The Legal Rights of Christians vs Mercy and Love of Christ

204 thoughts on “The Legal Rights of Christians vs Mercy and Love of Christ”

1. Ed, I can’t have intelligent respectful conversation with you if you keep making bombastic claims and wild speculations about who I am or what I believe.

   LikeLike

2. “Lydia, just to be clear, this babies dying issue is a really sensitive, really hard one. I don’t talk about it very often, and it’s not something I normally bring. It just came up today in connection with the larger topic. And I have a baby whom I love more than anything; it’s not a light subject. And to answer your question, I don’t think newborns have committed any sin that they can be held accountable for. But we still have this problem of even babies dying; how can we build a framework to understand it? Personally, I can’t understand it all, but I feel I have to trust in the supreme love of Jesus that surpasses understanding”

   And you can trust in the love and mercy of our precious Savior, my friend. We live in a fallen world where it rains on the just and unjust. The horror of sin is it brought death to innocents, too. As believers may we prop one another up. Be HIS kingdom now to all around us.

   LikeLike

3. Thank you Lydia, excellent exhortation

   LikeLike

4. Seth, I don’t really care. It is obvious, as Calvinists always do, that you don’t want a conversation. Yours is a one-way conversation. I stated what I stated, and stand by it. If you don’t like it…so what? Who cares? I don’t.

   Ed

   LikeLike

5. Ed, I think Seth is saying if you cool your jets, it would make communicating more easy. I haven’t seen him say he won’t talk, but that it’s difficult when you come across so strong. And Bro, you (and we) know this is your hot button! 🙂

   Oh, and Seth. I now adore the word bombastic. I must use it more often.

   LikeLike

6. Well, Seth said:
   “making bombastic claims and wild speculations about who I am or what I believe.”

   I don’t think I made a bombastic claim or wild speculations of who his is or what he believes.

   His speech tells what he believes, and who he is.

   OK, well, I did say that he was being a comedian. I admit that him being a comedian was a bombastic claim and a wild speculation.

   Ed

   LikeLike

7. Ed said:

   OK, well, I did say that he was being a comedian. I admit that him being a comedian was a bombastic claim and a wild speculation.

   Is that your confession, Ed?

   LikeLike

8. Ric said “Hi A Mom, …I can respect your opinion on Piper, I just disagree with your claim; I do believe the guy really cares for people. I’m not putting him on a pedestal, but do appreciate a lot of his teaching (through books and sermons). They have been a great encouragement to me…. I read his tweets, there were 2, and also thought they sounded quite insensitive, and unloving….Piper sure did shove his foot in his mouth IMO, and came off harsh; I can’t discern his motive, but I appreciate he pulled it down.”

   Sad to say, but this is more than just a 2 off comment or tweet issue that Piper made “by mistake”. Piper also firmly teaches (among other uncaring teachings) the permanence of marriage, meaning no divorce, ever. Not for adultery, abuse, child abuse, etc. I fail to see how this is loving, caring, compassionate.

   LikeLike

9. Ric said, “A Mom: Is that true? Calvin’s teaching that babies “go straight to hell”? I’ve not ever heard that before.”

   Ric, It is absolutely true Calvin taught babies go straight to hell if they die, unless the babies are infant (paedo) baptized, which sounds like baptism (works) alone to me. Or maybe parents’ faith alone transferred by baptism to infants? Anyway, I wasn’t aware of this either until I stopped listening to the endless Calvin-praising sermons & videos by the big-wig leaders today. I wanted to know the truth & if Calvin deserved to be praised so much, he’d stand up to critics & scrutiny.

   Ric, because of you, I personally looked through Calvin’s Institutes (his massive body of writings on the Christian religion), so I could give it to you straight from the horse’s mouth. Basically, in Book 2, Chapter 1 Calvin praises Augustine’s efforts that babies are corrupt from the womb. In Book 4, Chapter 16 Calvin explains salvation in infant (paedo) baptism as a spiritual mystery, states that the argument against paedobaptism is specious (I looked specious up, it means wrong), and explains for several pages that baptism saves Christian babies like circumcision saved the Jewish babies. I recommend you read it for yourself when you can. So, from the horse’s mouth:

   Book 2nd, chapter 1: “The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb”

   Book 4, chapter 16 “The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious—viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice… In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed… Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention… that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. But when, as the apostle elsewhere write, the wall of partition which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their father, and that without the sign of circumcision, its place being supplied by baptism. let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision… No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of pædobaptism.”

   LikeLike

10. Ric said, “A Mom, I would submit that many non-Calvinists believe babies are born into sin, along with most of Christendom. Kind of wondering why you’re making a distinction with Calvinists? What do you believe scripture teaches about babies? btw: I have 9, and love them very much…”

    I’m glad you love your kid bunch much! 🙂

    You may be right about that. But to think a majority belief makes the belief right is, well, wrong. Calvinist teaching has spread greatly in America, many top church leaders propagate it. There is much more wrong to it than this: that thinking babies are conceived with sin goo, but can be cleaned off & go to heaven in infant baptism. There are other Calvinist beliefs that are really damaging lives.

    I don’t believe babies are born in sin & I love the Bible, too. Babies are not wicked. A baby may do something wrong, but that doesn’t mean they understand the full implication of it & are damned to hell because of it. They may pinch another child, stomp their feet, etc. Our justice system also recognizes the distinction between juveniles & adults, right? Even our justice system knows that children normally are not as fully culpable as an adult. However, they may make exceptions based on the specific circumstances & the maturity of the child. Have we Christians lost our minds & all sense of right, justice, common sense for “doctrine alone” to the point where unbelievers are wiser than we? The Jewish people understood this coming of age from childhood to adulthood in the bar/bat mitzvah.

    I think this Calvinist teaching of wicked baby sinners leads many times to harsh treatment of the wicked baby, instead of loving but firm, consistent guidance of someone made in the image of God, who will hopefully choose to believe & live for God, & will be the parent’s brother or sister in eternity….

    LikeLike

11. Ric said, “I remember, from way-back-when the “age of accountability” discussions, but not the teaching that babies would go straight to hell, except from extreme fundi’s (can I use that term?)… i’d put a smiley, here, but I’m overtaken with the concept being taught that babies go straight to hell. I’ve never heard it attributed to anyone in particular, except that there were extreme sects that believed it.”

    Well, I also remember being taught age of accountability way back when, ages ago. But Calvinism has infiltrated many churches today. We all should rightly be upset with this teaching that babies go straight to hell unless their infant (paedo) baptized. It is rightly attributed to Calvin. Calvin attributes it to Augustine, the Catholic Saint. If you think that’s what extreme sects believe, then you may be on the way to understanding Calvinism for yourself. Definitely try to read Calvin’s Institutes, you may be in for a shock.

    LikeLike

12. Ric, It is absolutely true Calvin taught babies go straight to hell if they die, unless the babies are infant (paedo) baptized, which sounds like baptism (works) alone to me.

    Thanks for the Calvin quotes you posted, A Mom. They were very helpful. The above quote sure sounds like Catholicism to me. And it’s so weird to think about the similarities with Calvinism because CON was staunch Calvinist and I can still hear CON going off on Catholicism.

    LikeLike

13. Seth said, “Thanks AnotherTom, that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. If someone denies the sin nature inherited from Adam, I’m not sure how much of the gospel is left as Jesus is clearly not needed anymore.”

    Actually, the opposite is true. If a baby is saved in infant baptism according to Calvin, which looks to me like works alone salvation, then how is Jesus needed?

    I’m not saying we are perfect or that we don’t sin. I’m saying that babies are not sinful. This “wicked baby sinner” teaching is from Calvin, who states he got it from Augustine, a Saint in the Catholic church (see my 9:31 comment).

    There are many here who have been wounded by Calvin’s teachings of total depravity, wicked baby sinners, God controls every minute & molecule, etc. For instance, if God controls every minute & molecule, then every evil action is decided & blessed by God. Are we all robots? No, evil actions come from decisions by individuals to do evil. Free will. God gave people free will to decide to do right or wrong. God is not the perp of evil.

    There are many here who are looking on, who are suffering from spiritual abuse. These people are trying to heal. It may be helpful to read Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” writings to better understand these teachings & how they may be hurtful.

    LikeLike

14. “And it’s so weird to think about the similarities with Calvinism because CON was staunch Calvinist and I can still hear CON going off on Catholicism.”

    Julie, I posted the quotes from Calvin because I wanted to answer Ric’s question as best I could. It wasn’t super fun reading. I did it out of care for him.

    Calvin was far from loving & tolerant. He openly hated the Jews, had a severe intolerance for religious belief outside his own, punished/damaged/killed people who held beliefs outside his own, etc.

    Does any of that apply?

    LikeLike

15. Let’s see A Mom, there’s severe intolerance for religious belief outside his own. I don’t think he’s killed anyone , , ,.

    See, I’ve heard some of this stuff before. What is the draw to Calvin? Why would his lack of love not be an obvious sign?

