* * *
Someone sent me a link to this book for children. The book was just recently published – just over a month ago – April 2013.
Here is the book description from Amazon:
Come along on a journey with Mitchell, as he recalls his nightmare for his mother. Mitchell was in a land of darkness and gloom, when due to no cooperation of his own, a Knight in shining armor saved him and all the other captives He intended to save. “Help! Arminians are Giving Me Nightmares Again!” is a children’s allegory designed to teach your kids the Doctrines of Grace through the use of creative story-telling.
So check this out. Here’s this book for children advertised on Amazon, right? A book written specifically for children, mind you. Go read the one negative review and all of the comments following. We’ve got a doctrinal war going on, people. A doctrinal war going on in the review section of a children’s storybook.
Here is that one negative review (as of June 1, 2013 – because you can be sure more will be coming):
I apologize. The decription is enough to give me the heebee-jeebees. Didn’t buy or read the book; don’t intend to. Since only a very few are chosen for salvation and many, many will go to eternal damnation (along with all and every infant), the chances of my grandchildren being those for whom God intended to save is awfully slim. Don’t want to give them Calvinistic nightmares. (Source)
As of right now, there are three pages of bantering back and forth Calvinism vs Arminianism. Here are a couple of more comments following the negative review (man, see what happens when you leave a negative review somewhere – I sure hope this guy doesn’t get sued).
Actually, the fear that God won’t choose someone because they are too bad dovetails with the classic Arminian doctrine of conditional election, whereas unconditional election isn’t based on how good or bad the sinner is. So thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Conditional election would give a kid nightmares. (Source)
And here’s a response to the above comment:
Keystone, your comment shows that you do not know Arminian doctrine rightly.
That’s the point of “unconditional election”. It has nothing to do with merit or demerit. Calvinism teaches man is not worthy of salvation, and that is right. However, it also essentially teaches that others are damned without any reference too their deserving it (although, that is denied; nevertheless, it is the logical conclusion).
Conditonal election would not give nightmares for the Arminian can truthfully tell the child God loves him and will save him; all he need do is trust Christ.
If the Calvinist were honest, he would need to tell the child that he might be of the elect or you might be damned to hell forever and there is nothing you can do about it. While the child cries that God can’t be like that, in good Calvinist fashion, you can tell him, “Who are you, child, to answer back to God.”
If I were 7 years old and heard Calvinistic doctrine, I’d have stinking nightmares…along with wetting my pj’s! (Source)
You all have got the picture that these are review comments on a CHILDREN’S BOOK, right? Let me rephrase it, these are reviews for a book that was written for us to read to our cute little munchkins/offspring/heritage/blessings/arrows/passel/whatever-you-want-to-call-your-kids.
We all know that Christianity has basic tenets: Christ’s death and resurrection, virgin birth, Christ is Son of God, saved by grace through faith, etc. Silly me – I thought I just needed to know those kinds of basics to be a Christian. It wasn’t until a few years ago that I had even heard of the names “Calvinism” and “Arminism.” It confused me. It still confuses me.
We’ve talked about the idolatry of doctrine before. I believe the idolatry of doctrine can create an environment in which abuse is allowed to continue in churches. The obsessive focus on doctrine can become a distraction to the message of Christ and what it really means to live out the life Christ intended: loving God and loving others.
I have a problem with training children this stuff at such a young age. What is the purpose? To raise up little like-minded warriors to defend your brand of Christianity? Yea, I know, train up a child in the way he should go passage in Deuteronomy – – and that’s based on your interpretation of scripture because we all know your interpretation is the right interpretation and it doesn’t matter whether this stuff has been argued and debated for centuries, you’ve got it all figured out. Uh-huh, I’m tracking with you. I bought into this stuff in the Homeschool Movement when we were told to produce as many babies as possible so our little children could become spiritual warriors on the battlefield.
If the Bible has everything we need for life and godliness, why do my children need to learn Calvin’s stuff or the Arminian stuff? Why can’t it just be solely from the Bible? LDS carry their Bibles, too, along with the Book of Mormon when they go to their wards to worship. I have seen some combo versions that include the Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrines and Covenants. These are all part and parcel of LDS.
The way I’m seeing it, there are some Christians who behave the same way as Mormons. They have their Bible along with the Institutes of Calvin. I wonder if there is a combo Calvin Institutes/Bible in publication yet? By the way, I’m picking on the staunch Calvinists because that is my frame of reference. Do Arminians have a “bible” like Calvin’s Institutes? If they do, then add them to this paragraph. I’m picking on anyone who adds another book to their Bible and elevates it to the level of Bible. Ask a Mormon which book is more important to them. They have a hard time saying that the Bible is #1. When I talk to some people, I get the feeling they read more about their brand of doctrine than they read from their own Bibles.
I have a problem with people elevating men’s ideas as gospel above the Bible and especially when those men’s ideas become so divisive that somehow Christ and the true meaning of Christianity somehow gets lost.
Yea, I think I’ll stick with just the Bible for my kids. Men and their ideas complicate Christianity for me. For realz.
* * *
Related links:
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Dave AA said:
– – Excellent point
PJ – Welcome! I appreciate your comment.
I think as shown on this thread Calvinism not as simple as they are trying to make it out to be. But frankly, why should anyone spend ANY amount of time trying to study Calvinism or Arminianism or any other man’s interpretation of the Bible. How about just study the Bible? I fail to see the importance of labeling someone a 3.5 pt Calvinist and how that helps anybody.
I’m unsure of who you were directing this comment to:
LikeLike
it would seem, as I’ve asked the question as to why Calvinistic teaching (reformed theology is my preferred term since Calvin didn’t create it), that the issue with reformed theology isn’t necessarily the doctrines of grace. it would probably, and I’m just thinking out loud, that it’s the practice of those who hold to it so staunchly. the pride and arrogance displayed by many has little to do with what they believe — “if I have not love…” then, your nothing. I would imagine that an equal type of practice, howbeit different, on the Armenian side of the theological battles is identifiable to some point and equally as corrupt. Something to divide the Church indeed. I agree with Jesus, may we all be one as Jesus and the Father are one. Its not our doctrine with disputable matters, it’s about the Gospel. And this is how you’ll know you have passed from death unto life, because you love the brethren… (whether you lean Armenian or Calvinistic, ahem, reformed theology) please forgive the redefinition of the term Calvinistic and not equally redefining Armenian, I can’t think of what it would be (liberal?).
