* * *
Ok, you really have to hear the background of this next post. The other day I was tweeting with a guy whose Twitter handle is @fivesolasguy, (Brian Thornton.) He responded to a couple of tweets of mine and I have to be honest with you, his words felt very familiar to me. The following is a good sampling of our conversation.
* * *
* * *
Eventually, I got tired of the same runaround and so I said “gotta run” or something similar a couple of times. I continued to get more tweets after saying I had to go (notifications come to my smart phone) and I didn’t want to have to keep picking up my phone for the same guy tweeting the same ol’ stuff and so I blocked him. I think I have only one other person blocked in my 1+ yrs of tweeting.
Well, yesterday, I noticed Mr. Thornton came here to the blog and posted a couple of comments. He questioned why I blocked him on Twitter. So, I went back to Twitter to see what was going on. Apparently, he had tweeted and tagged me quite a bit. I found the evidence on Aug. 9 in which he spouted off publicly about me for blocking him. JA did something she doesn’t allow her kids to do – she rolled her eyes.
* * *
* * *
Wow – those are 6 tweets in a row. There were more, too. I couldn’t tell if the tweeting occurred all at once or throughout the day. I realized that this guy was obviously trying to get some message across to me and not satisfied with my earlier responses and so I gave him an offer to say whatever he’s trying to say in a paragraph or two and I’d post it here on the blog. (You might consider clicking on that link. The exchange is pretty funny – – one of our regular readers, Eric Fry, saw what was going on and put his TX cowboy boots on. Yea, he cut to the chase.) I figured why not – we could try to discuss it here with complete sentences and paragraphs without the Twitter character limitations and just be done with it already.
Hey, what do you know, he took me up on it. You can tell from the tweets above that we both were getting frustrated. Twitter can be very effective or it can be very ineffective. Our conversation was not getting anywhere.
But check out what he wrote. I can’t believe it’s the same guy. It definitely gives more insight into his tweets. The only edit I made was to break up a long paragraph, otherwise, this is exactly Mr. Thornton’s content. I’m looking forward to the discussion.
* * * * * *
A Call for Reasoned Discernment Before Judgment Is Made Upon Others
My wife and I have experienced what is known as spiritual abuse at the hands of a pastor who went to great lengths to “lord it over” his flock. He would arrive at your doorstep unannounced to rebuke you for not attending a service, have others call you out and rebuke you for some comments you made at a small group gathering, and would even verbally chastise you and threaten to remove you from membership if you did not repent of a particular sin he was convinced you had.
When I finally concluded that this guy was beyond the possibility of being reasoned with, I removed my wife and family from his spiritually oppressive influence. This guy was off the chain, so to speak, and I would not allow him to exert his unbiblical and sinful attempts to control us any longer.
My experience had made me a prime candidate to resist any future submission to a pastor/elder/shepherd (it did, in fact, result in me being hyper-critical for several years following that experience). But, in spite of what we went through, I remain convinced of the Bible’s teaching concerning the submission of Christians to their church leaders. Sadly, though, I fear that there are many who experience similar things that we did who become overly cynical, distrusting, and critical of anyone who teaches the biblical truth concerning the authority of church leaders over their congregations. Simply put, bad experiences do not negate the truth of God’s Word. And they don’t give us unfettered license to rail against anyone we believe is abusing their authority.
One of the main mistakes we can make (especially those of us who have experienced abusive practices firsthand from church leaders) is that, going forward, we fail to give others the benefit of the doubt. Paul said that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”, and I believe part of what Paul is saying there is that our love for one another inside the church will include an attitude and heart of trust, rather than distrust. Our love for one another, rooted in the common bond we have IN Christ, will (should) translate into carefully researched conclusions and comments regarding another’s supposed position on church authority, for example. That love will result in, not publicly expressed suspicion the moment we see a red flag or questionable information, but will instead lead us to make sure that we are counting others as more important than ourselves, which will hopefully result in us reserving judgment until we are sure of the truth. I have been guilty of this more times than I can count.
Another common mistake we tend to make is that we will attack and judge and critique something based upon what someone has written rather than how what has been written actually gets fleshed out in real life. For example, someone reads on a web site article about someone’s position on the church’s authority over a Christian, and they draw all sorts of conclusions and preconceived opinions, not based upon what actually occurs in real life, but rather based upon what was written. I have been guilty of this quite recently. I strongly disagreed with a particular “method” for doing something as it was written and explained on paper, and I began to passionately attack that method with much vigor and emotion. However, when I took a step back and decided to see how that method was actually being fleshed out in real life, my conclusions were completely opposite from my initial judgments. We can erect all manor [sic] of straw men that we can easily knock down (or burn in effigy), when the truth is all we’ve done is malign another member of the body of Christ for no good reason. Make no mistake, there are those who take advantage of others and abuse their authority in the church. And they must be exposed and stopped. But, every red flag is not a cause for misinformed declarations against others who profess Christ. When we do that, we very well may be bringing down someone who is truly on our side. And for what reason? Because we didn’t give the benefit of the doubt, or we didn’t do our homework, or we attacked some words in an article rather than examined real life actions. When that happens, we have acted no differently and no better than those we are accusing of wrong-doing.
I pray we would all grow in the grace of our Lord and Savior as we bear, believe, hope, and endure all things for the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Christ. May we seek to be well-informed, truly discerning members of the church.
Brian Thornton
Spiritual Sounding Board 
chapmaned24,
“Tell it from your heart, and not from scripture, because scripture is supposed to be in your heart already.”
This is perhaps one of the oddest statements I have seen on here. Now I am not allowed to “tell it” from Scripture?
LikeLike
Brian,
You mean the elect sinners. You mean that he does not save the non elect sinners. You mean that God preselected those that Jesus would save from the foundation of the world sinners. You mean that Jesus didn’t come to save EVERYONE sinners. Don’t skirt the issue.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian, you should be able to speak the gospel from the heart. When you approach people without a bible in your hand, how do you tell them the gospel, without a bible?
LikeLike
Some of this is getting rather humorous. I see a lot of responses against Calvinism, and yet I don’t recall even once referencing anything of the sort. I came to the doctrines I now have before I had ever even heard of John Calvin, and well before I even knew what Calvinism was. You guys can beat that pinyatta (phoentic spelling) all you want, but attacking Calvinism on here when I haven’t appealed to it once is nothing more than another straw man. Now, if I said something like, “Calvinism teaches such and such…” then attack away at it. But I haven’t done that. I am trying to convey what I believe from Scripture.
LikeLike
Brian,
You are a mouthpiece for them. You need to learn to examine the scripture yourself & think for yourself.
The Psalms are a body of poetry. My little kiddo reads it & understands this better than you. Read all of Psalm 51. Here are verses 5-8.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
You said, “A Mom, We are all born guilty and sinful. David even proclaimed this truth: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
David is lamenting how sinful he is. But you literally believe he somehow sinned in the womb. If so, then you MUST believe God literally broke David’s bones and that David’s bones literally rejoice! So you MUST also believe that hyssop cleans us whiter than snow. Well, dang. Get you some hyssop, pronto. And I’d like to hear your bones rejoicing. Can you put that on youtube? I’m sure it will go viral.
LikeLike
Brian,
You had said:
“I came to the doctrines I now have before I had ever even heard of John Calvin”
I wish I had a dime for every time that I heard that from a Calvinist. I would be rich. I have had a Retired Calvinist Pastor recently tell me that.
But somewhere down the line, they will usually say that they once believed the way that I believe, until they were confronted to see it Calvin’s way.
The Retired pastor was caught in a lie.
And many Calvinists say the same thing.