    LikeLike

16. Ed said: ” Some people are actually defending some sort of a protest outside of an abortion clinic.”

    Ed, I agree with the points you’re making about needing to eliminate unwanted pregnancies in the first place, yet also agree with Julie Anne’s follow-up about free speech. I want to re-emphasize that staging protests outside buildings and getting in people’s faces in that way is not my style but I’m happy someone is willing to do it at times because it can be a very effective way to get your message across.

    My perspective on this issue changed after I talked to people who were beat up, verbally abused, and generally not treated well after participating in the civil rights movement’s non violent but “in your face” protests. In the 60s people also made arguments saying that the civil rights movement should use less controversial means of advocating for their cause. But if they had just sat at home and written letters to their congress people, we’d probably be reading about the civil rights act of 1984, rather than 1964.

    Therefore In my view, it would be hypocritical to say it was okay for civil rights protesters to stage sit-ins and get in people’s faces about an issue they considered important but 100% wrong for people on either side of the abortion issue to do the same.

    Specifically, I favor laws that set some sort of perimeter around controversial areas like an abortion clinic or a military funeral (e.g. so the Westboro crowd can’t show signs saying someone died in service to their country because God hates Fags).

    In other words, protest all you want but stay 100 feet away from the door and don’t intimidate someone physically under any circumstances. I’m not a big fan of the video cameras but people can find friends to shield them from that and wear something over their heads.

    And flash their own signs about their opinion of the Church Pastors video-taping them. 🙂

    LikeLike

17. JA said, “Let’s see A Mom, there’s severe intolerance for religious belief outside his own. I don’t think he’s killed anyone , , ,. See, I’ve heard some of this stuff before. What is the draw to Calvin? Why would his lack of love not be an obvious sign?”

    In Calvin’s Geneva, Switzerland, you were not safe to express your views if they were different. You did so at your own peril, or death even. That time-period & place is referred to as “Calvin’s Geneva” often because Calvin basically ruled. It was a church-state in many ways with really no freedom of religion.

    America, on the other hand, allows individuals to freely practice their religious beliefs, up to the point it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Thank God. This is good. Many have died to protect this freedom. Who doesn’t prefer that? Control freaks like Calvin.

    You can tell by what I’ve said in past comment threats that I’m not big on censorship or the dog house (JA does a super job), but like hearing what other people think, believe, do. While it may be painful, it gives a clearer understanding of who they are vs. the “cleaned up” polished version of themselves, which may be deceptive. I think CON has a right to protest. I think his behavior tells us a lot about him.

    As far as the draw to Calvin, maybe CON finds iron-fisted marriage of church-state appealing? He doesn’t like American freedom? He did sue Julie Anne & tried to get the government to “control & sensor” Julie Anne after all.

    It is a double standard, ironic then, that the same freedom of speech he tried to take away from Julie Anne, he now uses and takes advantage of to stand outside abortion clinics yelling at people. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that? Rights for him, but not for those that disagree with him.

    It sends shivers down the back of my neck. It seems they are trying to get us back to “Calvin’s Geneva”. See Piper’s DG video. Calvin worship. He markets it well. It sounds like he’s referring to Servetus when Piper says in the video “Imagine getting a letter from a family, whose son had died, because he was burned alive for something you taught him. So Calvin did his ministry, forged his theology in a city of suffering & harshness”. Anyone up for being burned alive like Servetus, for the crime of disagreeing with Calvin’s theology?

    http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/after-darkness-light-video-from-geneva

    LikeLike

18. Janna Chan,
    You and Julie Anne both have a good point in the matter as far as free speech is concerned. I can’t argue against it at all.

    What I can argue against is the motives of those who do protest outside of an abortion clinic. Is it really for the purpose of convincing a woman to not have the abortion, or is it to condemn them to hell by calling the women murderers?

    They preach against judging others (more specifically for people not to judge them), and yet, they judge freely.

    As I said above somewhere, Chuck isn’t convincing anyone to not have the abortion. All he is doing is stirring up trouble.

    So, since we know that protesting outside of an abortion clinic isn’t producing any positive results, maybe we need to find another way to approach the issue, rather than to figure out different means of protest. How many lives are really changed based on Christians protesting an abortion clinic? The world thinks that Christians are a bunch of hypocrites anyway. Have we proven the world wrong? Do we really hold the moral high ground?

    I believe that the civil rights movement of the 60’s was a totally different concept, and needed to be done in the way that it was done. But we Christians are not holier than thou, and we must stop our holier than thou attitude if we are going to protest any causes.

    Ed

    LikeLike

19. There’s a lot of stuff packed in your last comment A Mom. I’ve mentioned before that while we were at that church for 2 years, we started in Romans 12 and by the time we left we had just gotten into Romans 13. Maybe around the 5th verse. Romans 13 starts by talking about civil government. Maybe those sermons are still posted at sermon audio. He’s always careful what he says on his recorded sermons, but there was talk about his recorded sermons getting the public upset and the idea that there could be some sort of ruckus at the church because of his public stance on homosexuality even back then. There was a lot of talk about the government with regard to homeschooling our children, about letting Child Protective Services have access to our children – any kind of government “intrusion” in a family’s personal business.

    I am sure that is why he went ballistic when he and his family was investigated by CPS after a report came in that there was sex abuse in the church. That is what set off this whole freakin’ frenzy.

    For those who don’t know the story: The person who notified CPS did NOT report anything about CON being an abuser. They reported incidences involving church members (sex abuse) that CON failed to report. Most likely because of his pattern of failure to report, it made CPS question CON’s integrity and wonder if he was overlooking those cases (serious enough to send a minor to prison), could he be covering up something personally?

    Yes, we all get that being investigated for sex abuse, seeing your kids get interrogated privately, having your kids get subjected to physical exams to determine if there was any abuse is definitely frightening and invasive, but the person reporting the known incidences of sex abuse and inappropriate sex conduct by church members had no way of knowing or responsibility for what CPS decided to investigate. Furthermore, had CON reported the incidences of sex abuse himself, he and his children would have likely been spared this “intrusion.” The blame always gets shifted to the person who reported. CON, the pastor of the church left his church open to more abuse by not handling this situation properly and reporting. If CON lived in Oklahoma, his family and church would not be enjoying his company because he would likely be behind bars for disobeying the law (failure to report). One day, his children will be old enough and might read all of this stuff and realize that their father was responsible for the interrogations/invasive physical exam. That could be a tough pill to swallow.

    But to reiterate – none of us believe that CON (or his son) is a sexual abuser, yet the impostor website implies otherwise. (I’m aware of increased traffic due to CON’s recent media coverage, hence the quick recap.)

    LikeLike

20. Julie Anne, Your last comment makes me want to run directly into a Calvinist teaching church, bring all the kids I can gather, & listen to years of ad nauseam teaching about apostle Paul. Frankly, I’d send them to public school first.

    Is Christianity a religion about Calvin or apostle Paul or Jesus? I’m starting to wonder. I prefer Jesus.

    LikeLike

21. “Is Christianity a religion about Calvin or apostle Paul or Jesus? I’m starting to wonder.”

    Years ago I said in the middle of a class at the CoC I was attending, “You need to go outside and change that sign from “Church of Christ” to “Church of Paul” during an exceedingly legalistic lesson from one of the Epistles. They failed to see my point.

    LikeLike

22. “See, I’ve heard some of this stuff before. What is the draw to Calvin? Why would his lack of love not be an obvious sign?”

    The draw is a systematized theology. Same reason people quote Grudem’s ST. it is all laid out. No Holy Spirit needed. It is psudeo intellectual. People are drawn to that. That is a reason you will see thinkers drawn to Calvinism. And the same reason you see some of them turning to Atheism years later (it is the determinism) if they were not making a living from ministry. If it is their living, it becomes a hill to die on.

    LikeLike

23. A mom, Another reason Calvin’s infant baptism was so hypocritical is because how did he know if the baby was “chosen before the foundation of the world’ or not for salvation? According to his own systematic theology, he was playing God. Same with mandatory church attendance in his Geneva or the magistrates showed up at your door.

    Calvin did not practice what he believed. No amount of human force or micromanagement will make someone elect according to his own theology. Yet, he “remade” Geneva into a Gestapo state even down to mandating how many courses the people could serve at each meal. I kid you not. (The Puritans were the same way and one reason Calvinism dies out or goes liberal over time. The descendants of the Puritans, for the most part, became Unitarians)

    LikeLike

24. Lydia – – So my question is why is my former pastor so hot on evangelism with the Calvinist background?

    . . except for the mandate in scripture to spread the gospel. And that’s brings up another thing – – why would God want us to spread the Good news if they didn’t have a choice?

    LikeLike

25. “Lydia – – So my question is why is my former pastor so hot on evangelism with the Calvinist background?”

    Having followers and controlling them. That movement is a magnet for young men in ministry who want to make a name for themselves. Be the next Piper, Mohler or Dever. (Used to be Mahaney, too)

    One of the biggest mistakes I see for many older non Calvinists is they are thinking, these YRR guys are very evangelistic so it cannot be a bad thing. We just disagree on election (etc). But they are missing the worst part. They are really indirect evangelists for Calvin. Not Jesus Christ.