LikeLike
main thought: I think it boils down to practice… as in this thread, JD’s title and later practice was evidently, IMHO, poor.
LikeLike
Julie Anne asks “How about just study the Bible?” Yes!!! And then maybe put our energies,including our mental energies, into following the way of life Jesus modeled for us?
LikeLike
Julie, thank you for the kind welcome! I completely agree that the study of the Bible BY FAR supersedes the study of any other source, and like I said, I came to my conclusions solely by reading the Bible, and still to this day have not read a single work of John Calvin or Arminius. That being said, there is value in learning from Bible teachers, which is why we attend Bible studies, or listen to sermons. While the word of God is understandable and sufficient for everyone, God has gifted certain people with the ability to teach.
Sorry for not being clear in who I was responding to. I read blogs and forums a lot, but don’t often comment, so I am still pretty new to all of this. I was responding to chapmaned24, where he said:
“We give God faith, and in turn, God gives us grace. Calvin indicates that in order for us to give God faith, he must first give us grace. It doesn’t work like that.”
LikeLike
PJ, That is not how I described it at all. Earning God’s grace means to attempt to obey the law of Moses. The ONLY wages there is death. The ONLY way to get God’s grace is to BELIEVE God’s promise of Eternal Life that was given as a covenant to Abraham. We are saved by grace THRU faith. That means that WE give God faith, which is to say, that we BELIEVE GOD’s promise of eternal life, and BASED ON THAT BELIEF we live out our lives knowing that we are gonna get what God promised. We don’t have to do anything to get it, but to believe it.
But some don’t want to believe that all we have to do is to believe it. They mock that idea. They think that there must be more to it than to just believe it. So they add weird doctrines in that God must force us to believe it, so that THEN we can give God faith.
Ed
LikeLike
PJ,
Faith is not a gift of God. Grace is. Calvinists have a term called “saving faith”. There is no such thing.
Ed
LikeLike
No prob, PJ. I wish there was a feature where we can quote more easily. I have it a little easier behind the scenes, but it’s more challenging for everyone else 😦
You’re doing great!
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that we are “forced” to have faith. I would say that once someone truly understands heaven, hell, sin, and grace, they wouldn’t choose anything but Jesus. That is where the term irresistible grace comes from. Not irresistible in the sense that we can’t resist it, but that no one that understands it would possibly want to resist it.
LikeLike
PJ, you said the key word, CHOOSE. That is free will, yes? That is NOT irresistible Grace that the Calvinist define. The Calvinist irresistible grace means that God already predestined you to salvation before the foundation of the world, and that there is NOTHING that you can do about either way. You don’t have a choice in the matter…it’s irresistible, because God chose, you didn’t. That isn’t free will. That is God FORCING FAITH to you, making you believe.
LikeLike
Let’s take a few verses about God and His attributes that we can extrapolate and see how they fit with the psychology of Calvinist theology.
So, some of God’s qualities, since God is love are:
Patient
Kind
Not easily angered
Keeps no record of wrongs
Always protects
Always perseveres
These are not qualities that can be reconciled with a God that expresses wrath and vengeance upon lesser beings that were created solely for the purpose of being condemned to eternal torture in hell, at least not without using an escapist argument of “His was are not our ways.”
Since we are humans, we have no other way to think and talk about God except our human ways. And since it is humans doing this talking, our psychology is going to influence our theology, no matter how much we claim otherwise. Calvinist theology is best represented in terms of boundaries, the us v. them/in-group v. out-group frame of thought (Arminianism can also be characterized in this way, but to a lesser degree, since free will allows people to make the choice to join the us/in-group).
Since our psychology influences what parts of Scripture and what attributes of God on which we choose to focus, Calvinism focuses primarily on what could be termed ‘negative’ aspects of God: Exclusion, condemnation, anger. The idea of predestination can be a very comforting thought to people who are hurt and angry at the actions of those who they feel have wronged them. And it’s a very natural thing for anyone to feel that there are some people so evil and vile as to never be able to gain God’s forgiveness.
While Christ spoke often of judgement, the example and message of His life was never one of exclusion and othering, nor were the examples and messages of the apostles. Peter was corrected to understand that everyone, not just the Jews, was welcomed by Christ. But to embrace a theology of inclusion and acceptance requires a shift in the focus of the minds of people. 1 Cor. 13 also tells us the greatest of these things is love, and that love never fails.
Yet Calvinist theology claims that some will be condemned because Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to save “the world” or that “the world” actually means “the chosen.” This is telling, as it shows that the focus of Calvinist theology is not on “the greatest of these things”, nor on the things in Philippians 4:8. Exclusion, whether in the heart or in the theology is not loving, noble, right, admirable, or worthy of praise. Exclusion does appeal to pride and sanctimony, however.
And when we consider the impact of a person’s psychology on their theology, we might not wish to choose a theology developed by the Reformers who urged the authorities to execute their critics and dissenters. Wanting your critics out of the way by any means available can in no way be reconciled with the example of Christ and the New Testament.
Also kind of strange that many people who would consider themselves “Reformed” would also call themselves “Evangelical”, since with irresistible grace, evangelism really isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
chapmaned24,
I won’t pretend to understand it all, but I understand believing and faith to be something more than really, really thinking something is true–at least in the way I believed in Santa Clause when I was a child. I am thinking the the kind of belief or faith we are to have in Jesus is more akin to the kind of faith some people tend to put in a politician. Some may believe in a politician in the sense that they place their hope, trust, and expectations in her or him.
With Jesus, though, it goes even beyond this. Having put a hoping kind of belief in Him, and having discovered that he is true and worthy (beyond the capability of any politician), we come to trust and love Him and, therefore, obey Him. To believe in Jesus is to be obediently loyal to Him. Faith, in my view, is very much like the fealty a medieval vessel would pledge and render to his lord, with loyalty in both directions being the essence of the relationship.