Ed
LikeLike
chapmaned24,
So, the gospel from Scripture is not good enough for you? Ok…here is the gospel from my “heart”:
All humanity is separated from God apart from Jesus. We are sinners and have sinned against a holy and just God, and there is nothing we can do to reconcile ourselves back to him. But God, in his incredible love and mercy, sent his Son Jesus to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. Jesus lived the perfect life required to be saved, and he died the atoning death to pay the penalty due for sin. The really beautiful part is that Jesus didn’t stay dead! He rose from the grave and, by doing so, he put death in his grave for all who would repent and believe this good news! Those who believe this awesome news are forever counted as righteous before God, and for them there is no longer any condemnation, but rather eternal life.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I would like to ask you, who on here is being beligerent and treating people as liars and dishonest in their answers and who is trying to actually engage the topics? I have tried to be honest with my remarks and answers, and what I am getting in return is people telling me that I am not being truthful, that I need to check my heart, etc. etc. My sincereity is now being questioned at every turn. I have not questioned the sincereity of anyone on here, even though I may disagree with their beliefs.
LikeLike
Brian said,
“Here is a PERFECT example from “A Mom” of setting up a strawman argument and then knocking it down:
“You are not counted righteous if you molest children, kill, steal, & destroy. Jesus’ perfection, death on the cross, & resurrection does not give you license to do any of these things today & until you die. “Jesus was righteous for me so I don’t have to be righteous” is a false teaching.”
Who in the world has said anything like this on here? Certainly not me. Please, do us a favor and address what has actually been said, not some false straw man caricature that has nothing to do with anything I have said. Thank you.”
Strawman my bull honkey. I believe a toddler was told to forgive her molester. The molester is counted righteous because Jesus lived a righteous life for him. Don’t you understand your own doctrine & it’s implications & every day application? Come on now, Brian. Think. You may be a good guy, but this doctrine attracts evil.
Sorry for the “bull honkey” reference. My dander as a mom gets up when we’re talking about kids. This religious system likes to leave kids in it’s wake. Although they’re “profoundly broken from the womb anyway”, so what’s the big deal? NOT.
LikeLike
Brian,
All humanity is not separated from God.
Babies are not separated from God.
We die a spiritual death. We are not born spiritually dead.
LikeLike
Romans 5 explains how all are counted as sinners because of the sin of Adam.
LikeLike
Brian,
Calvinists seem to skip one verse out of Romans 5. That verse is verse 13.
In addition, you skip the REST of the Bible if you only concentrate on Romans 5.
SIN IS NOT IMPUTED. Read everything from the whole bible about that topic.
Calvinists are not generally topical driven. Topical is not even recommended by your leaders. They are more expository.
WHY IS SIN NOT IMPUTED AND TO WHOM IS SIN NOT IMPUTED.
Ed
LikeLike
I have a request. That C word (Calvin) seems to get people’s dander up. Let’s stick with discussing specific issues in question. Ie, if the issue is: “are babies born in sin,” let’s discuss that specific issue using scripture for back-up. Bite-size nuggets are more manageable. I don’t care if you identify the particular doctrine as Calvinist, but try to keep the focus on the specific issue. Let’s see if that helps anything.
LikeLike
JoeJoe said, “A Mom, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this statement: Don’t tell me to teach children they are horribly broken. I won’t do it.”
It’s not complicated. Children are not born sinful. They are not vipers in diapers. They were created in the image of God.
I discussed this in depth with Ric recently on JA’s 8/6/13 post. Take a look if you want to know what I think.
If you think the children are born sinful then you must logically think children & babies that die go to hell. If not, why not? Because of salvation thru infant baptism? Or does God bestow salvation to individuals thru other means than repent & believe, in your opinion?
LikeLike
A Mom,
vipers in diapers
That’s good…lol.
LikeLike
Brian asked:
I’m trying to keep up with you all. I checked my e-mail and come back to 10 more comments 🙂 I haven’t seen anything specifically (because I’m going from the most recent comment down), but let’s all try to not make this personal. Nobody needs to question someone’s motives or heart. Let’s give the Holy Spirit some room to do His thing. It’s okay to challenge, but gracious and respectful responses work much better. I know from experience that if someone tries to hammer something into me, my inclination is to do the opposite. Just ask Chuck. 🙂
LikeLike
A Mom, I must tweet that. LOL. You guys keep me busy with all your good comments. I want everyone to read them 🙂
LikeLike
You have Paul Dohse to thank for “vipers in diapers”, not me! 😉
LikeLike
Brian, which verse in Romans 5, specifically?
LikeLike
A Mom: It is just now hitting me like a ton of bricks that this mindset is the core of so much child abuse in the church. Beat the sin out of the child – even the baby. Oh boy, I’m feeling a post come upon me. My brain explodes with this stuff.
LikeLike
What Brian is saying isn’t just that Jesus died in his place, so that unbelievers can be reconciled to God. I agree with that. But it doesn’t stop there. I would add that Christians live out the rest of our days following Christ, our actions matter. Sin grieves God. This is where we differ.
The problem is he is also saying that Jesus was required to live a life of perfection in our place, so that Christians don’t have to be righteous. That when God sees a born again Christian sin, he doesn’t see the sin, he sees Jesus’ perfect life instead. This is called the imputed righteousness of Christ. Do some research on it if it’s not familiar to you.
And this is the very good, right, just, gospel & Biblical reason why the toddler was told to forgive her molester. The Christian child molester is counted righteous because Jesus lived a righteous life for him. The imputed righteousness of Christ was in action, is applied, covers all sin in the Christian’s life. Actions after salvation don’t matter, unless you rock the captain’s boat. Understand the doctrine & you will understand the actions. It’s totally consistent & makes perfect sense according to their “imputed righteousness of Christ” doctrine.
What I think is inconsistent & hypocritical is for Brian to believe this for himself, but not for the Christian child molester. I wonder what list of sins he thinks are imputed & which are not, then? He doesn’t seem to realize that this doctrine, his leaders, do believe & practice it. The believers & followers of this doctrine don’t need to be righteous, because Jesus lived the perfect righteous life for them. I guess this is why Brian & leaders & followers of this doctrine continues to call born again believers sinners!
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t believe that if, for example, a baby dies that they go to hell. I believe every infant and young child who dies is in heaven. While I don’t think “age of accountability” is the best phrase to use, I think it roughly describes what I believe. No human is born sinful. I do not believe it is possible for an infant to sin. They have not inherited the sin of Adam. What they have inherited, is a sin nature. At some point, assuming they grow old enough and have the capacity to understand, they WILL sin. At some point, going forward, they WILL be accountable for their actions. I don’t think we can definitively say at what point in their life each person is held accountable, but I think we can agree that every one at some point is accountable for their lives. It is our sin, which is a result of a sin nature, that seperates us from God. It is making the choice to follow our own path and reject God’s. Our sin is evidence of that. Only salvation through trusting in Christ’s sacrifice for us can restore us to a right relationship with God, and give us a status of righteous in God’s eyes.
I am hypothesizing with this next point, but I think we see the evidence of a sin nature when we see young children disobey their parents, or do something they were told they weren’t supposed to. HOWEVER, I do not believe we can actually call these actions sin, because the child is completely incapable of understanding even the concept, nor are they capable of understanding the concept of Christ’s sacrifice. For those reasons, because I know God is merciful, I believe he shows mercy and grace anytime a young child dies. I think sending an infant to hell would be utterly cruel.