    If you do not believe me, check out Piper’s Geneva video concerning his plans for retirement. Even some in the Reformed movement saw the glaring problems with it. The man is eat up. He is going to be the 21st Century John Calvin? Global Apostle? It was not cheap to film that “announcement” in Geneva. Shows you how blind the Desiring God donors really are.

    Calvin is their Jesus.

    LikeLike

26. to A Mom,
    thank you for levying your time to dig up those quotes! I really appreciate it.

    These type things always leave me wondering, how can folks miss it so much! In Calvin’s day, he became the government, but in the region it seems history shows that it was both Catholicism -and- Calvin’ism that indicted Servetus, for the same declarations against paedo baptism; later, Luther as well I would have imagined.

    Interestingly, you quoted from Calvin’s argument, “In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed.”

    Later, you mentioned, “to think a majority belief makes the belief right is, well, wrong”

    Well done. 🙂 I don’t know if the refutation was intentional, but it was well made. I’ve read these kind of statements before, what Calvin argued for, and what you argued against, and it makes me think, “what about the Word?” I know a lot of folks say that, but when I’ve heard their sermons and support of excessive doctrines, they make many leaps in their opinions of what Scripture really says and what it does not, i.e., they fill in the blanks, sadly.

    “I don’t believe babies are born in sin”

    What you said after this, as you clarified the idea with babies being “wicked,” makes me wonder what you do with scripture that teaches all have sinned, from Adam on (Rom 3.23, Psalm 14, Rom 5) – I prefer to not think of it as “goo.” 🙂 that’s cracking me up… What I do with the scripture, and I hope without any theological leaps in my understanding, is the entire human race was in the seed of Adam at the time of his fall. Through him, all perished and were launched into sin. And, through one man, Jesus Christ, all can have salvation, returning their gaze, faith, to the Savior.

    you mentioned, “I think this Calvinist teaching of wicked baby sinners leads many times to harsh treatment of the wicked baby, instead of loving but firm, consistent guidance of someone made in the image of God, who will hopefully choose to believe & live for God, & will be the parent’s brother or sister in eternity….”

    Your comment speaks to the “harshness” question I raised, thank you. The way Calvin governed seems incredibly rotten, howbeit the region was very rotten too, along with the way the catholic church seemed to operate at the same time.

    Again, thank you for engaging this with me.

    LikeLike

27. how’d I get that ugly face icon? 😦

    LikeLike

28. A lot of the things being discussed here are great examples of how people tend to cherry-pick the scripture upon which they base their theology, which comes directly from their psychology. The problem arises when people try to use nothing but scripture to frame a theology, and oftentimes, it winds up as man making God in his own image.

    Sin and punishment, the way this topic gets framed can offer some very interesting insights into the person developing the doctrines. I concede the point that we’re all born with a fallen nature, or the stain of sin, if you wish, but for anyone to hold a doctrine that holds someone that is not and cannot be responsible for their actions as culpable for those sins is misanthropic at best. It’s easily seen that not all humans have knowledge of good and evil or right and wrong, and we display that understanding in our court system, so why do some preach that all are guilty and deserve punishment from a God that is the embodiment of love and wisdom? Why do they claim that only some people are eligible for pardon and others are condemned not matter what they do? I’d say that it has more to do with what is in their hearts and minds than any real truth about God Himself.

    I’ve heard from Calvinist and Arminian preachers that “Sin deserves an eternal punishment because it is an offense against an eternal being.” Bollocks. To claim that a temporal and limited being that can have only a very limited understanding of someone infinite and eternal deserves eternal punishment for sin is completely unreasonable and illogical, no matter how you wish to proof-text it. Then, to claim that it is actually just because God’s ways are higher than our ways and God’s love is beyond our understanding is merely an escapist appeal to authority as a defense. People describe God’s love in terms that is definitely far less than what our human minds can imagine, and they wish us to believe it’s somehow greater and more wonderful than what we can imagine? That’s disingenuous at best.

    It a small wonder that “love” gets expressed in so many malignant ways when people act under a theology of love that is based on their psychology of anger and vengeance. Chucklenuts wants to claim it’s loving to harass women who probably have little chance of salvation according to his Calvinist doctrine? Sorry, Chuck Biscuit, that’s nothing but your misanthropy and self-hate shining through for all to see.

    No matter how much someone thumps their Bible and offers up proof-texts, if they spout a doctrine that oppresses anyone, justifies harassment, promotes misogyny and misanthropy, and has illogical contradictions, I’ll call it exactly what it is: a huge load of organic fertilizer springing purely from their own psychology.

    LikeLike

29. Ric, Last night I was monkeying around with the avatar settings. Are they that bad? Lol. I think there are options.

    LikeLike

30. Thanks, Ed. Fundamentally I agree with almost everything you’ve said. In my case, I’m not trying to prove I’m “right” about anything which ultimately makes me a bad debater generally and on this issue in particular. 🙂

    People say many positive and many negative things about me but they seldom seriously say that I’m unfair or have double standards for myself or anyone else.

    That’s the standard of integrity that I personally try to maintain. So yes, I think O’Neal is a blowhard giving Christianity a bad name and hurling vitriol at women going into abortion clinics is a bad idea. Yet that doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to use the “get in your face” tactics that I, personally, am uncomfortable with but can be indisputably more effective at affecting change quickly than my less intrusive strategies for bringing attention to issues I care about.

    That’s all I can say, really. I definitely don’t think I’m necessarily right and you’re wrong about the issues at hand. Thanks for the feedback. 🙂

    LikeLike

31. Eric, if I was anyone near you I would HUG you for that comment at 6:07. (and I’m a conservative Canadian who is uncomfortable hugging strangers – ha, ha)
    BANG ON!!! Thank you – and this is your ‘warm fuzzy’ for the day .. ..xxxx

    LikeLike

32. Janna, it’s taken me awhile to get back to you as we had a busy weekend but yes, you are correct about abortion in Canada being limited to 20 weeks (although I did see some information that suggested that could go to as many as 24) and also exceptions are made for instances of the mother’s life being in danger. Also, other restrictions are applied here in Canada. For instance, depending on which province you live in, access to abortion is in some case non-existent. (On PEI – the smallest province- there are no doctors who will perform abortions). As I understand it, nurses can also refuse to assist with abortions and will be re-assigned to another patient. Also, abortion is under the Health Act so the procedure would be covered by Medicare.
    We also have ‘Hate Propaganda’ Laws which would prohibit the kind of signs you referred to. Also, peaceful protests at abortion clinics and hospitals do occur but the people protesting would not be able to harass/intimidate/restrict access to women at clinics and hospitals.

    LikeLike

33. Aw, shucks, thanks, Carmen!

    LikeLike

34. While being “in your face” in a public setting is not and should not be illegal, there is a fine line to cross when it comes to harassment and intimidation. Here’s Chucklenuts’ hypocrisy in claiming he has a right to do this kind of stuff:

    “If you’re a woman who murders children, ma’am, or aids in the murder of children, then I definitely would want you intimidated, that you wouldn’t do that. But our purpose is not to intimidate you. Our purpose is to love you and to warn you of the wrath to come.”

    I want you to be intimidated, but I’m not intimidating you? Sorry, Chucklenuts, but that’s harassment by your own admission, even though you try to backpedal in your next sentence. You need to be charged and convicted for harassing these women.

    LikeLike

35. Chucklenuts. . . chuckle for the day. . . I bet Julie Anne will like that one. ..

    LikeLike

36. Carmen, I’m not sure which was better Chucklenut or Chuck Biscuit.

    BTW, Didn’t I tell you guys CON would capitalize on this media attention? On his Twitter acct @chuckoneal_) he is tagging local and national media and big names trying to bring more attention to the “persecution” he is enduring. Wah wah

    FP if you read this and can put the twitter hyperlink, I will owe you a Twinkie. Thx! My Twitter app on my phone won’t give me links.

    Wait. Let’s see if this works. May have found a round about: https://twitter.com/chuckoneal_

    LikeLike

37. Ric said, “These type things always leave me wondering, how can folks miss it so much! In Calvin’s day, he became the government, but in the region it seems history shows that it was both Catholicism -and- Calvin’ism that indicted Servetus, for the same declarations against paedo baptism; later, Luther as well I would have imagined.”

    Ric, you are right. It’s hard to see where Calvin & the Catholic church differ on how they treated the people living & passing through Geneva. Calvin admired, praised Augustine, a saint the catholic church. Calvin praises Augustine’s “sinners in the womb” belief (my 8/2, 9:31 comment above).

    Does that make Calvin less culpable in your opinion?

    However, Calvin had much power & held a high office in the government there. It was a crime with harsh punishment for falling asleep during his sermons, etc.

    Ric said, “Your comment speaks to the “harshness” question I raised, thank you. The way Calvin governed seems incredibly rotten, howbeit the region was very rotten too, along with the way the catholic church seemed to operate at the same time.”

    I hear ya. I’m curious what you think. Meaning, do you think incredibly rotten behavior is corrected in a region by instilling harsh punishment for minor infractions, like falling asleep in church? I think a daughter was even beheaded (or however means killed) for talking back to her Mum.

