some kind of good purpose in mind. Non-Calvinists usually say God’s good purpose was to have a world in which love can be “freely chosen” and that necessitates a world in which sin and evil and disease can happen. Whether that’s your position or not, I don’t know, but it’s a greater good defense for the problem of evil, which Calvinism has. The only difference is in what one might say is God’s good purpose.

• Never ask a mother why her child “had a brain tumor.” Gosh, don’t blame her for something she had no control over. Whatever you do, don’t try to blame it on “uranium deposits” or something else that may or may not have been in the area where she was working, serving an underserved population.

Indeed.

• If a person believes that God deliberately causes a painful illness in a child or adult “for His glory, get them to explain what that looks like.

Can’t fully answer this. In part, though, his glory will be seen in his ultimate destruction of said illness.

• God helped me find His peace during my daughter’s illness, even though I am not a Calvinist. Does God love and intervene lovingly in the lives of those who are not Calvinists?

Of course he does. Is there a Calvinist who says He doesn’t?

• Does God deliberately send a pedophile to molest a child?

No, but He does allow it.

If so, explain how this exhibits “His glory?”.

Can’t fully answer it on this side of glory and Calvinists who claim that they can haven’t thought hard enough about it. We could say that ultimately, God will provide justice and the justice manifests his glory, but not the act in itself. But even that’s only a partial answer.

The most evil thing that happened in human history was the crucifixion of Jesus. It’s far more evil than any other horror in history. Yet, we know God ordained it specifically (see Acts 2, 4, etc.) If God can get glory and work good as a result of that, He can do the same with any other tragedy.

Does God allow an abusive husband to batter his wife “for His glory?”

See above previous question about the abused child.

• Does God help a person to use their abuse to help others?

Yes. Don’t you think he does? Some of your stories have featured testimonies from victims and these testimonies have led to people having to leave their present church—e.g., Andy Savage. In this case, as sad and evil as the victim’s abuse was, God used it to get Savage out of that church he was in. That’s a good thing.

• How is this different than God allowing a man to abuse a child for His glory?

How can God ordain or allow evil without being guilty of evil? No one can answer that question fully. This is where we just have to believe God when He says He is not guilty of evil. God is capable of some things we are not. He’s the Creator, we’re the creature. There is no fully satisfying answer to this question today on this side of heaven. But it’s also why the non-Calvinist Christian theist has the same question as the Calvinist does. If I don’t stop an evil I know I can stop, I’m guilty of that evil even if I didn’t do evil directly but simply, by my non-intervention, allowed it to happen. Why is God not likewise guilty in a non-Calvinist system?

Rejecting Calvinism doesn’t get God “off the hook,” as it were.

• Could a church that teaches children or adults that God could deliberately send them a serious illness that will cause them to die “for His glory” be accused of teaching an abusive theology? Would you send your child to such a church?

This is too broad. It depends on how you teach it. Paul says that God sometimes sends illness and death on people who do not discern the Lord’s body in the Eucharist, and you are LCMS, which doesn’t allow just anyone to take in part because they are protecting non LCMS people from this. Does the LCMS teach an abusive theology?

The Bible in many places says that God sends disease. If you’re telling people that God sends disease because you want to get them in line or to facilitate abuse or if you’re saying that you know certainly why a person has a disease has a disease—that’s abusive theology.

• What does “for His glory” mean?

Manifestation of His love, power, wisdom, etc.

• How is that manifested in the lives of children in hospitals undergoing painful procedures or in children who are starving and living in garbage dumps in some countries?

This is an answer that we’re largely going to have to wait for heaven for. I’d say, however, that the tragedies mentioned aren’t in themselves a manifestation of God’s glory. His glory will be manifested in how those things contribute to His larger plan.

Could it be that His glory is made manifest by a God who does not deliberately send pain and suffering into the lives of His creation?

Sure. But what’s the difference between “deliberately sending” and “deliberately allowing”? Does God do anything not deliberately? I don’t think so, because that would mean he isn’t all-wise.

• Could it be that the pain and suffering that we and our children experience in this world are due to the fallen nature of the world in which we live?

Absolutely, but God doesn’t allow all of us to experience the same level of pain and suffering. Why? (I don’t think it’s a question we can fully answer)

• Do we each take ownership of our own part in that fallen world?