At what point though does a child begin to be held accountable? Based on what I do know about child developement, I would think it MUST be sometime after the age of three, VERY highly likely sometime after the age of four, still reasonably likely after the age of five, and continually diminishing after that. This is all speculation though, as there is no hint in God’s word as to when this point is. It may be that in general God doesn’t hold most of us accountable until after the age of 10 for all I know. I know I understood the concept of sin and choosing my own way versus God’s way, and what Christ’s death and resurrection meant, at least on a basic level, when I was 5 years old.
LikeLike
Born4Battle:
Since you obviously missed the earlier comment, let me repeat that all of your comments will be deleted immediately until such time you make an apology to Julie Anne and the entire SSB community. If you continue in your baiting and harassment of Julie Anne, I will also contact WordPress and your ISP if necessary. You have your own blog to put forth your opinions, and I’m sure you can find other ones that are more in line with your opinions to join in conversations. Enough is enough, time for you to act like a man and accept the consequences of your actions.
Fiat Pax
LikeLike
Thanks, FP. I have never had to do anything like that before, but it looks like you have far more experience in this area than me. I appreciate your assistance in this.
LikeLike
No problem, that’s what I’m here for.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said, “A Mom: It is just now hitting me like a ton of bricks that this mindset is the core of so much child abuse in the church. Beat the sin out of the child – even the baby. Oh boy, I’m feeling a post come upon me. My brain explodes with this stuff.”
Bingo!
And even worse. The working model/paradigm is that children are broken, horrid sinners in the hands of an angry God. Add that to the imputed righteousness of Christ doctrine which says the crimes against them don’t even exist. God doesn’t ever see the sin of Christians, he just see’s Christ’s perfect life, right?
Given that sick combo, why do we not understand that these teachers would step over or pass by on the other side of their damaged bodies? And that someone outside that faith community would stop, have compassion, bind their wounds & care for them.
LikeLike
A Mom – Did you read my post on the Calvinism book for kids written by J.D. Hall? Now it is making me even more angry about this kind of indoctrination. Blech!
LikeLike
A Mom,
I have a bit of a problem with this statement: That when God sees a born again Christian sin, he doesn’t see the sin, he sees Jesus’ perfect life instead. This is called the imputed righteousness of Christ.
I think what you said is partially true. When a Christian sins, I think it does grieve God. I can’t recall where right now, but I believe Paul discusses this at some point. However, I’m not sure you are correct in what you are calling imputed righteousness. When I say Christ lived a righteous life so I don’t have to, this does NOT mean that I have license to go on sinning, because Christ was righteous for me. What it DOES mean is that the only way, apart from Christ, one could hope to die and then be with God, is to live a perfect life following all of God’s commands. We know that is impossible. Jesus did that for us. When we trust in Christ, his righteousness is imputed upon us, meaning that when we die, we are not declared a sinner, but as righteous in God’s eyes. It is kind of like a legal declaration. You may not be actually righteous by virtue of the fact that a Christian can still do things that God says we shouldn’t do; but let’s say a Christian tells a lie, which is not a righteous act, and then they die 10 minutes later, without repenting of that lie. Because that person has trusted in Christ, his righteousness was imputed to them, and God sees them as righteous. Them telling that lie does not now mean that they cannot go to heaven.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Romans 5:12-21 addresses how Adam’s sin spread to all people. I will quote it in its entirety so that no one will accuse me of skipping verses, and then below will pull out the ones that specifically address Adam’s sin being imputed to all people.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21 ESV)
“sin came into the world through one man”
“many died through one man’s trespass”
“judgment following one trespass brought condemnation”
“one trespass led to condemnation for all”
“by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”
Basically, Paul keeps saying over and over in this passage, that through Adam everyone who followed him were tainted by his sin, even to the point that, because Adam himself sinned, ALL people are regarded as having sinned along with Adam (so death spread to all men because all sinned).
Adam represented the whole human race, and when he fell, he took all of humanity down with him.
I would beinterested to see how people onhere will engage this passage rather than try to refute it with various scenarios (like babies who die, etc, which is another topic). If Paul is not referring to all humanity being thrown into sin because of Adam, then what is he talking about here? I’d be curious to hear what you think.
LikeLike
We need to love our children, enjoy them, hug them, teach them, gently admonish them, give them appropriate consequences, help them learn to make right choices. It doesn’t require lots of money.
They are not sinners, they are not adults in small bodies. They don’t understand the implications of what they do, but they are learning & we are to be teaching them. Not that they are broken. But we teach that they are able & need to make right choices. And that there are consequences throughout life when they don’t. Of course, I teach about Jesus & salvation & the rules God gives so we can have an abundant life. Rules are not to show us how sinful we are. God’s rules are to be followed if one wants a truly abundant life (not prosperity gospel). But you have to trust & believe God, who created us, knows best.
Who wants to live in a country where the Christians don’t have to follow any rules? Now that’s ridiculous. A righteous person loves righteousness.
LikeLike
JoeJoe,
Let me show you something…you mentioned the age of accountability.
Romans 5:13
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
When sin is dead, it has no power. Sin only has power when sin is alive.
If you are dead to sin, then you are alive to God. If you are alive in sin, then you are dead to God.
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
That fourth word, “alive” is in regards to spiritually alive, which IS “not separated from God”. That last word , “died” is in regards to spiritual death, which IS separation from God.
Paul was SPIRITUALLY alive before he had KNOWLEDGE of the law.
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So, let’s put this in order:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Once you die spiritually, you must be born again spiritually. The word AGAIN has significance.
When we are born of the flesh, we are also born of the spirit.
Knowledge of good and evil is a prerequisite to spiritual death.
Once we die that spiritual death, we must be born again…a spiritual resurrection from spiritual death.
The age of accountability is WHEN YOU GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, regardless of age.
Ed
LikeLike
JoeJoe,
That’s actually a pretty good explanation of imputed righteousness. It in no way gives me license to sin. In fact, Scripture tells that if we go on sinning wilfully after receiving a knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.
If we don’t need the imputed righteousness of Christ, then why did he have to live a sinless life before going to the cross? If all we needed was his sacrifical death, then all he would have needed to do was to come down straight from heaven, go the cross, and then go back up to heaven. But, we DO need his righteousness in order be declared justified before God. We need him to give us his righteousness, and we need to take upon himself our sin, which is exactly what Scripture tells us:
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
LikeLike
We are not sinners because we sin..we sin because we are sinners.
LikeLike
Brian,
So, I ask when is sin not imputed, and to whom is sin not imputed, and why?
Also,
Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Moses, being everyone under the law of Moses). Verse 14
Under Jesus, death does not reign.
Verse 12 is the physical death of the body, whereas verse 14 is spiritual death.
In regards to verse 12, however, if you dissect 1 Cor 15:36-50, you will see that Adam was formed in a NATURAL dying body anyway. So, he was going to die a natural death anyhow.
There was a tree of life that he was to eat from in order to have OBTAINED eternal life. That was the WHOLE purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden.
He could have gotten eternal life EVEN IN A FALLEN STATE, but Angels blocked access to the Tree of Life so that he wouldn’t and couldn’t.
And due to the fact that he ate of the tree of death, he died a spiritual death IN THAT DAY.
Then God told him that he would return to dust where he came from. That was his body, of course. The reason that God told him that was NOT BECAUSE he LOST eternal life, but because he never obtained it.
Ed
LikeLike
“I have a request. That C word (Calvin) seems to get people’s dander up. Let’s stick with discussing specific issues in question. Ie, if the issue is: “are babies born in sin,” let’s discuss that specific issue using scripture for back-up. Bite-size nuggets are more manageable. I don’t care if you identify the particular doctrine as Calvinist, but try to keep the focus on the specific issue. Let’s see if that helps anything.”