I really don’t need to know how grace relates to faith, and in what order of cause and effect. What God grants is his gracious favor, I place my loving, obedient trust in Jesus, and Jesus is unfailingly faithful to me.
LikeLike
Eric: I just stopped at your comment right here:
I’m just thinking back on how many big-name church leaders I’ve had the opportunity to converse with and most of them fail 1 Cor. 13. It always comes down to “where’s the love” for me as proof. Show me the love, people!
LikeLike
Ed,
The way you describe grace makes it seem like it is not the sweet and wonderful gift that it is. I would say that you are incorrect in your definition of irresistible grace. It does not mean that God will bring people to Christ against their wills, kicking and screaming. It does not imply coercion. On the contrary, it means that God will not just save his people apart from or in opposition to their wills, but he will give them the very will to come.
When Christ called to Lazarus from his grave, he irresistibly arose and came forth, but it was not as if the still-dead corpse were miraculously moving like a robot, nor yet as if he desperately wanted to stay in his grave, and Jesus dragged him out against his will. Lazarus was given new life, and the living will he received delighted to come forth from his stinking grave and embrace his Savior.
LikeLike
Well, Gary, I happen to find that Hebrews 11:1 defines faith very well.
Faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen.
In Romans, it is said that we are saved by HOPE.
Hope is defined as something that we are expecting, and that we are just waiting for it to happen. And that is exactly how romans describes it when it is stated that we are saved by HOPE.
So, in regards to faith, WHAT DO YOU HOPE FOR? Or, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
You will get what you expect, and what you expect is eternal life.
Is that simple enough? On Christmas, you expected to get a present from Santa Claus, right?
Ed
LikeLike
PJ,
I’m fairly certain you have redefined the standard Calvinist concept of irresistible grace. But, regardless, what does it matter how grace works? What does it matter whether or not grace is irresistible. In the end, all that matters is Jesus, Jesus for whom and through whom all things were created. Forget about the mechanics of how He does it all. Just give me Jesus.
LikeLike
PJ, I highly suggest that you study Calvinism to it’s totality, and you will see that I am right, and it can be backed up by many people here on this blog, so it isn’t just me saying it. But do study Calvinism, please. There is a HUGE difference between those who subscribe to Calvin beliefs and those who don’t. HUGE. And they are obvious. It’s like the differences between Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Huge differences.
Ed
LikeLike
L.O.L. Ed! Can you hear me laughing over the Cascades?
LikeLike
Gary W, Did you says Give me Jesus? Amen. Here you go:
Give Me Jesus
JA is seriously annoyed that she cannot embed the youtube video here like she has countless times before, but is tired of wasting minutes. Just click the link instead.
LikeLike
Ed,
Romans begins and ends with references to the obedience of faith. In Hebrews 3:18-19, the disobedient are characterized as being in unbelief. I think there are one or two similar verses in Hebrews. James makes it clear that faith requires works. Not really trying to convince you of anything. Just explaining somewhat where my thinking comes from.
LikeLike
Ed, please don’t misinterpret my tone of voice, but I truly find it a little funny that I am now being encouraged to study calvinism when we have all been so gung-ho on studying the Bible and not works of man! From my study of the bible, and the teachings of my pastor, the explanation that I gave is how I have always understood irresistible grace. I don’t call myself a calvinist simply because I am not overly familiar with his work, but several people that I have learned from are considered calvinists. I do believe that there is a difference in the definition of terms such as irresistible grace based on whether or not you ascribe to it, because most of the people I know that ascribe to it would believe it the way that I do.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Please explain that to me as if I am a two year old…lol…Oh, I hear the echo!!
LikeLike
Gary W. – is it that faith requires works or that works is the fruit or perhaps “proof” of one’s faith?
LikeLike
PJ, Oh, I am never worried about anyone’s tone…Everyone is always worried about mine. Anyway, I will say this, that the Calvinist view of irresistible grace is just as I laid it out. It is a term that is Calvinistic, so it is not used in any other protestant setting. So if it is used in your church’s setting, then you need to find out if there is a Calvinist leaning. The Southern Baptist Church’s are turning Calvinist, and there is massive confusion within the Southern Baptists in regards to Calvinism, as some believe it, some don’t.
I am a debator, and I find it helpful to always study other people’s belief systems before I even enter into a debate. I want to know all the talking points before they are brought to me, so that I am prepared. They think that they are debating someone who has no clue, until they realize that I already know their talking points. I tick a lot of people off that way. I am always intrigued to learn why people believe in what they believe. It’s fascinating to me. So, yes, I endorse learning Calvinism to anyone, just as I would for people to learn the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, etc. It never hurts to know who you are debating, and what to say when someone else states their dogma. It’s fun.
LikeLike
Ed: For a 2-yr old: you make me laugh.
For a 48 yr old: your dry humor kills me
However, I think poor PJ does not know you. So, PJ, don’t let Ed’s personality get to you. He can be very blunt and as I said above, he has very dry humor. He has a great heart – an amazingly tender heart, actually.
Sorry, Ed, if I blew your cover.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I wish I could answer your question. I can’t wrap my mind around it. But try this. Think back to the time of your marriage. I dare say you believed in your husband in the sense that I am saying we are to believe and have faith in Jesus. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would hope that your belief in the man who became your husband was wrapped up in hope and love. It is awkward to speak of your obedience to him, but I will be very surprised if your faith/trust, hope and love toward him was not expressed in service toward him. I’m on dangerous ground indeed, but ideally that service was and continues to be grounded in your love–not some sort of legalistic duty owed to the family patriarch.
So, having said all of that, I would say that faith, hope and love come as a package, with each building, and building on, the other. Obedience is ideally the returning of love, not the seeking of reward.
LikeLike
Gary, Julie Anne was correct in asking you about works in regards to faith.
First lets look at Romans 4:2-6
” For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,”
NO WORKS
So what is James discussing? LOVE.
Faith without ACTION is dead. Love is an action word.
If you KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU KNOW that you will get eternal life, you live out your life based on that. You put your faith into action.
James’ discussion of works has NOTHING to do with salvation.
And, works is NOT REQUIRED for salvation in Romans, either.
Bottom line, works is as a result of salvation, not a prerequisite to.