Not often enough. Thankfully, God is gracious.

G Smith: I know of a number of Christian traditions that use the Q&A format to teach

… but not designed to arrogantly corner believers with “I gotcha with my superior theology”

Robert,

“In light of the Bible’s teaching that God does everything for His glory and because God’s glory is good for His children, I would say God allows some children to have illnesses, though I also cannot fully explain on this side of glory why and how the illness will ultimate manifest His glory.”
++++++++++++++++

wope….stop the presses….

i’m getting dizzy with all the glories, here.

maybe you can answer (as directly & concretely as possible):

1. what is His glory?

2. how is His glory good for his children?

3. “on this side of glory”…. a new kind of glory! is this different from ‘His glory’?

4. “manifest his glory”… so, i take it this is another way of saying “for His glory”. is this not so totally & completely mega-ultra abstract on steroids as to be sort of useless & meaningless and better left alone?

why be so preoccupied with something like this, with zero practical application except staring at one’s navel & mumbling “…for the glory of God…mmm….God’s glory…glory….glorious glory…”?

which no one can possibly decipher even though they pretend to?

elastigirl,

1. what is His glory?

The manifestation of His full character—perfect love, perfect justice, perfect holiness, etc.

2. how is His glory good for his children?

We were made to participate in the eternal relationship of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To participate in a relationship you have to know the other person, so we have to know God’s glory in order to fully participate in that relationship of love.

God is also the most wonderful thing in existence. It’s good for us to enjoy the fullness of that which is most wonderful. Is it good for your soul to experience the beauty of creation, of love, etc. That’s just a very faint glimpse of the good that will come with experiencing the fullness of God (insofar as we can as creatures.)

3. “on this side of glory”…. a new kind of glory! is this different from ‘His glory’?

Think on this side of the new heaven and earth, before Jesus returns. We cannot fully explain before we see Jesus face to face why evil happens.

4. “manifest his glory”… so, i take it this is another way of saying “for His glory”. is this not so totally & completely mega-ultra abstract on steroids as to be sort of useless & meaningless and better left alone?

I don’t think so. We receive our fullest joy when we delight in others—our children, our spouses, our friends. And our delight in them grows the more we know them and their character. It’s the same thing with God, but multiply that by infinity. Our fullest joy will be in seeing God face to face and for all eternity coming to a deeper knowledge of Him and His character.

why be so preoccupied with something like this, with zero practical application except staring at one’s navel & mumbling “…for the glory of God…mmm….God’s glory…glory….glorious glory…”?

The New Testament continually points to the life to come and the glory of God as that which will make all the suffering of this age somehow worth it.

“This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.” (2 Cor. 4:17)

Robert: I’m saying that you must believe in the resurrection of the body and the new heaven and new earth to be a Christian. And that if you do believe in that, you actually share my understanding of God’s omnipotence even if you don’t recognize it.

All of those things have specific terms and conditions. I’ve encountered too many people who started out by calling me a “wonderful woman of God” and ended up deciding that my beliefs did not check all of the boxes on their mental checklist of necessary Christian traits.

Stop telling me what to think.

Stop telling me I secretly adhere to your beliefs.

Begin to develop respect, as you currently have none.

elastigirl: why be so preoccupied with something like this, with zero practical application except staring at one’s navel & mumbling

There is a point where a hyper-Calvinist crosses a mental/spiritual no-return red line and becomes a navel mumbler for the rest of his life. It’s a sad thing to behold.

Friend,

It’s not me. The resurrection of the dead is an an ecumenical Christian belief shared by all Christians. It’s in the Apostles and Niceness Creeds, which are about the only things all Christians have believed.

This isn’t a Calvinist thing. If you don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, that’s extremely serious.

elastigirl,

In context, Paul is talking about his post conversion suffering preparing him for a glory ahead of him. It’s not about conversion.

As far as the others, it would take more exegesis than us reasonable in a comment box. But:

1. You do have glory. All people do as we are the image of God.

2. You don’t find most fulfillment in doing good for others? I’ve never heard a professing Christian say that before. The entire tenor of the New Testament is toward serving others as our greatest end. Phillipians 2 is a ready example. Jesus says to become great we must become servants.