    It is so similar to today. There is child abuse, but instead of dealing with this incredibly rotten behavior, many reformed leaders focus on church attendance, membership, etc. All the while, continuously repeating all sins are the same total depravity nothing we can do to please God or act right bull honkey.

    LikeLike

38. A Mom, I don’t know if it’s because I’m more sensitive to this stuff, but it sure seems like a growing number of churches are adopting extra-biblical rules regarding membership/ church discipline a la 9Marks/Mark Dever.

    Btw, I just realized he uses his own name in his ministry, 9Marks.
    Hmmmmmmm

    LikeLike

39. “Btw, I just realized he uses his own name in his ministry, 9Marks”

    Oh wow! Clever play on words, eh?

    LikeLike

40. Ric said, “What you said after this, as you clarified the idea with babies being “wicked,” makes me wonder what you do with scripture that teaches all have sinned, from Adam on (Rom 3.23, Psalm 14, Rom 5) – I prefer to not think of it as “goo.”

    Hi Ric. I do agree, believe we have all sinned. What I’ve been discussing with you here is WHEN not if. Basically, is the age of accountability before birth or not. To even type that question out as a serious question, invoking serious discussion, frankly strikes me as odd.

    Ric, Do you believe sinful from the womb? I’ll refrain from goo at your preference. Do you think the wages of sin is death & if so how does that reconcile with infants dying if they’re sinful? Or are you saying there’s another way to heaven besides their own faith?

    I absolutely do not believe babies are born sinful. I believe the age of accountability is when they are no longer children. Children are innocent. They do wrong, learn it’s wrong as they grow, but do not understand the full implications of it until they are grown. The definition of sin includes an understanding of what it is & the full implications of it. This why children & mentally challenged persons are not accountable in the way adults are. Again, our justice system fully grasps this juvenile vs adult concept better than some educated, degreed modern day Christians.

    You can’t hold someone accountable for what they don’t understand. For example, expecting all 3 year olds to know their multiplication tables is unreasonable. Would you then punish them for their ignorance? That’s what Calvin sets up as Biblical. He assigns to children what he has no right to assign. His belief is propped up on “majority pious belief”, along with other random, strange, inconsistent extrapolations. One inconsistency – Calvin believed God determined the elect from the beginning of creation & there’s no such thing as free will, there’s nothing anyone can do. But he also believed parents baptize their infants into guaranteed salvation. What do you do with that?

    Do you agree children are profoundly broken? I hope you don’t teach that to your precious ones. This comes straight from Calvin’s” sinful from the womb” teaching & is what is being tweeted (can’t find the tweet or I’d attach the link or screenshot) by a Calvinist pastor. This “pastor” tweeted basically we should teach children from a young age that they aren’t just broken, they’re profoundly broken. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    LikeLike

41. Julie Anne,

    OMG! Hold your horses! No kidding…

    9Marks = Mark Dever = 9 letters in his name. Excuse me while I go puke up my guts.

    Thanks for the vomit inducing revelation. You, Julie Anne, are an amazing 5 star reporter. I think your discovery deserves a tweet, pronto.

    Julie Anne said, “So my question is why is my former pastor so hot on evangelism with the Calvinist background?”

    This discovery just confirms even more what Lydia said. It’s not about salvation, loving others, following Jesus.

    Their “evangelism” isn’t evangelism. It’s about getting people to obey, follow, listen, give to them. It’s about them.

    LikeLike

42. JA, I don’t tweet. I meant, you should tweet your discovery, pronto! 🙂

    LikeLike

43. /so where is the accountability for 9Marks donors?

    http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/43-2103120/9marks.aspx
    http://www.ecfa.org/MemberSearch.aspx?Keywords=9Marks&FirstLetter=D&State=DC

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=IXMarks&bay=search.results
    oundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?990_type=A&fn=9Marks&st=DC&zp=&ei=&fy=2011&action=Find

    http://www.9marks.org/about/how-9marks-funded

    LikeLike

44. My guess is 9Marks is part of CHBC so the 990 filings do not have to be made public.

    LikeLike

45. lydia, can you find out? (ref: 11:00 comment)

    LikeLike

46. EF: are you a universalist, unitarian, or progressive? It sounded like that from your comments regarding folks who, you first said “cherry pick,” but then later made it sound like (to me), anyone who bases their theology on scripture. I might be misunderstanding you.

    Having faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved from eternal destruction. This is clear from scripture. However, the discussion has been related to infants and pre-infants, and the mentally handicapped; whether they are also accountable to have this faith. The floral for the conversation has been Calvin’s institutes, AND, practices as he governed (plus Augustine etc.). These things may not be able to be entirely understood this side of heaven; where the scripture is silent, I don’t believe we (or anyone) is wise to take the liberty to “fill in the gaps.” I think this was mentioned too, about interpretation from our own psychological backgrounds, I think I agree with that. Where I may do so, I hope to see it and stop. We just don’t know everything and its my thinking that those who try to fill in the gaps, where scripture is silent, are perpetuating their own philosophy and not God’s wisdom, necessarily.

    Thanks fro your clarity in advance.

    LikeLike

47. @JA – the newer avatar is better. 🙂 he he… the other one was some kind of Aztec angry face… or a dude with a bad migraine (get that)… 🙂

    LikeLike

48. I’ve got find some way for Chucklenuts to get a phone call from Roy D. Mercer…

    LikeLike

49. Ric wrote: “It sounded like that from your comments regarding folks who, you first said “cherry pick,” but then later made it sound like (to me), anyone who bases their theology on scripture.’

    Anyone that is a human being has their theology influenced by their psychology, and everyone, except the driest of academics that make few conclusions (and very broad ones at that), cherry-picks which parts of scripture to which they assign more weight. How else would there be so many conflicting doctrines? Is God trying to confuse people? Does anyone’s view of Satan have that much power to confuse and deceive? (If he does, then it’s a tacit admission of dualism) Perhaps it’s just that scripture isn’t 100% perfect and inerrant, and our limited and frail humanity comes out through our doctrines and dogma.

    What I am at the core is a behaviorist, as people’s words, thoughts, and doctrines matter very little in the big picture. It’s how we treat each other, and the Bible is very clear on that point. That’s the main reason I call out preachers whose actions contradict their claims.

    Is it more important that I have correct doctrine or that I love people in a way that they can understand and feel as real love? Is it more important for me to go to the correct church and vote for the right political party or to help comfort someone who is suffering? I know what my choice is, and I care little if anyone doesn’t like my thoughts and opinions.

    LikeLike

50. A Mom – I’m combining your questions into one response from me…

    [A Mom] “Does that make Calvin less culpable in your opinion? (I ref’d others involved with the same extremism and theocratic governance).”

    Not at all. It makes them all culpable.

    [A Mom] “Calvin had much power & held a high office in the government there. It was a crime with harsh punishment for falling asleep during his sermons, etc.”

    Those rules are crazy, I read about them. As mentioned earlier, my bride and I don’t consider ourselves Calvinists. 🙂

    [A Mom] “Ric said, “Your comment speaks to the “harshness” question I raised, thank you. The way Calvin governed seems incredibly rotten, howbeit the region was very rotten too, along with the way the catholic church seemed to operate at the same time.” I hear ya. I’m curious what you think.”

    [A Mom] “Meaning, do you think incredibly rotten behavior is corrected in a region by instilling harsh punishment for minor infractions, like falling asleep in church?”

    No. I do believe that crime in a country will increase if the judicial process is delayed. Falling asleep in Church? Not a crime. But to further the question to something sinful – what about harsh punishments for “adultery” – banishment or death in Calvin’s day? No, I disagree with that as well. We see Jesus’ response before women (and men) he could have condemned to hell as He stood there. He did not. He loved these people, forgave them, gave them a new life, filled them with His Spirit, etc. “Christians” making such harsh laws is beyond imagination.

    [A Mom] “I think a daughter was even beheaded (or however means killed) for talking back to her Mum.”

    I believe she committed adultery; not sure if it was beheaded or banished.

    Break – break (moving to a little bit of a different topic) 🙂

    [A Mom] “Hi Ric. I do agree, believe we have all sinned. What I’ve been discussing with you here is WHEN [a person is accountable for faith in Christ] not if. Basically, is the age of accountability before birth or not. To even type that question out as a serious question, invoking serious discussion, frankly strikes me as odd.

    Age of accountability before birth of not? My first, out of the box comment is, I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows. To say that one does is to interject opinion based on our ability to understand. However, we see in scripture that high value is placed on children (let the little ones come unto me; whoever harms a little one, etc). It would seem consistent that little children has a certain time where their accountability is definitely in question. You asked even before “birth.” I’ve not ever grappled with that question. We’ve lost two children from miscarriage. Our belief is that we will get to see them, who they are in what God made them, when we arrive in heaven. Regarding scripture, we get some cues to their position, especially if we start with the considerations for young children’s accountability. These are younger and would further extend the accountability question toward grace; God’s. We also see in scripture that “God knit us together” in the womb. However, the breath of life is not given till after being born. So it wold make me further believe that an unborn baby has not reached an acceptable age of accountability. But we just don’t know. We see a lot of grace in Scripture, so it does make more than sense.