Ed
LikeLike
Well, it’s probably a good thing then, that I don’t call myself a calvinist, because apparently I wouldn’t be a very good one if that’s the definition. The church I attend is a reformed (or calvinistic) Southern Baptist church, and the pastor is Southern Baptist through and through, and the way I explained irresistible grace is the way I was taught by him.
I agree with you that there is value in studying various teachings and continually sharpen our discernment sword, so long as it does not supersede your study of the Bible.
LikeLike
Gary,
Works, in regards to Romans, is “obeying the law of Moses”, or, in short, “obedience”. We are to be “obedient” to the law of FAITH. Faith is a law. Works used to be the law (OBEDIENCE to the law of Moses). Not anymore.
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
LikeLike
Also, because obedience or service to our Lord is motivated by love, it is not, ideally, the legalistic discharging of duty.
LikeLike
PJ, be prepared, apparently your pastor needs some correcting in his own theology teaching of Calvinism, because Calvinism is coming to Southern Baptist church’s, and it’s a fairly new concept to many many Southern Baptists. I don’t think your pastor is fully schooled himself in it, but he is using the terminologies of it.
LikeLike
Gary,
I have no clue what you just said. I am not in the “service” anymore, as I was discharged from duty. I try to find the simple explanations, not the complicated ones. All we are to be obedient to is the law of the substance of things expected (faith), and righteousness is imputed to us. So simple. Not complicated.
LikeLike
Gary W. I think I get what you are saying. You threw me for a loop with the marriage example and it’s not working for me well.
I don’t see faith, hope and love as a package as you described. I’ll have to stew more on the faith chapter first to be sure. I still think that faith comes first before obedience and obedience is a serving/submissive out of honor/respect for who God is. The knowledge of who He is and our relationship with Him compels us to obedience.
LikeLike
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31-32, ESV)
I take it from this passage that marriage is a metaphor for understanding our relationship to Jesus. Metaphors can be multifaceted, but one of the things the metaphor of marriage helps me to see is the nature of faith, hope and love. If a man does not believe in his wife to be–that is, if he does not trust her, in whatever way–then both hope and love will be hindered. I would suppose it must be the same for the bride. If she for any reason does not trust the man she would marry, hope and love will be diminished.
I frankly think that Jesus does not get presented to us in a way that encourages faith, hope or love toward Him. It has been my experience that the preachers do a good job of telling us what Jesus has done for us, but they really haven’t done so good a job of introducing us to Him as the person he really is. Setting aside the difficulty I have, as a man, thinking in terms of being married to Jesus, it is as if there has been a marriage by proxy to a mail order bride, and the bride and groom remain indefinitely separated by a continent, an ocean, and another half a continent. This in turn makes it difficult for the couple to develop faith or trust in one another, much less love. There may be hope. Maybe this all somehow fits in with the notion of faith being the substance of things hoped for.
LikeLike
Gary,
I don’t see the connection of your explanation with your reference of that the two become one flesh in regards to “faith, hope, and love”.
Hebrews 11:1 defines faith. It’s a know that you know that you know…it is the assurance that you are going to get what you expect. What does a marriage have to do with that? I think that your internal definition is much different than the definition presented in Hebrews 11:1.
Again, Hope is defined as something that you expect, and that you are just waiting for it to happen.
romans 8:23-25
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
And we know what love is defined as based on 1 Cor 13.
I don’t see a connection of “faith, hope, and love” with a marriage, in light of the biblical definitions of each.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple (11:13)- Your insights make me want to delve deeper and learn more about church history. This topic has long overwhelmed me. Any suggestions of unbiased, overview resources?
“They have some fancy mental hoops with big words to explain how God gives us no free will and is in control but not of Satan.” Exactly.
Check this out, peeps- good stuff:
http://jimpalmerblog.com/2012/12/14/15-things-jesus-didnt-say/
LikeLike
One must be careful proof-texting out of the Pauline corpus. Paul frequently sets up a straw man argument, then shoots it down. Happens several times in Romans in particular. A law school bible study analyzed Romans as a legal treatise, wherein the counter arguments are put forth first and then shown to be in error or inadequate, then followed by the better argument, some counterpoints, then the best argument! One could be proof-texting from the counter argument section.
I have seen this happen in the citation of legal treatises, making it look like the author was backing the opposite position, because some one did not read the whole thing with understanding.
LikeLike
Ed,
Please allow me to suggest that you are leaving out some of the pieces of the Scriptural puzzle, that you are not reading all the lines of the orchestral score. Even Hebrews 11 refers to those whose faith was expressed by works. James 2 brings the point home.
Beyond that, my testimony is that my many years of studying Scripture and pursuing truth in the form of right thinking about Scripture were essentially wasted–that is, until I began to see and respond to the need to put it all into practice in my life. I am given to understand that the great conductors can memorize entire orchestral scores. Yet that alone does not music make. The music must actually be performed before the music is brought to life. So it is in our walk with Jesus.
Just as an example, I can have every confidence in my mind that God will provide for my needs even if, and maybe especially if, I give beyond my means. However, that confidence is not written on my heart until I actually do the thing that tests the thing I believe.
It is good and well to observe that we are saved by grace through faith. Yet this puzzle piece of Scripture must be fit in with Jesus’ teaching in the closing verses of Matthew 25, where it made plain that our faith will be tested by our works. No works of the right sort, eternal damnation. Thus, apparently, no works of love, no saving faith in the Ephesians 2:8-9 sense. It is interesting to note that even this passage is followed with the observation that we are created in Christ Jesus for good works.
LikeLike
Not sure where the comment stating that God gives us no free will came from (too many comments), but I don’t think it’s true. We are free to do whatever we want to do however, fallen man is in rebellion to his creator and doesn’t ‘naturally’ want him. Perhaps the best reading on the issue (outside of scripture) are Luther’s ‘Bondage of the Will’ and Edwards’ “Freedom of the Will”. The debate ultimately goes to monergistic v. synergystic regeneration and can be traced all the way back to Augustine and Pelagius. John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were preceded by the aforementioned duo, as well as by Luther and Erasmus. Church history is fascinating on this issue.