Muff Potter,

That would be true if God weren’t the highest good in existence and the most wonderful and beautiful thing/being of all.

Max,

You’ve never been afraid to speak for God before in letting us all know how much he hates whichever Calvinists you think are secretly plotting to take over the SBC, an issue not addressed in Scripture, what’s the hesitation now?

Robert: If you don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, that’s extremely serious.

Arrogant comment. You are still questioning my faith and making implications. I did not ask you to teach me.

You are in fact a Calvinist sea lion.

Friend: Arrogant comment. You are still questioning my faith and making implications. I did not ask you to teach me.

You are in fact a Calvinist sea lion.

I’m not questioning your faith. I’m saying that denying the resurrection of the body is a serious matter. Whether you do or not, I have no idea. If you do deny it, that’s very serious. If not, then great!

It shouldn’t be controversial to say, on a Christian blog run by a professingly orthodox Lutheran, that denying the resurrection of the body is a serious matter.

Folks, I believe we’ve struck a nerve with Robert. In a weird way, he might be coming to the light.

Robert: You’ve never been afraid to speak for God before in letting us all know how much he hates whichever Calvinists you think are secretly plotting to take over the SBC

“There are six things the Lord hates — no, seven: arrogance, lying, murdering, plotting evil, eagerness to do wrong, a false witness, sowing discord among brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

God doesn’t hate the New Calvinists, but their behavior has included several items on that list as they have sought to takeover the SBC and other expressions of faith.

Friend: I did not ask you to teach me.

“I felt I had to write about men who would dearly love to lead you astray. Yet I know that the touch of his Spirit never leaves you, and you don’t really need a human teacher. You know that his Spirit teaches you about all things, always telling you the truth and never telling you a lie. So, as He has taught you, live continually in Him.” (1 John 2:27)

When you are taught Truth, it’s easy to detect a lie. When you have experienced the genuine, the counterfeit is easier to spot.

Friend: Heaven will have a tremendous variety of people

Whosoever will may come … predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son … chosen to be holy and blameless … called according to His purpose … elected to salvation by belief in the Truth … saved through faith.

Max,

Whosoever will believe in Christ will be saved.

If anyone is curious about the type of troll known as a sea lion, look at the Wondermark website. It’s a lovely old drawing, number 1062. Also easily found on your favorite search engine with a phrase like “sea lion wondermark.” Enjoy. 🙂

Max: Ahhh, but the call for all to believe is pointless with them having no genuine free will if God must regenerate them first in order for them to believe.

Human beings have genuine free will. Their decisions are not coerced.

Robert: Should everyone share your personal preference that abuse is bad?

Short answer. Yes.

But seriously, you’re punking me now …. right?

Jack: Short answer. Yes.

But seriously, you’re punking me now …. right?

As an apostate, sometimes I wonder if I’m making the right choice. A lifetime of programming is hard to break. You used to know and then you circle the drain. And then it falls off like a heavy coat in summer.

But you leave a community you used to share common ground with. A bit like stepping off a ledge.

Good thing I have friends outside Christianity.

I engage in discussion like this, and I know I’m on the right track.

But I think I’ll keep Christmas though, always did enjoy Christmas.

Great discussions over the years so thanks for that. You do get interesting insights.

Peace.

Robert: I’m saying that you must believe in the resurrection of the body and the new heaven and new earth to be a Christian.

Christian isn’t a category in God’s eyes. It’s a loose social label.

Jack: But you leave a community you used to share common ground with. A bit like stepping off a ledge.

So painful, but you did what you needed to do.

Your words have caused me to reflect on why I still belong to a church, after some of my own experiences. When I did step back, I did not intend to leave. I just lacked the energy to attend services quite as often, and my attendance tapered off to nothing.

Slowly I processed things that had happened not at that church, but much earlier. After five years away, I felt brave enough to return, and prepared to look for signs that my congregation was reasonably safe and committed to kindness. I still keep an eye on things, and pose challenges.