One of the things that keeps all of this so confusing is the language. I am noticing that some in the YRR/NC movement are now referring to it as “conservative” doctrine. This is because more people are catching on to it. We have had Doctrines of Grace, Reformed, YYR, and even some refer to it as the Gospel. But they do want to stay away from the C Word as much as possible. Once you label it, it makes it easier for folks to do their own research.
For an example of what I am talking about, read chapter 4 of ” A Quiet Revolution” by Ernest Reisinger. This was written about 30 years ago and is a manual for how to take a church the C word. Especially the SBC. Most of the young’uns have not heard of it before but it has been implemented in seminaries, entities and churches so it is pretty much ingrained by now. One of the tenants is to NOT use the C word. Ever. And that has worked quite well because their hermeneutic is totally different and if you are discussing scripture, it will go round and round till Jesus comes back. So discussing scripture is a waste of time.
One example is how they will pull quotes from the Psalms and present them as literal. (That is a problem with Romans 3 quoting the Psalms) But we know that Psalms is MAN talking to God in the form of poetry. Are we to dash our enemies babies heads against rocks, too? Pray imprecatory prayers? Those things and much more are also in Psalms. They do the same with the Psalm 51 as A mom pointed out. Can I have some hyssop to wash me clean? :o)
A good way to ascertain if what they are talking about is C is to take a close look at how they present God. If it is “deterministic” then it is a form of C.
LikeLike
Brian,
Sin is defined as transgression of the law (of Moses).
You said, and I have heard that before:
“We are not sinners because we sin..we sin because we are sinners.”
We are sinners because we have knowledge of Good and Evil.
Sin is DEAD, as Romans 7 states, for those who have no knowledge of the law.
Therefore, babies are not sinners.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia,
I am glad you mentioned that. I almost bought off on that word, “conservative” before I figured out the originating Christian belief system that started it.
They are the ones who, for a minute there, was also bragging about their “smoking hot wife”.
Ed
LikeLike
This reminds me hearing the story of how C.J. Mahaney quietly and secretly introduced Calvinism into SGM with nary a word to the congregants. It’s funny, but I do not remember hearing the word Calvin at BGBC, but it most certainly was Calvinist (now that I know what it is). I have learned a lot just this past year of putting 2 + 2 together. If you were to say I believed in Calvinism, I would have said “no way,” primarily because it sounds like a religion and I didn’t know what it was. Eventually, I did hear things that did not line up exactly with my belief system. I dismissed them as “no big deal.” I didn’t have time to investigate. I had babies to nurse, kids to teach. I didn’t have time to understand doctrinal things. My life = just give me the Bible, will you please throw this dirty diaper away for me while I put another load in the wash?
I think there are a lot of churches who hold to Calvinist doctrines, but do not identify as such. If you don’t know what Calvinist doctrines are, you will miss it. Calvinism really takes a while to soak in, layer by layer. I don’t think I’m still done learning. Evidently not, I’ve never read his Institutes.
LikeLike
I would beinterested to see how people onhere will engage this passage rather than try to refute it with various scenarios (like babies who die, etc, which is another topic). If Paul is not referring to all humanity being thrown into sin because of Adam, then what is he talking about here? I’d be curious to hear what you think.”
It is a waste of time because you are reading Romans as individual election/salvation as you were taught to do. You are reading it with the determinist god Augustine/Calvin filter. A view that I believe blasphemes the One True God’s character. And a view that once ingrained is wrecking havoc on so many as it takes hold and what I believe is a sort of ‘veil’ overcomes people and they live in this contradiction that is the determinist god paradigm. (Not a far walk from Islam, btw).
Yahweh, as I know Him made salvation possible for ALL if they repent, believe and obey Him. (not Universalism so please do not try that one on me).. If I start with the correct premise, then I can read Romans through the lens of a Jew/Gentile juxtaposition in it’s proper historical context. The correct premise is that everything God created He pronounced as GOOD. Man’s sin separated Him from God. We are all born “separated” from God. We have a nature inclined toward sin. We are born into corrupted bodies into a corrupted world but there is STILL good here. (dualism says all material world including us is evil. This comes right from Mani whom Augustine followed for 9 years. And it comes from Plato). As one prof put it, sin is like a tick that attaches it self to us as we grow up.
We are not born guilty of Adams sin. That very thought blasphemes a perfectly JUST Yahweh. You are not held accountable for another’s sin. He is not arbitrary like “Allah” is arbitrary. A sin goo is not passed down through sperm as Augustine taught. (He came to see sex as evil and banished his long time concubine who bore him a son after he was converted. She was never able to see the boy again)
boy, when we get Genesis wrong, we can get it all wrong and then our Glorious perfectly Just and full of HESED Yahweh, is made out to be an amoral tyrant. It breaks my heart. All in the name of controlling people and keeping them from living out sanctification and growing in Holiness. They are taught they cannot. Man has no volition and God forces you to believe and obey. You are basically a marionette doll for this determinist god. (yes, small g because it is not Yahweh at all).
For those of you interested can check out some other scholars like NT Wright whom Piper and others think a heretic. Which is basically a advert for me. :o)
LikeLike
Ed, That reminds me:
Pastor Steve McCoy tweeted on 7/1/13,
“Teach your children they are broken. Deeply broken”.
Did you see fakejohnpiper’s response? He tweeted on 7/15/13,
“Teach your wife she is smokin’. Deeply smokin’.
LikeLike
I know of a large Baptist church with multiple campi that some well known C’s wanted to change to C and elder led without congregation approval. Problem is this church was long time free will and congregational polity. I know for a fact the back door process they outlined was going to take about 8 years! The process is still in the works and working! So, slowly the congregation would be boiled like a frog none the wiser. It was all plotted out for them as they “trust” those from the seminary THEY have subsidized for years and their salaries. (Note, you do a lot of preaching on submitting to your leaders to start the process) It is insidious. It is amazing what folks will do when they think only they have truth. They can deceive in the Name of God and think it a good thing. That, my friends, is taking God’s name in vain.
LikeLike
I thought I was the smoking hot wife because of my red hair and my ranting. Maybe that’s not what they were talking about?
LikeLike
A Mom,
No, I didn’t see that tweet…that’s funny.
Ed
LikeLike
“I am glad you mentioned that. I almost bought off on that word, “conservative” before I figured out the originating Christian belief system that started it”
From what I can tell based upon some recent events, it is coming out of SBTS. And that makes sense considering Mohler’s situation with Mahaney, the Trad statement and the Unity committee and the fact that “conservative” was the basis for the successful conservative resurgence years ago. People in the SBC identify “conservative” with inerrancy. Not the C word. Just one more way to deceive the people who pay your salary in the Name of God
LikeLike
JA,
Oh, is that what that red hair stands for? Cool!!
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
I am extremely familiar with the covert tactics that you discuss. I read it from a Baptist/C website. There are steps outlined on how to convert a perfectly normal Baptist congregation into a C mindset. The steps were purposely set up to take a period of time to complete, so that no one in the congregation would even notice the change.
I think it is Gary…if I am not mistaken, that has complete experience from a church that actually did that.
Gary, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was you, right?
Ed
LikeLike
http://www.zhoag.com/?s=smokin+hot+wife
Ed, you might enjoy this one.
I often wonder what would happen if their wife was in an disfiguring accident or had to get a mastectomy or worse. They have made it public what is important to them concerning their wives. Her worth. They objectify their wives for public consumption as if it is how God views us. Can you imagine what would be going through her heart if something disfiguring happened to her? He made it a public thing and she has to live with her looks being made the centerpiece no matter what happens to her. Can they not hear how shallow they sound? And people trust them to teach them?