    [A Mom] “Ric, Do you believe sinful from the womb? I’ll refrain from goo at your preference.

    I’ll be okay with the “goo” term, I think. 🙂 My objective concern with the term is that it makes me think its an external, physical transmutation. I believe scripture bears out that this is a spiritual condition, that a baby “from the womb” has yet to act out on. Though “born in sin” has yet to “sin.” I was thinking about this in church today and thought the use of the word, “wicked” is not a good reference, so considered the previous comment. The sin nature, definitely from birth. Sinning, not until they grow older. Sinning willfully, some time later. This is what I believe scripture bears out plus my own observations of my children to varying degrees. BTW: it’s my contention that understanding scripture, even a little, should not make people more destructive to their children’s behavior. It should be entirely opposite, it should cause the parent to have greater understanding and love for their children when correcting them, rebuking them, and encouraging them – all together = discipline. We should be gracious with them as we know, from our own lives, how it is to both sin and experience forgiveness of sins (grace) from the Father, through Jesus Christ.

    [A Mom] “Do you think the wages of sin is death & if so how does that reconcile with infants dying if they’re sinful? Or are you saying there’s another way to heaven besides their own faith? I absolutely do not believe babies are born sinful.”

    Yes I do. I also believe wages are earned, this would further make me consider the “age of accountability” position. This is different, from my understanding, than “being born sinful”. That would go to my earlier response, “being born sinful”, that is, able to sin, and under the curse of sin, is scriptural.

    Children are innocent. They do wrong, learn it’s wrong as they grow, but do not understand the full implications of it until they are grown.

    And some from an early age, without understanding all the implications of their actions, are definitely conniving. 🙂

    [A Mom] “But he also believed parents baptize their infants into guaranteed salvation. What do you do with that?”

    I don’t believe in paedo-baptism. I grew up Lutheran, they do; but I don’t. Again, no scriptural basis IMO. Reading some of Calvin’s reasons for it, I disagree further; this is where he eluded to intellectual deduction vs. scripture.

    [A Mom] Do you agree children are profoundly broken? I hope you don’t teach that to your precious ones. This comes straight from Calvin’s” sinful from the womb” teaching & is what is being tweeted (can’t find the tweet or I’d attach the link or screenshot) by a Calvinist pastor. This “pastor” tweeted basically we should teach children from a young age that they aren’t just broken, they’re profoundly broken. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Your question seems a bit loaded, as I don’t know if this term is something Calvin defined a certain way. But I’ll respond to it from what I believe you meant by the question: I believe that we all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. I believe we all need a Savior – Jesus Christ. I believe scripture teaches us these things and we can trust the Word. I believe my children need to repent of their sins, just like me. The time when they are enlightened to a point where they can understand and believe the Gospel, really, is not within my understanding. I can’t make it up, and won’t. No, we don’t teach them this as in your quote above. We are not religiously harsh with our children, don’t pound them with our KJV 1611, but do teach them the gospel from an early age. We don’t badger them to “believe” or “show faith”, but do require them to attend church and Sunday school. Since we see great wisdom in scripture (e.g. Proverbs, the Gospels, Epistles etc) we teach them these things and support our way of living from Scripture (precepts). We consider their commission of faith real, when they do so and can explain the gospel at their age-appropriate level. It’s then that we allow them to be baptized, but never push them for it, not even the baptism. We don’t hammer them, we don’t relate these things to them in a harsh way, whatsoever, and we don’t show favorites for those who have made a confession. We are also careful to ensure that all our children know of our love and affection regardless of their confession. We don’t want our love to be conditional on their agreement with us. Because of our own weaknesses, sometimes we are harsh with them (sadly), by our standards (not Calvin’s or DSS’s), and we apologize and ask them for forgiveness teaching them about God’s forgiveness, much like we ask them to do when they act out (sin). Again, this is all at a personality and age-appropriate level.

    I hope these things have helped. I don’t think we are perfect, but we look forward to a day when we will be made perfect by Jesus.

    LikeLike

51. Eric Fry,
    Thanks for your response. I’m not able to answer your questions, my response could be both, maybe. 🙂 It’s possible to do what one feels is right for disputable matters and still love people.

    Calling out preachers? you are certainly going to be busy, there is no shortage of them to criticize (at least), and sound the great alarm (at most); this has been going on for years and years.

    LikeLike

52. A mom, one of the reasons why the “man of his time” defense of Calvin or the Catholic magistrates does not work is because of the Radical Reformers, many of whom, gave their lives for truth. There is not a lot of published works by them because they lived on the run from the Reformers and the Catholics and what they wrote was often destroyed. Ironically, we can learn much about them reading of their imprisonment, bannishments and tortures (including burning) from the documentation of the REformers.

    A very well researched book on this subject was written by Leonard Verduin:
    http://www.amazon.com/Reformers-Their-Stepchildren-Dissent-Nonconformity/dp/1579789358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375658570&sr=8-1&keywords=the+reformers+and+their+stepchildren

    Verduin researched this on a grant from the Calvin Foundation. One of the most interesting aspects of this is that most of the state church archives were not readily assessable for intense research until after WW2. The official history was written by the victors. That is why it is so important to always read around a subject when it comes to history.

    Here is a quote from the book that is interesting because of other discussions we have had:
    “We meet in Luther [as well as the entire Reformed /Calvinist /Puritan tradition], to put it theologically, a very heavy emphasis on the forensic aspect of salvation and a correspondingly light emphasis on the moral aspect. Luther was primarily interested in pardon, rather than in renewal. His theology was a theology that addresses itself to the problem of guilt, rather than to the problem of pollution. There is an imbalance in this theology between what God does for man and what He does in man.”

    The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 12.

    Let me tell you the stories of these saints so badly persecuted by the Reformers and Catholics will bring you to tears. What a rich legacy of love and courage they have left us.

    Another source is Martyrs Mirror. It weighs about 10 lbs and is nothing but stories of persecution by the church throughout history. The church has been a great source of evil in the world, sadly.

    These are just a few examples of why I do not buy “he was just a man of his time” arguments anymore.

    LikeLike

53. I need to learn how to do short links~ I had no idea the book cover would show up!

    LikeLike

54. Lydia, I’ll bet short links would do the same. I’m going to test it out.

    LikeLike

55. Ric,
    I must chime in here in regards to babies going to hell.

    Sin is NOT imputed to the ignorant. I know, that may be hard to believe, given all the crazy doctrines out there. But the Bible discusses people who are NOT spiritually “DEAD IN SIN”.

    Romans Chapter 7, Paul was alive (spiritually) before he got KNOWLEDGE. That word, “KNOWLEDGE” is the key term here that shows that NO ONE with NO KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil goes to hell.

    READ AND SEE AND WRITE DOWN Deuteronomy 1:39.

    Are you familiar with the PROMISED LAND? Who gets to go there?

    1. Those who have faith
    a. Caleb
    b. Joshua

    2. Those who have NO KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

    What was the name of that tree in the Garden?

    NOW, please look at Romans 5:13.

    Before the law, sin was in the world, but sin is NOT IMPUTED where there is no law.

    NOW please look at Romans Chapter 4.

    Because the law works wrath, where no law is, there is NO TRANSGRESSION.

    Again, please note Deuteronomy 1:39, Romans 7:7-9, Romans 5, then Romans 4, then remind yourself what the name of that tree was in the garden.

    Now, see 1 John 3:4. What is the definition of sin? TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

    What is the law? Romans 3:20 (the KNOWLEDGE of sin

    There are key phrases to pay attention to, as well.

    “Dead TO sin” is one of them. Now, re-read Romans 7 again. Before Paul KNEW the law, SIN WAS DEAD. Once he KNEW, sin was alive.

    The ONLY way that one is DEAD IN SIN AND TRESPASSES, is when one knows the law.

    For all have sinned, but sin is NOT IMPUTED if you have no KNOWLEDGE of sin.

    There ya have it. It’s the same with Adam and Eve.

    DO YOU REALLY THINK that the ONLY sin was disobeying God in regards to a tree? NO, They were NAKED. Once they got KNOWLEDGE (name of tree), they KNEW that they were naked.

    God asked them, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”

    God never did. Neither did Satan.

    All Satan wanted them to do was to “GET KNOWLEDGE”.

    Knowledge…the key word in all of this is KNOWLEDGE.

    Ed

    LikeLike

56. Ric,
    The wages of sin is SPIRITUAL DEATH, not physical death.

    The same section is discussing SPIRITUAL LIFE, aka eternal life, eternally in the presence of God.

    Spiritual death is separation from God. That is what “the wages of sin is death” is all about.

    Physical death was not the topic.

    I often tell a riddle to people. I ask, what is the number 1 cause of death in the world? I will get all sorts of answers. But none of them are right.

    LIFE is the number 1 cause of death.

    Ed

    LikeLike

57. Ed, Thanks for the focus on the knowledge of good and evil. So often that is missed or forgotten when discussing the issue of children and the mentally challenged in salvation.