LikeLike
Born4Battle,
Good to see you back. It gives me a chance to put a question or two to you. You obviously are a great student of Scripture. My question is, what difference has all the knowledge made in your life? Do you find that your heart is for the hungry, for widows and orphans, for the oppressed, for the imprisoned? I am expecting the answer is yes, but is your heart level concern translated into action? If so, what action, specifically?
I have examined myself vis a vis these kinds of questions and alarmed at my conclusions. Is it enough to merely give money to ministries of mercy? If not, if our Lord is looking for actual, on the grounds, one-on-one ministry to “the least of these” I must be concerned that I will be amongst the goats consigned to eternal punishment (unless the English translations are wrong in rendering the Greek word for “age” as “eternal”).
You may not wish to respond here, but I urge you to put these questions to yourself. I am not suggesting what the conclusion for you might be, but I think I can find a “Biblical” basis for examining ourselves whether we are in the faith.
LikeLike
Born4Battle,
Plus, there is this: As interesting as it is, I really don’t much care about the debate over “monergistic v. synergystic regeneration.” I find it a great distraction. I am concerned about the source of our salvation. Just show me Jesus. Just show me how to be His disciple, how to spend time with Him learning to be like Him. To the extent doctrine does not lead to this end, its is no more than a distraction from the very pit of hell. To be frank, I think that much of the doctrinal debate going on here and in other places is a distraction from the very depths of the Abyss, and I have been part of the problem.
LikeLike
I tend to recoil from theological debates. I’m still trying to steady my spiritual boat. But, one of the characteristics of an abusive church that I’ve seen on different websites is that it believes it alone holds correct doctrine, and everybody else is wrong.
“On the contrary, in the devil’s theology, the important thing is to be absolutely right and to prove that everybody else is absolutely wrong.”
— Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil”
http://thegroundoffaith.net/issues/2008-10/Merton.htm
LikeLike
HUG,
The dietary “guidelines” were kosher and then some. And they were absolutely compulsory. It doesn’t sound so unreasonable at first, until you encounter an enforcement situation.
In other words, “Can You Top Kosher?” “More Kosher Than Thou!” Adding layer after layer of more and more rigid rules and Commandments to show How Holy And Godly We Are — “I THANK THEE, LOORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE THOSE ARMINIANS AND POMOS OVER THERE! SEE HOW HOLY I AM?” (Didn’t this one Rabbi from Nazareth have something to say about that practice? None of it good?)
As for Enforcement Situation, I assume this means Thought Police and Thoughtcrime? That always happens when Whatever Is Not Forbidden Is Absolutely Compulsory. And the “enforcement situation” where four “Minister/Enforcers” (Didn’t Calvin call them Magistrates?) show up because someone in the same building ate an Ungodly Heathen chocolate bar — straight out of Calvin’s Geneva.
LikeLike
This has been the most entertaining thread I’ve been on in a long time.
Is humor biblically acceptable? Or is it just a product of post-modernism?
“There can be no laughter in Islam. There can be no humor in Islam.”
— attr to Ayatollah Khomeini
LikeLike
I think it’s important to notice how he thought the title of his book was humorous. Do you notice the emotional disconnect? He couldn’t get it. Calvinists readers here said they were offended by it (so he can’t blame it on Arminians having the problem – they were of his own ilk). There were Calvinists on Twitter who also said they thought it was inappropriate, but he didn’t see it. We were the problem – we needed to lighten up.
“YOU’RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM! CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?” is a common fallback blame-shift with bullies and abusers. (Sixteen years experience growing up.)
LikeLike
A Dittmeier said: “What kind of parents put flowers in a boy’s room? ”
Julie Anne said: “I suppose the kinds of parents who want their son to be dreaming about TULIPs. Maybe the TULIPs are going to eat up the Arminian Monsters hiding beneath the bed.”
Shannon H. can’t help but think: “Little Bedroom of Horrors” – LOL
“FEED ME!”
LikeLike
Like I said before, however, Gary, is that when you know that you know that you know, you live out your life based on that knowing, in that nothing can be done to take away what you know that you will get. The life that you live is the works. You put that faith into action. That is what James is discussing thru the rest of Hebrews 11.
LikeLike
Wow. I can’t believe this thread is still going. Happy Monday y’all.
Headless guy- Regarding Islam. “That why no joke… Is-slam.”
Note to posters- I’m not Gary W. (I couldn’t afford the extra ‘W’)
Too many posts to read. Boy howdy!
LikeLike
I see many seeming to say, doctrine is bad, just give me Jesus or the Bible and I will follow it. Doctrine is just what we believe and that causes us to act accordingly. Your doctrine of Jesus (who He is) determines how or if you live for Him. Each of us holds that doctrine. The doctrine of salvation is one each of us holds. There are many doctrines we hold. Our doctrine of the Bible determines whether we believe the Bible is true and to what extent and will determine how we live in accordance to it and determines our doctrines of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, how we live the Christian life, Heaven, Hell, and many other things. So we can’t dismiss doctrine so easily.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I am to the place that I know that I know that I know. Actually, I know I am not. It may work the other way round for some, but I find that my assurance is increased as I by force of the will choose to live out the example of Jesus. I see that example not only in Scripture, but also through the lives of others through whom it is apparent Jesus is living in the here and now.
LikeLike
Hello Gary. I used to post here as just Gary. Then I noticed you posting as Gary, so I bought the extra W.
LikeLike
Darrell – Welcome!
I think I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. The problem that I am trying to highlight is those who are trying to fit things into their specific doctrinal paradigm, in this case because of referencing the children’s book, Calvinism. It’s far too complicated. I say throw out the Calvinism or Arminianism because there is so much divisiveness there. Let’s just deal with the Bible as you suggested in determining our personal doctrine. We don’t need to attach a dead person’s name to our personal beliefs. Calvin is no better than you or me. As I said earlier, he had the same access to God as any one of us.
LikeLike
Hello Gary. I used to post here as just Gary. Then I noticed you posting as Gary, so I bought the extra W.
I used to comment under my real name, which is fairly common. A few years ago, Internet Monk had two or three other commenters with the same name, so I took the handle based on an unpublished fantasy story of mine.