LikeLike
Lydia said:
I find this to be the ultimate kind of manipulation and brainwashing. If they came out and said, “hey, I’ve changed my doctrinal beliefs and want you to jump on board my bandwagon,” that would be one thing, but this is not what I’m seeing here.
Side notes: is the plural for campus = campi – LOL?
#2 – The other day I referred to the “C” word in reference to church Covenants. Wonder how many other “C” words there are?
LikeLike
Ed said:
No, Ed, “hot!” not “Cool!” You get very confused at times.
LikeLike
Mark came to mind, Ed. I haven’t seen him in a while. I think he mentioned the same situation of covert doctrinal switcheroos.
LikeLike
Brian said, “We are not sinners because we sin..we sin because we are sinners.”
More totally depraved dehumanization trash talk. Is that why everyone in your camp is tripping over each other for the “I’m the biggest sinner there ever was” award?
Your belief, “We are not sinners because we sin..we sin because we are sinners”, is the BIGGEST excuse for wrong-doing I’ve ever heard. I would never accept that nor will I teach that to kids. Go tell that to your boss, your wife or in court in front of the judge & see how that goes over. “I did it because God made me that way, it’s Adam’s fault.” That’s worse than the “devil made me do it” excuse. The “I can’t help it, I’m not responsible for my actions” excuse-making is bull honkey. This is Christianity? Of course bright young people who actually think critically run from it. And they should.
That teaching, with that WHOPPER of an excuse, is right in line with forgive the child molester.
Brian, You engaged me directly. I answered your questions, with not much of a response back from you. Now will you answer me? Where’s your concern for the children? I’ve mentioned it several times & how your doctrine enabled this behavior. But you just keep dodging my answers, parroting other stuff you’ve been told, ignoring my concern for them. Your lack of empathy is underwhelming.
LikeLike
JoeJoe said:
“Them telling that lie does not now mean that they cannot go to heaven.”
My response:
It tells me that they are not Christians to begin with. They were never converted. They never repented. No real conversion, no real repentance, no real contrition.
Do Christians sin? Yes. But ALL sin is JUDGED. For a Christian it is known as chastisement. But those sins are not done on purpose. This is known as struggling with sin, and we STILL must ask for forgiveness of those bumps in the road.
Romans 7:15-25
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
But for those who sin “on purpose”, I don’t call them Christians at all. NOT AT ALL. They are fake and phoney. Tares. Wolves. Anti-Christ.
Justifying sin is never a good thing, even as a Christian.
LikeLike
JA,
lololol…HOT…Got it!!! Reminds me of a “WELCOME BACK KOTTER” episode of a joke at the end of the show.
A swimmer was getting ready to dive into a swimming pool. He asks a man near the pool, “Hows the water?” The man responds, “LUKE warm”. So the swimmer dives in, and comes up screaming that it’s ice cold. The man then said, “IT LOOK WARM TO ME”.
Ed
LikeLike
A Mom,
I notice a LOT, no matter when venue I am debating the C’s from, but apparently they have certain buzz words to throw back at us, such as “strawman”. That’s a popular one. I don’t get that from most other religions. There are other buzz words, too, that they use.
LikeLike
JA, Can you remind me why we can’t call it Calvinism?
I don’t think I’ve typed Calvinism at all today. But, if we see a 4 legged, hairy barker who sits, rolls over & wags it tail & tells us they are a dog (see what Brian said below) then it’s helpful to just call it “dog”.
Brian said, “I have a Christ- centered hermeneutic because of people like Chandler, Begg, Keller, Elyse Fitzpatrick, Ed Clowney, Ray Ortland, Tchividjian, Dever, and yes, Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon, just to name a few.”
I think he has a misrepresentation of Christ hermeneutic, BTW. It more apostle Paul-centered, IMO. Anyway, this hermeneutic enables evil-doers. Just look at the enabling & traction CON gets from the Calvinist camp, from Miano to 9Marks.
LikeLike
“Side notes: is the plural for campus = campi – LOL?”
I don’t know. “Campuses” did not sound right. And I once read that the plural of madras was madri which cracked me up because isn’t a plaid already inherently plural?. Perhaps I am overstepping proper grammatical boundaries?
LikeLike
Ed said:
JoeJoe said:
“Them telling that lie does not now mean that they cannot go to heaven.”
My response:
It tells me that they are not Christians to begin with. They were never converted. They never repented. No real conversion, no real repentance, no real contrition
Sounds now like you are judging a person’s heart, something which only God can do. So I guess since becoming a Christian, you have never once lied, bragged, been prideful, lusted, coveted, been unfair to your kids (if you have any), said something that hurt your wife’s feelings (if you are married), etc etc, etc. By your own standard, that would mean you are not a Christian. You cannot honestly say that anytime you would have done any of these things that it was on “accident”.
You are saying two contradictory statements and calling them both true. You say that Christians sin in one breath, but in another say that a there is no such thing as a Christian who sins.
LikeLike
JA said, “I thought I was the smoking hot wife because of my red hair and my ranting.”
LOL. Smoking hot wife is Version1.0 But it’s been updated. Version 2.0 is: deeply smoking hot gospel wife. 😉
LikeLike
Another tweet on 1/23/13 from fakejohnpiper: “You’re so narcissistic you probably think the tweet I sent your elders recommending discipline for questioning me on Twitter is about you”
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
I’ve read some of those same things. There was an article quite a few months back on the Huffington Post about this as well. I don’t see how these conservatives are objectifying women, because in the real sense of the word, objectify, it goes against the principles of conservatism. Besides that, they are against feminism, and totally for modesty. So, are they inviting people to lust after their SMOKING HOT WIFE? They certainly want people to look just by that statement. And what about the trained modest wife? What is she to think in her trained modesty mindset about being introduced as smoking hot?
LikeLike
JoeJoe said:
“Sounds now like you are judging a person’s heart”
YES, I AM. Jesus told us how to do it. Did you miss that piece of scripture?
Your actions reflect your heart.
The Bible NEVER said that only God can judge your heart.
Ed
LikeLike
It’s not a hard and fast rule. I’m requesting that we address the specific issues with Calvinism. Here’s my reasoning. There is a continuum with Calvinism. I don’t think a lot of people fully understand Calvinism. I don’t think I’m dumb, but I’ve been in many churches over the 40+ yrs I’ve been a Christian and never got it until this past year. I’ve known Calvinists who call themselves 5 pointers who say they have just scratched the surface of Calvinism. When someone says they are Calvinist, we can’t know exactly what they mean until they bring it down to nuts and bolts and then we may find that they are only a 2 pt Calvinist with some wishy-washy thrown in there for good measure. Do you see what I mean?
I’m requesting that we bring it down to the specific nuts and bolts and address those issues within the larger umbrella of Cavinism. It keeps it more understandable. If you want to label it as going along with Calvinist doctrine, have at it, but let’s get back to the specific issue.
I think when we bring it down to the nuts and bolts and then discuss the ramification of those nuts and bolts and the resulting thinking/behavior, it is very helpful.
Ie, I mentioned that the idea that all babies are born in sin could have been a big contributing factor to lots of teachers/books on spanking babies. We were taught to spank the sin out of our babies. I now would call this abuse. The abuse was a direct result of the doctrinal belief that all babies were born in sin.
Does that clear it up for you?
Another thought: if you are to say all Calvinists are abusive, it just causes conflict and defenses to go up. Pastor Jeff Crippen is Calvinist. He’s a friend of mine. I have not seen him as abusive. I see him as a huge defender of the oppressed/abused. I also have interacted with Pastor Wade Burleson who identifies as Calvinist. I will refer people to him based on how he interprets key scripture (Hebrews 13 – on church authority). I cannot make a blanket statement that all Calvinists are abusive. It’s just too cut and dry. It’s better to get to those nuts and bots so there is common understanding. It takes a lot more work that way, but I think it’s respectful dialogue. (Which is what I see here for the most part – minus some ranting redhead who loses it every once in a while.)