    LikeLike

58. Lydia,
    That’s exactly why I first began my debates with Catholics and Calvinists to begin with. All this talk about baptizing babies, it’s all hogwash. Just from a non-biblical standpoint it never made any sense. But when I first saw Deuteronomy 1:39, I knew I had to set the record straight to those goofy Catholics, and now, the Calvinists. The Promised Land is Heaven, portrayed as a carnal Land of Canaan (Israel). The whole carnal story is spiritual about heaven. It speaks of who gets to go there and why. Caleb and Joshua, because they had faith, and those who have no knowledge of good and evil.

    We are not born spiritually dead, as the Calvinists wish to preach to us. The Catholics started that crap with the teaching of “original sin”.

    We die a spiritual death, rather than being born spiritually dead. Just like Adam and Eve…God is with us. Once we get KNOWLEDGE, that is our death date.

    Then we need to be BORN “AGAIN”. That word AGAIN signifies that we were ONCE ALIVE spiritually. Then we died spiritually. Lastly, we are BORN “AGAIN” (Spiritually).

    Born again, is another way of saying, resurrection from spiritual death.

    Ed

    LikeLike

59. Ed, There was only one place to go after the original sin construct: infant baptism which was practiced everywhere up until a few hundred years ago except for a few brave souls who risked their lives for a believers baptism.

    Then later some had to figure out how to merge believers baptism with the original sin concept given to us through the father of Catholicism and Reformation, Augustine. The original sin construct is so ingrained it is almost impossible to discuss any other view.

    LikeLike

60. Lydia, I have learned more in the last few years than in the last 25 years put together! And it’s due mostly to these blogs, not from sitting in church, Sunday school, women’s groups, believe it or not. That’s a pretty sad indictment on the state of affairs in many churches today. The good news is God loves us. He is our refuge! He provides!

    I used to read Augustine, history, etc. comments and think, “Why are you all talking about that?” What’s that got to do with right now?

    Well, Calvin himself says Augustine matters. Calvin praises Augustine in his own writings. I’ve heard so much about Calvin from reformed preachers, but never directly from Calvin’s “Institutes”, his own writings. Thanks to Ric, I delved into Calvin’s writings on “sinners in the womb” & “infant baptism”. No wonder Piper praises Calvin BUT DOES NOT quote Calvin extensively. If he did, independent thinkers would exit Piper tout suite. It is a very incomplete picture Piper gives.

    Calvin is totally out there. Infant baptism saves the gentile babies like circumcision saved all the Jewish babies. Works alone salvation. Really. With Calvin you don’t even need Jesus. You’re either infant baptized or predestined elect in adulthood. It has nothing to do with you or Jesus either way. But it’s called Christ alone. This has me laughing out loud right now it’s so ludicrous. But it’s tragic at the same time.

    Thanks for the reading references. You’ve been a great resource. Keep equipping us, keep it coming!

    LikeLike

61. Ed, Bingo.

    Yes, wages of sin = separated from God. Born again = reconciled to God. Infant baptism unto salvation = works alone.

    LikeLike

62. A Mom – – I, too, am indebted to blogs where I have learned so much information. And now I’m learning on my own blog and it’s not coming from me. 🙂

    Thank you all (too many names to mention) so much for sharing here. I get e-mails all the time from people telling me how my blog has changed their life. I cannot take credit for that. It is a combined effort of contributing, encouraging and praying for precious souls. Thanks, everyone 🙂

    LikeLike

63. Lydia, A Mom, and JA,

    What I am learning about both Catholics and Calvinists, in relation to Augustine, is that there is such a GREAT importance pertaining to “CHURCH FATHERS”, church history, etc. They do that so that they can proclaim “orthodox”, so that they can call anyone who disagrees with them a heretic. That’s why from time to time I will voice my disdain for “what dead people thought”.

    Ed

    LikeLike

64. Ed,

    One more. election = If God wanted to change me, He would. If He wants me to go to hell, I will.

    LikeLike

65. election = excuses bad behavior & blames it on God. That’s a problem.

    LikeLike

66. A Mom,

    Oh, I have heard Calvinists talk out of both sides of their mouth on that topic. For example: God predestined me to go to hell before the foundation of the world. But it’s all my fault.

    Ed

    LikeLike

67. A Mom,

    What I thought was hilarious, was the first time that I heard from the Catholics about a place called “LIMBO” for babies who die, who never got the water sprinkle. Every time that I thought I heard it all, I was learning more stupid “orthodox” garbage being taught to the “masses”.

    Ed

    LikeLike

68. Ric,
    First, I’m sorry for you & your wife’s miscarriages. Babies are not sinful in the womb, so they are indeed with God. I hope you are comforted. As you know, I believe all babies (born & unborn) are a gift from God. Did you say you do not teach your children they are broken? If so, we have that in common. Also, like you, I teach repentance & forgiveness, & it’s a two way street.

    Ric said, “I remember, from way-back-when the “age of accountability” discussions, but not the teaching that babies would go straight to hell, except from extreme fundi’s (can I use that term?)… i’d put a smiley, here, but I’m overtaken with the concept being taught that babies go straight to hell. I’ve never heard it attributed to anyone in particular, except that there were extreme sects that believed it.”

    Ric, I agree. The Calvinist teaching that all babies go straight to hell unless infant (paedo) baptized is exactly what you said, an extreme fundi & an extreme sect belief. It’s extremely out there.

    I’d like to follow-up on your last comment to me, if that’s okay. You mentioned God’s grace multiple times as a reason why infants go to heaven. Many reformed pastors (Sproul, Piper, etc.) teach this same concept that God automatically grants saving grace for the sinner infant or sinner child to go to heaven. It seems this belief goes against what the Bible says: that all sinners must repent & believe. It seems you believe saving grace is issued even to sinners who don’t repent & believe. That the call to repentance & belief applies in certain circumstances only & that it’s not applicable to all sinners. I believe it is always applicable, to all sinners, all the time. As you know, I believe infants & children are not sinners in need of saving grace. I don’t believe they are sinners. I don’t believe they need saving grace.

    There’s another extreme reformed belief out there you may not know of either. It’s based in predestination, election. That babies who do not live to birth will either go to heaven or hell based on who they would have been had they lived. Basically, that God had either chosen/elected them or not. So parents can’t be assured or know whether their baby is in heaven. If someone believes that God chooses the elect, believes in predestination/election, then I absolutely see how they would be consistent across the board & include the unborn, infants & babies as well. Of course, I don’t agree with this either. I don’t believe we are robots.

    LikeLike

69. @Ed and A Mom,
    Thank you both for your input, it certainly gives me things to consider.

    Ed, I don’t know that I entirely agree with your outline, and the connections, but I’ll look at it more.

    A Mom, I’ve read a little Sproul, more Piper, so only think think Sproul believes in Paedo Baptism. Not sure about Piper? Regarding grace, it would seem your ideas are similar to Ed’s outline, which would make what your saying seem clearer. For me, I’m not yet convinced of the connections he outlined, that they are right, thereby setting up lack of knowledge as a means of insulation from being a sinner. But this is certainly an interesting topic.

    Thank you again.

    LikeLike

70. Ric,
    Thanks for your comment. I had noticed from all of your comments, that while you say that you are not a Calvinist, you sure hold on to a lot of Calvinist beliefs, whether you realize it or not.

    What is missing in all of the conversation, is that Christianity did not replace Judaism. Christianity is an extension of Judaism. The only difference between Jews and Gentiles is Jesus. That’s about it. Many Christian denominations disregard the Jews. We cannot do that. We must see things from their perspective. We must see the spiritual stories that they only see as carnal. We must see the feasts as something more than just food and drink, and duties. But…we must get the perspective of the Jews. It is thru that Jews that we Jesus more clearly, even tho they don’t. I really hate it when professing experts who proclaim disregard the Jews, just because they reject Jesus. The Jews are a light to the Gentiles.

    But, what I see from Calvinism is way too much carnal “exegesis”. Well, when a person does that, they miss the real Jesus.

    Obedience seems to be a word that is clinged to. But, what they fail to realize is that faith is a law. In Romans, it is known as “the law of faith” that they “establish”.

    I would definitely recommend that you go over all of this that I had outlined above. I do my best to leave my “opinion” out of it, and I dissect words and phrases.

    1. Dead “in” sin
    2. Dead “to” sin
    3. Impute
    4. Righteousness
    5. Do
    6. Works
    7. Alive “to” sin
    8. Alive “in” sin
    9. Faith (dissect Hebrews 11:1)
    10. Hope (hint…expectation that you are waiting for)
    11. What was the PURPOSE of the Tree of Life in the Garden?
    12. Definitely dissect Romans 4.
    13. Bless is the man to whom the Lord will NOT impute sin.
    14. Dissect Romans 2:14-16 (Ignorant people are judged by their conscience)

    The list goes on and on and on and on.

    You have heard the phrase that ignorance is bliss? Well, in this case, ignorance of the law IS THE EXCUSE.

    Look, in regards to the PROMISED LAND…dude, we sing songs about it in church…famous songs at that.

    See the following “SPIRITUAL” story, as told in a carnal sense.