LikeLike
We don’t need to attach a dead person’s name to our personal beliefs. Calvin is no better than you or me.
Except to the Hyper-Calvinists (far more Calvinist than Calvin), where Calvin Can Do No Wrong and his Doctrine/Ideology is elevated to at least the Fourth Person of the Trinity.
It is said that near the end of their respective lives Charles Darwin said “I am not a Darwinist” and Karl Marx “I am not a Marxist”. Would Calvin have said something similar (“I am not a Calvinist”) if he’d lived today?
LikeLike
“Andrew, what is depravity, let alone total depravity? What book, chapter and verse do we find that word? Please show me.”
I don’t know if the term depravity is used in the Bible but the concept is there. Just as the term trinity is not in the Bible but the concept is there. One verse off the top of my head is Roman 3:23. There are many others. In fact, the entire theme of the Bible speaks of the Fall of man and how only Jesus’ sacrifice can restore. If this were not so, there would be no need for God to send His only Son into the world. This is a pretty drastic measure God took for someone who is not depraved.
Unless one is a Pelagian (who was condemned as a heretic), I have never met a Christian that has denied the doctrine of depravity. This includes all Catholics and Protestants of both Arminian and Calvinistic persuasions and anyone in between. So Chapmaned24, you seem to be raising questions that seem to be completely off the reservation of Christianity in total.
LikeLike
Gary,
Abraham knew that he knew that he knew. The promise given to him was thru his son Isaac, so when God called him to kill Isaac, he had no problem in doing so, because he knew that God would resurrect Isaac from the dead for his promise to still stand. Abraham had faith. And the way that he lived out his life (works) justified his faith. The works: He was gonna sacrifice his son, even tho it appeared from everyone else that God reneged on his promise that his seed thru Isaac would inherit the promised land. That is the works being discussed. The works being discussed in Romans 4, however, is obedience to the law of Moses. Abraham didn’t have that at all.
LikeLike
Darrell,
Certainly doctrine has it’s place. However, when we emphasize doctrine over living as Christians, when we emphasize doctrine over love, when we emphasize doctrine over persons, we have lost our way. If you look at the fruit of doctrinal debate, it is nothing by anger and division. If the pursuit of right doctrine is not having a positive impact on one’s walk, it is hay and stubble. If it is the source of division, it is a distraction from the bowels of the pit.
The great Thomas Aquinas, author of Summa Theologica, came to the place where he said, “All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.” I am sure I am nowhere near the place to which Aquinas had come, but when I consider this quote of his, I want to stand up and cheer.
LikeLike
HUG,
I used to only use pseudonyms online – never my real name. BTW, on the original BGBCSurvivors blog (which I morphed over here to SSB), you can see my comments as “Free,” if you look back on earlier posts. Blog was started Feb 2012, I was sued March of 2012. Sometime in April 2012, I changed from “Free” to Julie Anne.
LikeLike
Andrew,
The context of Romans 3:23 was “Law vs. No Law”. And the context does not just stop there. It goes thru chapter 7. All have sinned, but but but, sin is NOT imputed where there is no law. Abraham didn’t have sin imputed to him, although he was a sinner like everyone else. Romans 4-5. In 1 John 3:4, sin is DEFINED as transgression of the law, not “miss the mark”. Abraham didn’t have the law, and no one can be held accountable to a law that they know nothing about.
Deuteronomy 1:39 is a great example of that, especially when you know what the name of that tree was in the Garden that Adam and Eve ate from.
Those in Deuteronomy was certainly under the law. Now read Romans chapter 7 (all). When did the Apostle Paul die spiritually?
I could expound on this in great detail, but the bottom line is “Law vs. No Law”, or, “Death vs. Life”. The wages of obedience to the law is death, but the gift (Grace) is eternal life, WITHOUT “OBEDIENCE” TO THE LAW.
Ed
LikeLike
Chapmaned24,
Actually the context of Romans appears to begin in Chapter 1. Take a look at that starting at verse 18. This was long before the law but rather since the creation of the world.
LikeLike
Ed,
I don’t doubt that Abraham had the kind of faith you describe. I can only conjecture that his faith was increased by his obedience, as I tend to suppose it was. I can see how it is faith that leads to obedience, as it surely does. I can also see that obedience leads to greater faith, which is my own experience. It’s not either/or in either direction. it is both/and, or so I suppose.
Clearly, if faith must start out with the “know that I know that I know” kind of assurance, I am, as of this very moment, doomed.
LikeLike
The great Thomas Aquinas, author of Summa Theologica, came to the place where he said, “All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.”
Summa Theologica would fill a good-sized bookshelf. And Aquinas is considered the most brilliant mind of the entire Middle Ages.
And you can’t condense “what has been revealed” to Aquinas about the nature of God down to a set of Ideological bullet points a la Calvin or a couple proof-text sound bites a la drive-by street evangelists without losing a LOT in the condensation.
LikeLike
Andrew,
You said above: “I have never met a Christian that has denied the doctrine of depravity.” So you’ve never met an Eastern Orthodox Christian, then?
I haven’t been involved in the whole conversation you’ve had on this topic, but I just want to but my head in, because Catholic and Protestants are not the sum total of Christianity, and you may have inadvertently called 300 million or so of our brothers and sisters in Christ, from one of the oldest branches of the family “completely off the reservation of Christianity.”
All that to say, one need not be a Pelagian or some other kind of heretic to question depravity…
LikeLike
Ryan,
I have met Eastern Orthodox. I thought for sure, they believed in depravity. But maybe you can correct us.
LikeLike
Ed,
In your first post to me you set the standard as Gary W stated. If the word isn’t in the bible it doesn’t exist. So I can’t hear any of your extra biblical words either. That line is disconnected. Sorry, have to hang up. I can’t even mention you were wrong in saying that Adam initiated the sacrifice. He didn’t initiate, he responded.