LikeLike
JoeJoe,
If you think I am being contradictory, then you haven’t read the Bible, because the Bible talks about Christians who sin. The Bible also talks about fake and phoney Christians. The Bible talks a lot about how to identify BRETHREN.
I just quoted you Romans 7 about Paul sinning as a Christian, NOT ON PURPOSE.
I will also show another that would appear contradictory:
1 John 1:8-9
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Now see:
1 John 3:8-9
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Ed
LikeLike
I don’t think we are going to come to agreement at all on this one Ed. I have a HUGE doctrincal disagreement with you on this one. You are telling me that you can tell, based on what kind of sin a person commits, whether or not they are a Christian.
So there is a husband, who has professed faith in Christ. He will still occasionally “struggle with sin” which you and I seem to agree that Christians do. But these are sins that he doesn, on “accident.” Overall though he is a good guys, loves his wife, and takes care of his family, and seeks to serve God. He hasn’t gotten to go play basketball with his buddies for a long time and really wants to. His wife wants him home for dinner every night though, so he doesn’t get to play. Occasionally he does have to work late, which his wife understands and doesn’t have a problem with. So one day, he decides to lie to his wife. He tells her that he has to work late, when really he goes and plays ball with his friends.
Based on what you have described, a lie is a sin you commit on purpose. Now, this guy’s whole life, he has shown to be a man that tries to follow after God. This one time though, he purposely lies. Based on your standards you would be telling this guy, “You aren’t a Christian. Christians NEVER lie! You need to repent! If you don’t and die on the way home, you’re going to hell!” You are basing his salvation not on Christ’s sacrife for him, but on his deeds, which the Bible is quite clear is wrong.
LikeLike
One of the problems with using the C word is folks start researching Calvin and find he was a micromanaging tyrannical thug (his second time around in Geneva when he was given his required power to come back) who agreed with torturing, imprisoning and even burning people at the stake for disagreeing with his systematic theology. I highly recommend reading secular history on the Reformation and secular bios on the big players. It is a shocker. It is enough to make anyone question the doctrine in totality.
However, if one tracks this doctrine throughout history, you can see how it flares up and dies out usually going liberal or dying out. We can see the church/state of Geneva which persecuted believers who disagreed with Calvins ST and said so publicly. We can see how it played out with Apartheid and the Boers in S. Africa. We can see how it played out with the Puritans who banished, tortured and burned people for disagreeing with the elders. We can see how it played out in the South with slavery. (Read Boyce’s bio authored by Broadus)
Thing is, it it’s pure form, it does not last. It can’t without coercion. The descendants of the Puritans for the most part became Unitarians in the NE. An interesting thing is the rogue womanizer Aaron Burr was Jonathan Edwards’ grandson! (So much for covenant families! But my fav is that Edwards has a woman Presbyterian preacher as descendent, too!). Can anyone name a Founding Father who was a Puritan? Most were Deists who believed in self determination. Thankfully!!! Can you imagine being under the Puritan form of government where they burned women for trying to use pain killer herbs in labor? Where they wiped out Indian tribes who refused to sell them land? Ever read Cotton’s treatise on why it is ok to wipe them out? Those Puritan leaders were brutal. No love of God in them and all this nostalgia about the Puritans scares me because people have no real clue about history. They really think the Pilgrims were sweet. They believe whatever they are told and only read what is approved for them or suggested for them.
Today, many mainline Calvinists (such as PCAUSA) are more into the social issues and don’t push the determinism. The problem is that the determinism isn’t applicable practically in every day life. Man has no volition so is waiting around for his elder who has some special knowledge (Gnosticism) to tell him if he is saved or not or whether he has to navel gaze his sin more.
I suspect this YRR is a trend that will pass in time as we know it today. In the meantime many bodies are in it’s wake and more atheists will come out of it. Any religion that upholds CJ Mahaney’s teaching and behavior at PDI/SGM shepherding cult as doctrinally pure as Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Piper, Bridges, Ortlund, Truman and many others have done— has no moral credibility. And yes, they are the big gurus of this movement. And I am astonished people still listen to them at all.
LikeLike
JoeJoe,
Like I said, if you cannot identify a Christian by his deeds, then you haven’t fully read the Bible to understanding.
It’s mentioned quite a bit. But here is an example:
Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Matthew 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Matthew 15:18
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
1 John 3:16
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1 John 2:5
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
I could go on and on about how Jesus uses examples of bearing fruit, etc.
No fruit, no Christian.
Ed
LikeLike
JoeJoe, I think you misunderstand sin. it is standard fare to teach that we are so totally depraved our thoughts are sinful and we cannot escape no matter what. Once you make the flesh person totally evil (total inability) just existing is a sin. The fact you exist is sin. That is the conclusion from that dualistic thinking.
Sins are what we DO. We are judged on what we DO or don’t do. Actions.
Why are we told to take every thought captive? So it won’t lead to practicing sin.
There is a reason you rarely hear some pastors preach on Hebrews 10 (even though they LOVE Hebrews 13). They don’t really like ALL of 1 John or James either. (Neither did Luther. He wanted it out of the canon)
I once heard a very irenic and well loved Calvinist pastor teach that Hebrews 10 does not apply to us today.
The bottom line is that there is no place for the Holy Spirit in your ST thinking. The false dichotomy is sinless perfection or totally evil. And it is false. A lie. The dichotomy is “walking in the light” or walking in the dark. We are either “practicing sin” or practicing Holiness.
Deceiving people about doctrine or agenda’s is a sin. Intentions do not matter. hearts do not matter. Motives do not matter. ACTIONS/Words matter. That is all we can go by.
LikeLike
JoeJoe said:
“Now, this guy’s whole life, he has shown to be a man that tries to follow after God. This one time though, he purposely lies. Based on your standards you would be telling this guy, “You aren’t a Christian. Christians NEVER lie! You need to repent! If you don’t and die on the way home, you’re going to hell!” You are basing his salvation not on Christ’s sacrife for him, but on his deeds, which the Bible is quite clear is wrong.”
My response: Are you justifying his sin? This isn’t a story of struggling with sin. This is a story of sinning on purpose.
What happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to the Holy Ghost?
Ed
LikeLike
Thanks, JA. I commented on this on WW last week:
“Pastor Jeff Crippen is a defender of the sheep. Especially when it comes to abuse. I do not believe he is power hungry. Nor do I believe Wade Burleson is either. I see them getting their hands dirty. Living as servants.
What I have seen is that many control hungry leaders are attracted to a “Calvin’s Geneva” style of church. What that means is extreme church discipline. That is not to say non-Calvinistic churches don’t have their power hungry as well. But if you look around at the state of the church today, you will see many popular leaders espousing Calvin’s doctrine, practicing extreme church discipline as he did, with a wasteland of results.”
LikeLike
JoeJoe,
By the way, how did the Apostles KNOW that Ananias and Sapphira lied to begin with? It was revealed to them by the Holy Ghost.
We are supposed to LISTEN to the Holy Ghost. He speaks, but are you listening? Or is that just an idiom?
Ed
LikeLike
Help! What’s ST thinking?
LikeLike
Systematic Theology. The bain of my existence. That, along with all these creeds which were political!
LikeLike
Ah yes – that ST. I know we have Grudem’s around here somewhere. I know, I know . . . . . .