    1. Abraham was IN the Promised Land (aka Paradise), while he was alive (Sin was DEAD…no law). God promised to give it to Abraham, AND his seed. Abraham believed God.
    2. Then Abraham’s seed left the promised land, and entered Egypt. The Children of Israel was in BONDAGE to “EGYPT”
    4. Moses set the captives free.
    5. The Children of Israel wandered the desert for 40 years.
    6. The Children cross the Jordan at the completion of 40 years
    7. The Children of Israel enter the PROMISED LAND.

    Now, lets see that from a spiritual sense
    1. When we are born, we are spiritually alive…sin is dead. Sin has NO POWER.
    2. When we get knowledge, we spiritually die. Sin has power. We are in BONDAGE to sin. We are dead to God, but alive to sin. We are dead in trespasses and sin.
    3. Jesus set the captives free. Uh, we are the captives. Sin is DEAD. Sin has NO POWER.
    4. We live our life out as a Christian…STRUGGLING, OR WRESTING with God (The Biblical definition of Israel, as Jacob STRUGGLED/WRESTLED WITH GOD AND PREVAILED). During this time of our lives, we struggle with sin, but it has NO POWER over us…hence, once saved always saved (Hebrews 13).
    5. We die (Cross the Jordan).
    6. We enter heaven (The promised land).

    Now, notice the life of Adam and Eve.

    1. In the Garden…ignorant…being naked was a sin…but God never informed them of it. Sin was dead. Sin had no power. Spiritually alive. They walked with God.
    2. They got knowledge. Sin was alive. They were in bondage to sin. Spiritually died. They got shame (for being naked). God asked, who told you that you were naked?
    3. God sacrificed an animal to COVER their shame (nakedness), aka, sin.
    4. They maintained a relationship with God based on sacrifices.
    5. Many years later, Jesus arrives on the scene, and states that he is the LAST SACRIFICE ever needed.

    All of this is NO DIFFERENT than a baby. Innocent until TAUGHT, or given KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

    Ed

    5.

    LikeLike

71. Ric,

    You had said:
    ” For me, I’m not yet convinced of the connections he outlined, that they are right, thereby setting up lack of knowledge as a means of insulation from being a sinner.”

    My response:
    I never insinuated “insulation from being a sinner”. I insinuated “no imputation” of a sinners sin.

    Ed

    LikeLike

72. Ric said, “it certainly gives me things to consider.”

    Ric, I’m certainly glad you’ll consider. Once upon a time I used to be unsure as well & didn’t realize these extreme teachings were coming from my own camp. Thanks for asking me the questions. That “horses mouth” quest I went on to answer you was helpful in my own understanding of Calvin! So thanks. 🙂 I’m glad you’re thinking about this as well, even if it rocks the foundation a bit. Being able to rethink something is partly what defines noble character, IMO.

    LikeLike

73. NT Wright made an excellent point about our Savior Who was a Palestinian Jew. We must understand the historical Jesus because generations tend to reinvent Him and things like the Holocaust are the result. How did the Lutheran church become so blind as to Who Jesus was? their namesake was anti sematic and they used many of his quotes to affirm their position of affirming the Reich laws.

    LikeLike

74. lydia,
    Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a Palestinian Jew, and how is Jesus a Palestinian Jew? Canaan became Israel, based on the 12 tribes of Israel. I am not following you.

    Ed

    LikeLike

75. Ed, was “Israel” officially a nation state when Jesus was born? Was He born a Jew in what was then known as the region of Palestine?

    Don’t read too much into it…spiritually…or tribally…. as I was speaking historically. Just a figure of speech. A way to avoid the European Non Jewish Jesus of the Reformation. :o)

    LikeLike

76. BTW Ed, If you are concerned about using the term “Palestinian” because of what it denotes today, don’t be. They called themselves “Assyrians” until about late 1940’s when it started to become politically expedient to call themselves Palestinians as if a tribe. You will not find the non Jewish person living in Palestine called a Palestinian before those times when Israel became a nation.

    LikeLike

77. Lydia,
    Even from a historical view, I still don’t see it as Palestine. Rome ruled the land, and the Jews resided in the land that Rome ruled. Gentiles were outside of that (Samaritans). There was no Palestinians in the days of Jesus. Palestinians are nomadic peoples from various countries and over time, they settled. But not in the days of Jesus. Circumcised Jews own the land, whether the Palestinians believe it or not.

    LikeLike

78. Ok, not important enough to debate. You tend to get very technical. If I said my cousin was an Appalachian Baptist, would that help?

    LikeLike

79. The Jews left in 70 AD. But that was part of prophesy anyway. So was the returning of the Jews. It’s their land. God promised it to the seed of Abraham thru Isaac, via circumcision. Now, Peter was an apostle of the Jews. After the Jews returned back to Israel from Babylonian captivity, many many more Jews did NOT return to Israel than did. They stayed in what was known as Assyria. This is where the Babylonian Talmud (Jewish writings) was written. So, Peter, and you will see this in his epistles, spread the gospel to the Jews in Babylon (Assyria).

    Now, you say, “When Israel became a nation”. But I say, “When Israel re-became a nation again.”

    From 70 AD to 1948, Israel was not a nation. But they became a nation once they crossed the Jordan with Joshua, and did not cease to be a nation until 70 AD.

    Ed

    LikeLike

80. Lydia,
    I am being funny here, but I don’t know what a Appalachian Baptist is. Is that like a Seattle Baptist?

    Can we just say, “Christian”?

    Note, I am being funny.

    LikeLike

81. “Now, you say, “When Israel became a nation”. But I say, “When Israel re-became a nation again.”

    Ed, I can agree with that from a historical point of view, too. Even the Russians voted for the state of “re” Isreal in the UN which was astonishing at the time when one thinks about it. :o) But the facts are diaspora Jews had been buying up land in “Assyria” for decades and owned quite a bit of it when it was made a “re nation”. Not something you will hear in most political circles today. But it is quite true. The “Assyrians” thought it amusing they were buying up the desert. I am a bit of a fan of Israeli history. Abba Eban has an excellent series.
    And I am thrilled there is a democracy at all in the ME.

    But, I am not much of a pretribber anymore. I have no opinion on the end times argument. I will leave that for Tim Lahaye who made a fortune on it. :o)

    LikeLike

82. Lydia,
    My Jewish friend who is a Christian tells me, “Pre Trib, Mid Trib, I don’t care…I am in trib everyday.”

    He was born in 1948, too.

    What you say is interesting, as since the Jews left in 70 AD, I am sure that it was in the mind of every Christian on the planet that they would never ever return. That’s why Christendom needed to re-interpret prophesies, thereby spiritualizing it. When I finally got what a Zionist is, I said to myself, “Ahhhh, I get it!”. So, consider me a Zionist that those poor poor Palestinians despise.

    Ed

    LikeLike

83. @ Ed…
    I’m following your outline, but you said, “once saved, always saved.” What do you make of Hebrews 10:26?

    IRT my sounding like, “calvinism”, scripture was around before John Calvin.
    Also, where do you find that Adam and Eve’s being naked was a sin? Did God create them in sin (no)? What did you mean, I don’t understand that one – how you came to that. I do understand they had the knowledge, of good and evil… Their covering themselves does not mean it was “sinful.” Their knowlege of covering must of come from somewhere, as well.

    LikeLike

84. They covered their shame. It was shameful to be naked. They felt guilt…for being naked. That guilt was KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. They got knowledge that they were naked. God never told them that they were naked, for he asked, “Who told you that you were naked?”

    Now, why would God ask them that question?

    Shame and Naked are both SPIRITUAL words used throughout the Bible.

    In addition, what does the Law of Moses say about being naked?

    You say that God did not create them in sin. But, he created them with free will. He created them with the ability to sin.

    God did not sit them down and lay down the law, so to speak. He did not tell them the Ten Commandments, etc. He created them to be ignorant of Good and Evil.

    Hebrews 10:26
    For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

    This is the difference between LAW or NO LAW.

    Law (WILLFULLY SIN)
    The audience for Hebrews was to the Jews. If people willfully sin, they are under the law of Moses, and under the law of Moses, you must adhere to the sacrifices.

    No Law (NOT WILLFULLY SINNING)
    But if you receive the knowledge of JESUS (the truth), Jesus is the only sacrifice that takes away sin.

    Jesus covers all sins, past, present, and future. There are no more animals to sacrifice for sins.

    The verse that you have provided is widely presented from those who do not believe in once saved always saved.

    But I provide that the Holy Spirit is the SEAL of promise. If you read the book of Ester, you will see that a KING’s SEAL (decree) can NEVER be broken.

    Also,

    Hebrews 13:5
    …I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

    I have also been told, “Well, you can leave him…”

    Nope, you can’t. If God is “IN” you, and if God said, “I will never leave you”, then where ever you run, there HE is.

    Ed

    LikeLike

85. Ric,
    You had said,
    “IRT my sounding like, “calvinism”, scripture was around before John Calvin.”

    My reply, if you scroll up, you will see that Calvinism has it’s roots in Augustine.