LikeLike
Ryan, I found this on the wiki page for Eastern Orthodox:
“The Orthodox do not accept the Pelagian view that the original sin did not damage human nature, they accept that the human nature is depraved, but not totally, and they avoid calling it “depraved” preferring “fallen nature”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology
LikeLike
Ryan rightly brought up the Orthodox church in response to the claim of anyone that doesn’t agree with the Calvinist doctrine of depravity as being a heretic by Andrew. Andrew is conveniently leaving out the Calvinist distinction of depravity being Total Depravity, which all sorts of non-Eastern Orthodox Christians deny. Andrew seems to want to defend Calvinist doctrine, but want to do so with the dodge of “Yeah, but…” To me, that’s just more escapism to defend a doctrine that I would deem at the least to be “heresy.”
If you read the comments closely, you’ll see the psychology behind the theologies…
LikeLike
My husband and I are separated. He still attends the legalistic church I left two years ago. My 4 yr old stays with him on weekends and attends church, naturally. my greatest fear is of him coming home after a weekend to tell me I’m going to hell because I wear pants or cut my hair or some other ridiculous notion. He’s only four but these people start the indoctrination early!
LikeLike
“Ryan rightly brought up the Orthodox church in response to the claim of anyone that doesn’t agree with the Calvinist doctrine of depravity as being a heretic by Andrew”
Never said this. I was talking about Palagian heresy.
LikeLike
Wow – another great thread… And lots of funnies…
And I love this debate with “Calvinists and Armenians” AAARRRGGHHH!!! 😉
about “Predestination” and “Free Will.”
In my experience – “Calvinists and Armenians’ do NOT really believe what they teach.
Because, it seems that those who believe it’s “either – or,” and only see one option,
have some questions to overcome.
———-
1 – If “Predestination” is the only correct option?
And an adversary/believer, believes in, defends, and teaches “Free Will?”
Then – Wasn’t it God who “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
For how could they believe in “Free Will” unless
God “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
———-
2 – If “Free Will” is the only correct option?
And an adversary/believer, believes in, defends, and teaches “Predestination?”
Then – Wasn’t it God who gave them a “Free Will” to choose “Predestination?”
For how could they believe in “Predestination”unless
God gave them a “Free Will” to choose “Predestination?”
———–
So where is the argument?
Now I try to agree with my adversary quickly.
When I repeat scriptures that talk about “Free Will” and choosing, (there are a few)
and I get corrected by a Calvinist, I just agree an say…
Gee, I must have been “predestined” to believe in “Free Will.”
And – when I repeat scriptures that talk about “Predestination” (there are a few)
and I get corrected by an Armenian, I just agree an say…
Gee, I must be using my “Free Will” to believe in “Predestination.”
When Arminius preached, and God was calling someone, that person believed…
they could choose to follow Christ.
When Calvin preached, and God was calling someone, that person believed…
they were chosen to follow Christ.
Why would anyone follow”Mere Fallible Humans” – When they can follow Jesus…
As far as I’m concerened – Calvinists and Armenians – Are trouble makers… 😉
And should go away… Please, just go away… You make my brain hurt…
Please, someone, anyone, – Just give me Jesus.
LikeLike
Sylpheslphe – That is so destructive. I’m so sorry to hear your tragic story. You are not alone in that. This is an example of spiritual abuse destroying a marriage and a family and it is so confusing and heart-wrenching.
I’d love to connect, if you’re willing: spiritualsb @ gmail
LikeLike
A. Amos Love,
You got some great points. I hope this will be one of the last posts that JA does on this. I am all for shedding light on abuse in the church but I really think some are barking up the wrong tree. It seems like this debate has its place but people tend to pure gasoline on a fire when love would do much better.
LikeLike
sylphesylphe,
Just love on your son and he will respond to that more than what he is told at church. Talk to him and listen. Ask questions. Kids love to be heard. That covers a multitude of theology. Maybe that IS theology.
LikeLike
Andrew – If I did a post on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, I have a hunch it would morph into Calvinism vs Arminianism. It seems to be the way discussion goes these days on blogs.
Now, I knew that this one had a high possibility of going “there” because of the title of the book and I tried to be clear in my post that if I had a similar Arminian book, you better believe I would
have used it, too. The primary issue I’m trying to bring home is the idolatry of doctrine and how that is not healthy and can be a breeding ground for all sorts of problems, including abuse.
LikeLike
“Never said this. I was talking about Palagian heresy”
In the same statement, you claimed, “Unless one is a Pelagian (who was condemned as a heretic), I have never met a Christian that has denied the doctrine of depravity. This includes all Catholics and Protestants of both Arminian and Calvinistic persuasions and anyone in between.”
You’re either being disingenuous or simply can’t understand that you imply that a denial of the doctrine of depravity is heresy, as you framed in your statement about Pelagianism. At least be intellectually honest with yourself and others when you throw around your sly accusations of heresy. Intellectual dishonesty is a sickening trait that I’ve run into with a lot of fundamentalists, regardless of Calv/Arm allegiance.
Again, psychology is coming out through your theology…
LikeLike
And regarding the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, anyone that can hold a newborn child in their arms and think that child possesses any form of guilt for ANY sin, original or otherwise, or total depravity of the soul, is a very sick individual.
If children have the quality of total depravity, then why in the world would Jesus tell us that we are to become like the little children?
If you want to defend Calvinistic doctrine that’s fine, but at least be honest enough to admit your misanthropy.
LikeLike
I hate it when psychology leaks out. What’s that part of me that always leaks? Oh Yeah, sike. When I see that I’m being played, in a sense, I usually just disengage. I must be a sick individual. I love babies. My wife and I had 4 of the little monsters.
LikeLike
Looks like I missed all of the fun over the weekend. I’ve been told (I can’t confirmed this) that Barth once called Van Til (a Calvinist in the conservative tradition) a ‘man-eater’. By this Barth meant that Van Til chews people up, spits them out and then they don’t recognize themselves. I’ve taken that story as a caution. I don’t want to be a man-eater. When describing the theology of another brother or sister I try to listen. I want to be able to describe what they believe so well that they say, “Yes, that’s what I believe.” I don’t always succeed, but that’s my ideal. So to you fellow Calvinists on this blog I say if you find an Arminian under your bed, don’t panic, don’t attack, don’t even defend yourself, just listen. To the rest I hope you’ll forgive us for all of the times we find arrogance more desirable than love.
LikeLike
Craig, If most pastors responded like you, I know a lot of blogs that would be out of business.