Robert,

i think you’ve been brainwashed to some degree by your theology & faith community (since brainwashing typically happens in corporate settings).

believing your system of ideas because you believe the system is true–

i call this having faith in faith itself–

and not able to see and recognize observable data that contradicts your system.

you seem to be unable to see that human beings outside the christian bubble share the primary moral code: it is wrong to lie, deceive, cheat, extort, be selfish, be lazy & irresponsible, cause harm to others, steal, murder,…

all my family and friends who are atheist/agnostic/muslim/hindu have superior personal integrity to any christian family & friend I have.

It’s utterly striking, and bowls me over like bowling-ball-hits-bowling-pins. like ice water in my face.

something is off if you either can’t see such things, or simply don’t know anyone outside the christian bubble.

elastigirl: you seem to be unable to see that human beings outside the christian bubble share the primary moral code: it is wrong to lie, deceive, cheat, extort, be selfish, be lazy & irresponsible, cause harm to others, steal, murder,…

Where have I said that? Of course all people do share that basic moral framework. I’m just asking why that is the case and why we expect people to share it.

You don’t have to be a Calvinist, let alone a Christian, to live an ethical life. I just don’t think one can consistently expect others to do the same apart from theism.

I’m not questioning anyone’s moral integrity. I apologize if anything I’ve said would indicate otherwise.

Jack,

And, yes, when it comes to hurting others, I do expect people to share my “personal preference”. Most of them do. C’mon, they say there’s no such as a stupid question, but really?

I still think you’re punking me with that one.

Jack: And this is a common Christian hubris. That without Christianity I have no external moral standards. There are lots of moral standards and throughout my life i’ve been influenced by many of them.

Not at all my claim, at least not on purpose. There are many transcendent external moral standards. Islam, Judaism, and other theisms that have a personal God have them.

Thank you, Dee and GBTC, for every single thing you do.

elastigirl: brainwashed to some degree by your theology & faith community

Robert is very typical of other hyper-Calvinists I have encountered. They just don’t know when to quit with their one-upmanship arguments to support their theology. The more they defend their doctrines to paint it as the one true gospel, the more mean-spirited they get in their exchange with others. They are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they can’t accept or be instructed by other expressions of faith. After a while, it’s a hole they can’t climb out of. It must be very frustrating. I actually feel sorry for Robert.

Robert,

Robert is completely off the point by his own choosing. And hasn’t addressed his TGC fixation.

elatigirl: laws of the land in countries

Are you praying Dan 9: 3-21 and Ezk 36?

Max: more mean-spirited they get in their exchange with others.

Mean-spirited? Can you please point me to where I have been mean spirited? I haven’t belittled anyone’s intelligence, called anyone any names, or anything of the like. Literally all I’ve done is asked questions and assumed that the professing Christians here all share the common historic Christian doctrine of divine omnipotence and the resurrection that all Christians historically have confessed whether they are Calvinists or not.

Robert: I never once said that non-Christians have no sense of morality. In fact, I explicitly said above that they do.

Dude, you said my dislike of abuse was a personal preference and why do I expect everyone else to agree to a personal preference.

Because I don’t have a “personal god” (whatever that means) I don’t have morality.

You’re parsing your words, you mean by “non Christian”, the Abrahamic religions.

The Hindus and I apparently don’t rate on any human scale.

Dehumanization leads down some very dark roads

Robert: If you get omnipotence, then you know that God very well could have chosen to stop your daughter from getting cancer and yet did not do so for some good purpose even if you may not know what that good purpose is … God can doing anything that is logically possible and consistent with His holiness. That’s just basic Christianity—Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism.

I don’t care about converting you to Calvinism. I want you to have better critiques of Calvinism. We Calvinists need it.

Robert:

Get an intellectual grip. God created the world the way it needed to be created. Contingency is neither random nor fixed. He and His angels constantly intervene, in small as well as big ways. Have you ever pondered what suffering is for itself, without any religious trappings? I have known (mostly in person but sometimes by reading) contingency and any other topic described the way you do in all the settings you listed and more, which is why I don’t talk about “C of E doctrine”, “RCC doctrine” etc as those are so liquid. What happened to Jonah? Paul? Daniel? The father of Belshazzar? Who saved the men of Sodom and what from? You claim to say God is “logical” while proving you don’t believe He is. Please don’t presume to talk about the meanings of our lives according to your template. Do you understand the role of the Holy Spirit gifts in providence? Of prayer? Perhaps you are influenced by an imbalance in sacramental teachings as Augustine was (overstressing hierarchy). How can you embrace and affirm priesthood of believers and soul competency? Has Holy Scripture got any meanings? Do you get anything out of the Psalms? Do you know what image of God is as to epistemology and logic? You have potential to learn how to understand others’ comments accurately.

elatigirl,

Most of your comments are apposite but you shouldn’t stay within his template or cite conditions outside squirrel dumpling eating districts (everything is under threat here and there are things we are not allowed to talk about) lest it give Robert a maximum to fall below. God wants you to develop the spirit of a sound mind and a renewed mind, that means fresh forms of thinking, that means finding out.