    So does Catholicism, which was around long before Calvinism.

    We protestants who are not Calvinists do not adhere to Augustine, Catholicism, or Calvinism.

    The scripture, that was around before John Calvin, is also around today, and we do not see scripture the same way that John Calvin did, or that Luther did. Why?

    Because both Luther and Calvin were FRESH OUT OF Catholicism, and both of them kept many Catholic (Augustine) beliefs. They defected Catholicism, but did not defect Augustine.

    Luther was right in what he did, when he discovered what Grace really was all about. Calvin was just as mean as the Catholics were.

    And since Calvin was FRESH OUT OF Catholicism, HIS BELIEFS are going to be the be all/end all for all generations to come? Not a chance with me. He’s dead. I’m alive, and Jesus (God) lives. This is between me and God, not Calvin and me.

    The only reason that I am interested in church history, is due to needing knowledge for debate. Otherwise, I could care less. My only source of belief is the Bible alone. I could care less what “church fathers” believed. They are dead, and they were wrong.

    I never was a Catholic to begin with. But, I notice the REFORMATION is all about telling the world why you are not a Catholic, rather than to tell the world why you are a Christian. At some point, the reformation should have been over, and completed. But today, we see the “shoving down your throat” tactic being done of Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Church, many of whom it’s members do not believe in Calvinism.

    Ed

    LikeLike

86. Ed, the Hebrews question was sincere. The scripture I “provided” and your comment that it’s what others say who don’t believe in once saved always saved, feels very dismissive of my question. What do YOU make of it, Ed? Your comments have failed the question from a sincere writer. Unlike you, I wrestle with this, and many other warnings in scripture. But you have it down pat. Good. I’ve wrestled with this for over 30 years.

    LikeLike

87. Ed, I gave your response a third review. Maybe I was hasty in my comment above. Maybe you did answer my question.

    Regarding your second reply to my question, my point about the scripture predating Calvin, as I know you know that, was meant to say that I haven’t come to my scriptural understandings by studying Calvin’s institutes. The things I’m most certain on are the things I’ve studied throughout my years (I understand that doesn’t make me right). The things I have most difficulty with are the things I’ve read plenty on, yet still not convinced. If I sound “calvinistic”, I can’t defend that; but my aim is to practice love with fellow believers and those who are yet to believe, part of which is sharing my faith and the Gospel.

    LikeLike

88. Is Benny Hinn a calvinist? What about the other TBN proponents? What abuses through their hands, and doctrine, have be undertaken? I was pondering this the last few days while commuting to work. I remember a church organization in Richmond that, I think is Arminian in doctrine, have very similar abuse problems and accusations as identified in SGM and SBC.

    My thoughts on this, while legalistic practices born out of reformed doctrine seems apparent, legalistic practices seem to be in all corners of Christendom. I started with Hinn and TBN as I sense they are an extreme end; so not picking on them since I think these things happen everywhere. People trying to control people, it’s not related to a specific doctrinal position.

    So in that, I was taken to 2 Peter 2. 😦 It saddened me, but it was clear that these things were even apparent while the apostles still walked the earth.

    LikeLike

89. “People trying to control people, it’s not related to a specific doctrinal position.”

    Actually, Ric, it is inherent in the determinist God paradigm and the dualism handed down from Augustine. It is part of the systematic theology of Calvinism. That is why you see the issue of hierarchy even in their teachings on the Trinity/Sovereignty. Calvin’s ST is completely immersed in the authority paradigm. That is why they do not see it as abuse.

    The free will celebrity guys just try to hide their control issues better and most don’t really teach it as orthodox doctrine.

    LikeLike

90. http://tinyurl.com/lqv8kzc

    LikeLike

91. but I’m not convinced there is no authority outlined in scripture. I’ve read the discussions here regarding headship, submission, and authority, and find them falling short when scripture speaks so much about it. However, I agree with you about the Calvinistic folks being controlling. You have it wrong about the other crowd hiding it… they teach it hard, shepherd-ship is all over those communities of believers.

    LikeLike

92. Hi Ric, now we are both talking in generalities so we won’t get too far with that. I am confused what you think is human authority in the body/marriage and how that would work with “no mediator between us and Christ”. The view of authority seems to be taught as voluntary submission which would mean the person submitting really has the power to decide if the “authority” is the authority at all. If not, it would mean you could not leave Jim Jones church once you joined. And trust me, there was a time early he was considered mainstream. Even by Jimmy Carter.

    So the idea of authority is really a ,moot point when it comes to the Body or Marriage. Otherwise you are talking about something very sinister. Now, many pastors do beat on those who do not submit voluntarily which also misses the point. :o)

    I think Piper calls is “joyful, loving humble submission” or something flowery like that. but you had better do it or you are in sin! :o)

    LikeLike

93. Who is the “other” crowd, Ric?

    LikeLike

94. JA – I was referring to Lydia’s comment – “The free will celebrity guys just try to hide their control issues better and most don’t really teach it as orthodox doctrine.”

    LikeLike

95. Lydia – I liked how you put this, “The view of authority seems to be taught as voluntary submission which would mean the person submitting really has the power to decide if the “authority” is the authority at all.”

    LikeLike

96. Well I have really looked into the Greek on the word submit. BUT….I look to Jesus in the Gospels as how a human “authority” would operate with other believers. 1Jhn says we all have “anointing” so I am trying to figure out how that would work with some “authority” in the Body of the Holy Priesthood. Do they get more? Who confers these titles anyway?

    Did you know there is no word for laity concerning the body of Christ? We are all priests?

    Or would these authorities be those we are drawn to because one would not be around them long to pick up on the fact they have been refined by fire. They have “gone before” us. (They would probably look like losers to most Christians here in the West, btw) They would be appalled to even think about exercising authority over another believer on their own. They would view themselves first and foremost as servants. Paul referred to himself as an under rower which was known then as the lowest level on a slave ship. Would you consider him an “authority”? Beaten, imprisoned, broke, etc, etc? I see someone who persuaded not commanded. But in all, Jesus should be our model.

    LikeLike

97. Ric,

    You had said:
    “Ed, the Hebrews question was sincere. The scripture I “provided” and your comment that it’s what others say who don’t believe in once saved always saved, feels very dismissive of my question. What do YOU make of it, Ed. Your comments have failed the question from a sincere writer. Unlike you, I wrestle with this, and many other warnings in scripture. But you have it down pat. Good. I’ve wrestled with this for over 30 years.”

    My response:
    My reply to your Hebrews question was just as sincere, Ric. Honestly. And it really is a popular verse provided by those who don’t believe in once saved, always saved. My reply was truthful and sincere. I don’t mince words, and I am always serious in regards to this kind of stuff.

    The way that I laid it out is exactly how I make of it.

    If you read my blog “About”, you will see how I got started in all this stuff. I purposefully seek out controversial issues. I study a particular topic for weeks and months. I listen to many different preachers, booklets, pamphlets, denominations, religious beliefs, cults, etc. to see what they have to say on the subject, not to conform to those beliefs, but to use that information to see what the Bible has to say on the subject…and I literally dissect everything, and do my best to put on my spiritual glasses to see.

    Key words and phrases are extremely important. The Calvinists are expository driven. You will never find the spiritual hidden treasures that way. All you will see is carnal.

    The KJV is the best for matching key words and phrases with key words and phrases. A Strong’s Concordance is a MUST.

    No other Bible / No other Concordance.

    But, to re-iterate my previous response…it is IMPORTANT to key in on certain words, and that word is SEAL. The Holy Spirit is a SEAL.

    Seek out that word…you will find it in the book of Ester. You will learn what a King’s Seal is all about.

    This is called being TOPICAL driven, rather than expository driven.

    I hope I helped in this. If you seek, you will find. I promise. But you gotta seek it.

    Ed

    LikeLike

98. Ed, thank you. I appreciate it. focusing on, and being, “sealed” has helped me through the years.

    LikeLike

99. Lydia, I think what you are drawing out is the leadership intended – a servant; “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Paul spoke of not “over lording,” oh that leaders in these authoritarian institutions would hear that. Jesus was the consummate example, always.

    I read a great, howbeit simple, book on this leadership a long time ago. Gayle Erwin’s, ‘The Jesus Style.’ The only book outside of scripture I’ve read more than 2 times.

    LikeLike

100. TBN has some extremely serious court litigations going on right now. I haven’t kept up with it for a few months, but they are being sued by Paul and Jan Crouch’s granddaughter. She was working in the accounting dept, and she discovered many many many, did I say many, financial fraud going on. Serious fraud. Hence, Paul Crouch, Jr. was fired, as it was his daughter. She was obviously fired, too. You might want to Google it. Very juicy stuff. No, they are not Calvinists, but they are corrupt. Most of the TBN higher ups are not on the up and up. Some are great. Perry Stone, I like him. I also like Gregory Dickow. There are about 1 or 2 others I like. But I wouldn’t put my faith in those “Send you seed” so they can live in opulence, the name it and claim it, stuff.

     Ed

     LikeLike

101. Pingback: Protests at Abortion Clinics: Does it work? Is there another alternative? | Spiritual Sounding Board