You know what?? I’d be sooooooo fine with that. I could go back to my old and now-dormant knitting/cooking blog where I showed my latest projects and cool yarn and yummy dishes. I haven’t touched yarn in a year. And my kids seem to have taken over in the yummy cuisine department. That part works for me.
LikeLike
“You’re either being disingenuous or simply can’t understand that you imply that a denial of the doctrine of depravity is heresy, as you framed in your statement about Pelagianism”
Yes, Pelagianism is heresy.
LikeLike
I just posted on my blog why Calvinism is so disgusting to me. You can defend it any way you wish, but it still comes down to a spiritually abusive doctrine, no matter how you wish to frame it.
I still haven’t seen any good answer why Jesus would tell us to become like little children, if children are consumed with the Total Depravity nonsense.
The big reason so many younger people are leaving churches is that so many doctrines are completely refuted by the reality in which we live.
LikeLike
And regarding the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, anyone that can hold a newborn child in their arms and think that child possesses any form of guilt for ANY sin, original or otherwise, or total depravity of the soul, is a very sick individual. — Eric Fry
All I can say about that is repeat what I heard on Christianese AM radio back in the Seventies. Don’t remember which Radio Preacher it was, but the guy had to be Hyper-Calvinist:
“Man sees a cute little baby —
GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!!!!!”
LikeLike
Looks like I missed all of the fun over the weekend. I’ve been told (I can’t confirmed this) that Barth once called Van Til (a Calvinist in the conservative tradition) a ‘man-eater’. By this Barth meant that Van Til chews people up, spits them out and then they don’t recognize themselves. I’ve taken that story as a caution. I don’t want to be a man-eater.
You said the secret woid, CraigVick.
In the words of the prophets Hall & Oates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rjy6jppmGQ
LikeLike
“Yes, Pelagianism is heresy.”
And your doctrine of total depravity is heresy, hateful, and blasphemous.
I’m done talking to Calvinists. You’re all too depraved(by your own admission) to relate to human beings outside of your cult..
LikeLike
I am not even talking about Calvinism or Total depravity. I hold to Calvinism very very loosely and not even sure I can call myself that at times. But just listen to you spew your venom.
Pelagius has been condemned by many councils throughout church history including the following:
Councils of Carthage (412, 416 and 418)
Council of Ephesus (431)
The Council of Orange (529)
Council of Trent (1546) Roman Catholic
2nd Helvetic (1561/66) 8-9. (Swiss-German Reformed)
Augsburg Confession (1530) Art. 9, 18 (Lutheran)
Gallican Confession (1559) Art. 10 (French Reformed)
Belgic Confession (1561) Art. 15 (Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
The Anglican Articles (1571), 9. (English)
Canons of Dort (1618-9), 3/4.2 (Dutch/German/French Reformed)
LikeLike
As a moderator, I’m confused (doesn’t take much, though). Here’s my thought process: I’m trying to decide if I need to remove Eric’s post for personally attacking Andrew. If Calvinists by their own admission are saying that they are depraved and Eric is accusing Andrew of what he already agrees, I think we’re safe. Whew. This stuff is heady.
LikeLike
HUG, Congratulations on posting that embedded video. I’m envious of your skills. I now have to go to the back door of the site to see the html code you used to get that YouTube up. I wasted probably 10 minutes trying last night. Ugh.
I was thinking of that song, too.
LikeLike
Hey Julie Anne
Hows your back felling these days?
Didn’t you say recently that something was up with your back?
LikeLike
JA,
Yep, you should remove Eric’s post cause he was attacking me. And I don’t agree with him at all. I am not endorsing or condemning Calvinism.
LikeLike
Right, Julie Anne. Eric couldn’t possibly be depraved cuz only a depraved person would attack someone. If you moderate him then he’ll be moderately depraved. hee hee
LikeLike
H U Guy,
Bill Withers answered Hall and Oats. His take was called Use Me.
LikeLike
Yeah – Calvinists do say they are depraved.
Gotta look up “depraved” in the dictionary – it’s NOT in the Bible. Oy Vey!!! 🙂
Oh WOWowowWow Wow ….
Depraved = morally corrupt; wicked:
I think I have to go along with Eric on this one…
“I’m done talking to Calvinists.” Because…
Calvinists are Depraved, Morally Corrupt and Wicked…
How can you trust what they say?
LikeLike
Gary W. and JA
Just saying we can’t separate the doctrine we truly believe from our actions. Good doctrine taken from the Bible properly interpreted results in good behavior. Bad doctrine taken from the Bible wrongly interpreted results in bad behavior. We may belong to a particular group that holds an overall doctrine, but we reject or accept the parts we choose to and act or don’t act on them accordingly.
LikeLike
*wonders who is the leader of my cult*
LikeLike
Amos, thanks for asking. Having huge babies and being extraordinarily tall has done a number on me, some days are worse than others. Sat. was yuck. I’m a bit better today. thanks 🙂
LikeLike
Gary said: “Right, Julie Anne. Eric couldn’t possibly be depraved cuz only a depraved person would attack someone. If you moderate him then he’ll be moderately depraved. hee hee”
LOL – Ok, I’m trying to relate this to me as blogger/moderator. Is it better for me to be Arminian or Calvinist?
LikeLike
Andrew said:
Andrew, but if you yourself acknowledged depravity, then would it be an attack or validating?
LikeLike
You are the puppet master!
LikeLike
JA,
You may be right about the idolatry of doctrine but if you have been around Calvary Chapel as long as I have, you would realize there are plenty in that camp that have a complete disdain for doctrine. How many CC pastors will say, I don’t need to go to cemetery I mean seminary to be qualified mocking any kind of advanced training. So I think it is all about your perspective.
LikeLike
AHA!!!!! Excellent comment, Darrell. It must be bolded:
Just saying we can’t separate the doctrine we truly believe from our actions. Good doctrine taken from the Bible properly interpreted results in good behavior. Bad doctrine taken from the Bible wrongly interpreted results in bad behavior. We may belong to a particular group that holds an overall doctrine, but we reject or accept the parts we choose to and act or don’t act on them accordingly.
LikeLike
JA, I am not endorsing utter depravity which is what Eric is posturing.
LikeLike