LikeLike
JoeJoe said, “Based on your standards you would be telling this guy, “You aren’t a Christian. Christians NEVER lie! You need to repent! If you don’t and die on the way home, you’re going to hell!””
It’s not that Christians never lie, JoeJoe. Based on the man you describe: He knows full well that lying is wrong, a sin. He does & is following Jesus. His well-developed conscience would be whispering to him, the Holy Spirit would be nudging him. He will feel uneasy. He will repent to his God & wife & make amends. He will not want to do it again, knowing it is not right, not God’s will, knowing God hates wrong-doing. See, practical teaching on how to live is not coming from these camps.
These camps teach this instead: Total depravity. Inability to please God. Election, hey it’s a crap shoot. God’s in control, I’m not responsible for my actions. They teach we sin because we are sinners AKA inherited inability drives their bad action. Want to teach your child this kind of lifestyle that removes all personal ability & responsibilty? Does that make for an abundant life?
Also, wrong-doing as a habit is hard to break, it takes time & effort to make doing right a habit. Habits are hard to break. This is why we don’t want to get into the habit of wrong-doing. Again, practical teaching on how to live is not coming from these camps. People aren’t getting the help & encouragement they need there.
LikeLike
A Mom – – This kind of comparison is so helpful. There is so much info in this thread. If I had unlimited resources, I’d hire someone to compile and organize these comments into subjects. Really!
LikeLike
Chapmaned24 said, “A Mom, I notice a LOT, no matter when venue I am debating the C’s from, but apparently they have certain buzz words to throw back at us, such as “strawman”. That’s a popular one. I don’t get that from most other religions. There are other buzz words, too, that they use.
I’ve seen that strawman excuse a lot also. Well, if it’s such a strawman then knock it down with reasons & quit wailing about it. Frankly, the accusation doesn’t bother me. I don’t pull out the strawman card, it’s just not my style. Intelligent people can read the comments & come to their own conclusions.
What bothers me is that we hear practically nothing from their camp each time I try to turn the attention to the horrid treatment of children & the lack of responsibility & integrity that’s obvious to many of us but not to them. And the horrible treatment of good folks by heavy-handed, but soft-spoken or gentle-appearing control freak pastors.
When will they turn their attention & efforts toward that?
LikeLike
A mom, based on your comment about sin check this out
LikeLike
This is one LONG comment thread. Well over 500, which I think is some kind of record. Given that, some impressions of Lydia’s comment way above:
Something I read online about Augustine some years ago. it pointed out that Monica’s son Auggie was a real horndog in his younger days and after his conversion was a celibate monastic. In neither case did he ever have the chance to relate to women as people. Before they were sex objects and afterwards they were Forbidden Fruit. And that sexual baggage would have influenced his theology.
This reminds me of a trope I see among Brony (My Little Pony Fandom) fanart and fanfic — “Tyrantlestia” or “Celestia the Impaler”, where the artist/writer recasts Princess Celestia (the benevolent, approachable, and even playful god-figure in the show) into an amoral vicious tyrant worthy of Baba Saddam or Kim Jong-Il. (Whose control-freak cruelty is carefully hidden behind a benevolent exterior and propaganda machine.) And there are responsive fanfics where Celestia’s heart is broken by this, that her little ponies could think of her in that way.
Mohammed was also into Predestination, and Islam is known for its Determinist view of God — “In’shal’lah…”
LikeLike
Lydia, Julie Anne, Chapmaned, Everybody:
THIS IS CALLED “SALAMI TACTICS”, OR HOW TO PULL A TAKEOVER/COUP IN LITTLE INCREMENTS, BOILING THE FROG EVER SO SLOWLY. IT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF COMRADE STALIN’S PLAYBOOK. THAT WAS HOW STALIN WAS ABLE TO TAKE OVER EASTERN EUROPE AFTER WW2. THAT EXACT TRICK.
LikeLike
Why do you think they preach against homosexuality a LOT more than they do against divorce? Never know when you might need an escape route yourself.
And re “Parading the Smokin’ Hot Wife” in general, it’s just the Alpha Male showing off his Alpha Female before all the Beta to Omega males. Just like a high school jock parading his cheerleader girlfriend before all the losers. “LOOK WHAT I GOT THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
LikeLike
Brian, and all
Haven’t heard from you, Brian in many hours, so I figured that I would lay this out once again, as you have yet to respond to anyone for a number of hours.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
When sin is dead, it has no power. Sin only has power when sin is alive.
If you are dead to sin, then you are alive to God. If you are alive in sin, then you are dead to God (dead in sin and trespasses).
Romans 3:20
…the law is the knowledge of sin.
1 John 3:4
…sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 5:13
…sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 5:13
sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So, let’s see how this works in regards to Paul in Romans 7
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
That fourth word, “alive” is in regards to spiritually alive, which IS “not separated from God”. That last word , “died” is in regards to spiritual death, which IS separation from God.
Paul was SPIRITUALLY alive before he had KNOWLEDGE of the law.
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So, let’s put this in order:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Once you die spiritually, you must be born again spiritually. The word AGAIN has significance.
When we are born of the flesh, we are also born of the spirit.
Knowledge of good and evil is a prerequisite to spiritual death.
Once we die that spiritual death, we must be born again…a spiritual resurrection from spiritual death.
The age of accountability is WHEN YOU GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, regardless of age.
Now, getting back to Romans 5:
Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Moses, being everyone under the law of Moses). Verse 14
Under Jesus, death does not reign.
Verse 12 is the physical death of the body, whereas verse 14 is spiritual death.
In regards to verse 12, however, if you dissect 1 Cor 15:36-50, you will see that Adam was formed in a NATURAL dying body anyway. So, he was going to die a natural death anyhow.
There was a tree of life that he was to eat from in order to have OBTAINED eternal life. That was the WHOLE purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden.
He could have gotten eternal life EVEN IN A FALLEN STATE, but Angels blocked access to the Tree of Life so that he wouldn’t and couldn’t.
And due to the fact that he ate of the tree of death, he died a spiritual death IN THAT DAY.
Then God told him that he would return to dust where he came from. That was his body, of course. The reason that God told him that was NOT BECAUSE he LOST eternal life, but because he never obtained it.
What was the name of that tree in the Garden?
Whatever that name is, please remember that name.
Is the PROMISED LAND nothing more than a piece of real-estate for the Jews, or is it also a spiritual interpretation of heaven?
Your answer to that is important.
Who got to go there, and why?
1. Those who have faith
a. Caleb,and
b. Joshua
2. Those who fall under Deuteronomy 1:39. NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Possess what? The Promised Land. What was the name of that tree in the Garden?
Now go back to Adam and Eve in the Garden BEFORE the fall. They had no knowledge of good and evil. Once they got knowledge, they died, spiritually.
That is the same with babies, just as it was for the Apostle Paul in Romans 7.
That is everyone’s life cycle. Innocent, until knowledge.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
Did you miss that the people of whom I spoke early this morning are my grandparents? I specifically told you so. Do you not understand the grief this doctrine of eternal conscious torment causes me on their behalf? On your own blog you claim it is your desire that we might find delight in knowing the truth about who our creator is and what he has done for us. Do you not understand that, according to the doctrine you appear to espouse, one thing our creator has done for me is that he has consigned to eternal conscious torment the only two people to walk this Earth (other than Jesus) who may have loved me more than my own parents? Yes, this bothers me.
I shared my heart with you. You responded (today, 7:54 AM) by platitudinously regurgitating the “proof” texts of a supposed gospel, the effect of which is to confirm the consignment to eternal torment of two of the people in my life who remain most deeply ingrained in my affections.