Michael in UK,

i wish i understood what you wrote but i haven’t a clue what any of it means.

Michael in UK,

Of course there’s contingency. My confession affirms it. I’m glad you affirm God intervenes. Sometimes he doesn’t when he very could have. Which means, at the end of the day, anyone who believes God can and does intervene hasn’t any other answer than the same one a Calvinist does.

Michael in UK,

1. I apologized for miscommunication. I’m still waiting for someone to show me my rudeness. I still don’t know how assuming basic Christian orthodoxy of professing Christian interlocutors or assuming that professing Christian interlocutors would agree with the basic idea that we NEED the historic Christian doctrine of omnipotence (since the Bible repeatedly has us put our hope in God’s power) is rude.

To put it another way, do you want me to be like other Calvinists who wrongly think that there’s no such thing as a true orthodox Christian outside of Calvinism?

2. I have explicitly said I’m not a fan of TGC. Your accusation is not accurate.

3. Of course I believe in the Ascension.

4. I explicitly gave my view of God’s glory to elastigirl: the full manifestation of God’s character/being.

5. Not exactly following you here. What Christ wants for us is what God wants for us. Christ wants to make us children who share fully in his relationship with the Father and know that He loves us with the very same love as the Father does, all to God’s glory. That’s John 17.

6. Yes

7. I’m sorry but I don’t understand this. Did you inadvertantly miss a word or something? I’ve done it myself.

8. I really wish what you said did help, but I’m honestly still confused.

Golly, 323 comments! Well done, gang. 🙂

Robert,

“I apologized for miscommunication. I’m still waiting for someone to show me my rudeness.”
++++++++++++++++

i believe i did this on Sat Jul 01, 2023 at 05:39 PM.

maybe it was more lack of awareness than rudeness… but the former is often the cause of the latter.

elastigirl,

That may be true, but I didn’t realize that it would be such a problem to assume that professing Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead or that God is Almighty, both of which are confessed in the Apostles Creed and don’t really admit to varying interpretations.

Historically, all Christians have agreed on the fact of what he purposes to do. The differences have to do with what God wills to do with that power. The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists lie there, not in the possession of power itself. So, when I say that someone who professes to be a Christian shares the same understanding of divine power I do but they might not realize it, it’s not a gotcha, it’s me saying, “hey, our views are really not as different as you might think.” A non-Calvinist could say the exact same thing to me on other issues.

Based on what I’ve read from Dee, for instance, we probably agree on 90-95 percent of things theologically even if one or both of us don’t realize it.

elastigirl,

I don’t see anything rude about saying that I don’t understand how one can consistently expect others to share a personal preference or moral code apart from theism. It’s an expression of an opinion. Others jumped in and assumed I said “you can’t have a moral code if you’re not a Christian.” Those words were never said by me, nor are they implied by my statement.

Why not extend the assumption of Christian charity?

The intent sometimes is to create uniform thought, or an illusion of agreement, through various wiles. If someone shows a little pique or forgets to say “excuse me” in the middle of discussion, the calmer person “wins.” Still, the calmer person can be completely wrong.

Jesus himself got annoyed a couple of times, and that probably delighted the Pharisees.

I don’t understand everyone’s words and intentions well enough to know if that applies here. Civility matters, but 2 + 2 will never equal 5, no matter how calmly the wrong answer is repeated.

Michael in UK,

last section – my comment entirely
previous sec tion – partly duplication of Robert’s points 2-8

elastigirl,

Tip top points!

elastigirl: not many christians embrace theology that destroys parts of their own lives

Sadly nearly all do, over here, the last few years. That’s why I rephrase EVERYTHING.