Did I use the word “regurgitating?” Yes, the “gospel” with which you responded to me is but the pouring of a bucket of month old, putrid puke on the memory of my grandparents. God is love. Your “gospel” is without love. Therefore, it is false.
. . . if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:9-10. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 Jn 2:23.
To whom do these verses apply?
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:9-10. And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” Rev 5:13.
(All Scripture ESV)
LikeLike
I’d use the word “doubleplusduckspeak INGSOC”.
(i.e. reciting The Party Line without engaging any neuron above the brainstem.)
LikeLike
Or he hit you with a full-auto barrage of Bible Bullets.
Or what the Moonies call “Thought Stoppers”.
LikeLike
“Thought stoppers.”
That’s good. It would seem the Moonies may have more integrity than these T4G and TGC types. At least the Moonies are admitting admit what they are doing.
If Brian deigns from on high to respond to my previous, it will be amusing to see if he attempts any more thought stoppers.
LikeLike
Brian,
If you don’t mind telling us, how old are you? Were you home schooled? If so, were your parents influenced by Doug Phillips? Do you have a college degree? If so, from where? If given the choice, which Christian College would you prefer to attend, Bob Jones University or Wheaton College?
LikeLike
On further reflection, I would suggest that the whole C-based T4G, TGC, YRR, NC, CBMW endeavor is based on a process of thought stopping indoctrination. Adherents of this movement actually cannot hear any voices other than their own. Grudem, Piper et al are endowed with omniscience, such that every reading of the Bible must be tested and sanctioned by them. There is simply no room for their doctrinaire teachings to be subjected to the test of Scripture. To bring this comment back to the topic at hand, Grudem and Piper are afforded more de facto authority in matters of doctrine and social organization than God Himself.
LikeLike
Gary, I like how NT Wright put it in the video I shared above. He said As believers, “Love is not our duty, it is our destiny”.
That movement has their own definition of love which means their idea of correct doctrine. It is the thought reform method of “doctrine over people”. What really gets to me though is in all my blog debates with them over the years they will come on like Brian (demanding to know if Julie Anne submits to her elders) and go round after round with you then accuse you of not being loving toward them!
Nah, we are just not the doormats they require for their movement.
LikeLike
Doormats that pick themselves up from off the floor at the feet of their “betters” and fight back against these self-proclaimed gods of thought. It’s a beautiful thing.
LikeLike
Gary, Take a look at the convention center filled with T4G young men if you can find a picture. That is what they are “young men”. Thousands of them. The ones who could afford the trip. Well, I take that back, many could not afford it. One stayed with us at the request of a friend of ours from another state. We were happy to put him up even though we totally disagree with the T4G paradigm. He was completely broke and had a wife and daughter at home. There is nothing decent except more expensive food near the convention center so I made him some lunches to take with him as I was sure he probably would go without.
My biggest challenge was keeping my 90 year old step dad quiet about Al Mohler! (He remembers the days some of his acquaintances were forced out of SBTS even losing retirement after 30 years service by the then 34 year old Mohler so he is not real fond of him. Can you get more unseemly? A man in his 60’s is fired for disagreeing with Mohler the then 34 year old? Can you say power trip?)
Nothing was more important than his attending T4G. Not his wife or his daughter’s financial well being. I kept wondering what he would do if his car broke down driving back 8 hours.
That is what we are dealing with in that movement. I could not help but think of some folks I used to know that got caught up with Amway and were like that..
LikeLike
Lydia, you seem to describe fervor without faith–faith that proves itself by its works.
LikeLike
Oh Gary. Works has become a verboten word. But where else can true faith go since we are to be the kingdom now? Faith without works is dead. Love is an action word.
LikeLike
Lydia, my blood has been boiling since I read that these SB’s (Southern Baptists) stole your father’s retirement.
Brian, if you will condescend to answer, why should I not think the theft of a 60 year old man’s retirement an unmitigated act of evil?
I must leave, else I could/would go on.
LikeLike
Gary, Correction. Not my step dads retirement (who was a businessman but deacon and messenger in the SBC for 70 years) but people he had known for a long time who had worked at SBTS for many years.
One was Paul Debusman.
You can read about him here:
http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2007/09/whatever-became-of-paul-debusman.html
This was long before the internet exploded. There were also a lot of women faculty let go.
LikeLike
So in a very real sense, religion is not only like a business, it is a business, when it can hire and fire people “at will”. And we pay for their salaries, and retirement, and yet, we have no say in the matter.
I wonder how that concept would work with the shareholders on Wall Street. Who would buy shares in that kind of a company?
Tithes is 10%, and if everyone gave 10%, then we have an equal say in the business. Especially since the tithes were, by the law of Moses, set up for the priests, and now we are the priests. That money belongs to us. Some may argue that it belongs to God. Well, if God lives in us, then it is for us, equally, as we have need.
Ed
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple wrote~
“Nothing was more important than his attending T4G. Not his wife or his daughter’s financial well being.”
I can hardly believe that. Is it because that’s where he will hear “the real” gospel and he just had to go? Sad thing is I think he would be lauded by the T4G “types” for his love for God by sacrificing all to attend…as if God makes a special visit to T4G conferences. Listening online is just not enough. You must BE THERE. That makes me sick. Get real…read your bible and save your money.
LikeLike
Ed, one of the dirty little secrets is that churches do not have to follow labor laws. They don’t, for the most part, participate in unemployment, either. Para church orgs might have different laws they have to follow but it is still “at will” employment.
You put yourself at great risk going to work for one. Everyone needs to be warned about this. So many people have trusted Christian leaders and think they are going to work with Christians when it has been WORSE than any secular organization they have ever worked in because it is done in the Name of Jesus. And it is one reason why so many look the other way when evil is being perpetuated. They have a mortgage and they know what will happen if they dare stand up for right. These systems end up turning decent people into sustaining and perpetuating evil. I saw it for years in the mega seeker world. It is almost as if you have to sell your soul to go to work in one.
LikeLike
Diane, I am convinced T4G has serious cult tendencies. Can you tell me why it has any followers left since all the things have come out about Mahaney’s methods/behavior/teaching at PDI/ SGM? He is one of the 4 MAIN faces of T4G.
Why aren’t these young men totally questioning everything they were taught and believed from these men? How could their leaders have been so undiscerning and unwise? How could they be so cold hearted concerning children?
They won’t question such things because they have been taught to submit to authorities as being the most important thing. To question them is a sin of sorts. So they defend and make excuses for what is pure evil.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
When I was a kid, I went to a church down the street from me. The pastor had a full time job as an electrician, and he lived in a parsonage with his family (wife and 2 kids), which was located 10 feet from the side of the church. This was back in the 70’s. I don’t live in that part of the state anymore, but it seems that small town churches are more intimate, and more compassionate, and more, well, more everything.
I also remember as a kid, at that same church, that us kids participated in tearing down a wall in the church’s Sunday school class to make two rooms into one big room. There was no expensive contractor called in, etc. It was all church people, chipping in their time, and we kids had fun destroying a wall.
Oh, to go back to those days of simplicity.
Ed
LikeLike
Diane,
Sometimes I look at the website’s advertising these “conferences”. It seems to be a money making scheme. Most of them all have the phrase, “And the bookstore will be open”.
How rich are these folks, selling their books? I say to get rid of all them books, all of them, and give the Bible away for free. The only book that needs to be sold is the Bible only, and the cost will be FREE. No debit or credit card accepted, no cash accepted. No reservations needed. Special speakers need not be there, unless they can pay for their own trip, lodging, food, etc., and the audience is local, not international, where admission is free.
As the Apostle Paul stated, he robbed other churches to be there.
2 Corinthians 11:8
I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
Ed
LikeLike