* * *
ADMIN NOTE: The comments are closed on this thread and a new one has opened here:
It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2
The other record-breaking thread is getting really long with comments and so I thought it might be good to let Brian’s new comment have its own thread since it’s on one topic. I’m doing something I’ve never done before. We’re going to let this post be an open post on Calvinism. Many of the people I cover in abuse stories come from either Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist background. That’s not to say there are not abuse issues within Arminian churches (i.e., Calvary Chapel). I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are Calvinist who certainly are not abusive. In fact, they defend the oppressed/abused. We have to be careful about those kinds of blanket statements. But there may be some truth to the idea that some doctrines may be a better “breeding” ground for abusive-type leaders.
So, in light of Brian’s comment below, let’s go for it. And okay, I give up . . . go ahead and spell out that “C” word if you want – LOL 🙂
* * *
* * *
Ed said: “Don’t call yourself a Calvinist if you don’t support everything about John Calvin.”
Ed, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.
Holding to the tenets of what is commonly called Calvinism does NOT equate to agreeing with everything Calvin did or taught.
I am curious…does anyone on here even know what they are talking about when they use the term “Calvinism”? I’d be interested to see some responses. What is Calvinism? You’ve all been railing against it, so I expect you can describe it without having to look it up. If you have to look it up, then why are you so against something about which you actually do not know the details?
* * *
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Brian, you are a glutton for punishment. I’ll give you the accurate answers for about 98% of the responders: No. I don’t know. Because I heard somewhere that it’s bad and I’ve met some people who are mean only because they believe it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That’s funny. While they won’t admit it, your response is probably pretty accurate of their actual knowledge of what Calvinism is about.
LikeLike
Beautiful. The first comment is a snide and sweeping insult to anyone that disagrees with you.
Fortunately for you, Jeff, I’m just the moderator here and not the blog owner. I follow Julie Anne’s lead on what topics she wants to let flow, and the general tone of the discussions, but if it’s going to start off and continue with insults, I’ll probably be deleting a lot of comments.
Remember folks, we’re supposed to be acting like Christians. Since this is now the lead post on the blog, and there are far fewer responses in the comment thread, remember that more people will be reading the comments and what you say and how you say it will reflect upon yourself to many more people than in the other comment thread. Christ commanded us to love one another as He loves us.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Ed, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.”
Then ditch the name. It’s bad PR to keep a name that you don’t believe in his beliefs, because that is the ONLY thing that people will perceive.
Then you will always have to say to people, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.
I’m not buying what you are selling. Who invented Calvinism? John Calvin.
If you stray away from Calvinism, change your name identity to someone else, i.e. Thorntonism.
But you still hold on to the word, Calvinism, Version 28.0, or whatever version number you are on now. It’s still John Calvin no matter how ya slice it.
By the way, INFORM US, what all, and in this case, all means all, of the differences between what Calvinism believes today, vs. what John Calvin preached.
List them ALL please. Every last one of them.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, FP, it’s a good thing most of the readers here wear their big boy/girl undies/panties and can take it 🙂 Carry on.
LikeLike
Ed – I’ve definitely heard of people who are less than 5 pointers call themselves Calvinist: “I’m a 2.5 Calvinist.” It seems odd that if one would only accept half of the 5 in TULIP, they would label themselves as Calvinist.
LikeLike
JA, I am concerned about this one. After 8 years of going around and around with this I have learned that no matter what one says is Calvinism, a YRR/ NC will say that “you don’t understand it at all”. One funny thread from ages ago had people giving blind quotes for Calvinist teaching and the YRR were all over it saying this person knows nothing about it. And they were quotes from current popular leaders of the movement. :o)
I realize TULIP was formed after Calvin and if anyone has slogged through the Institutes they will find it sort of contradictory throughout. I have much more enjoyed reading Calvin’s letters and other things like Defensio to get a feel for what an arrogant tyrannical coward he was and why he enjoyed systematizing Augustine.
Basically that doctrinal tribe will have some variation of a determinist god and dualism. It is more Greek philosophy than the One True God of Abraham.
LikeLike
I’m just concerned about the impression that new people to the blog may get, Julie Anne. I’d hate for someone to avoid commenting due to the general tone of the thread.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Don’t call yourself a Calvinist if you don’t support everything about John Calvin.”
Isn’t that tantamount to proclaiming John Calvin as God?
(And don’t tell me there are not Hyper-Calvinists who are that far gone.)
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
“Ed – I’ve definitely heard of people who are less than 5 pointers call themselves Calvinist: “I’m a 2.5 Calvinist.” It seems odd that if one would only accept half of the 5 in TULIP, they would label themselves as Calvinist”
Yep, they just plucked a few pedals from the Tulip, but the flower is still a tulip. John Calvin’s damaged flower.
All I know, is that I am a 0.0 point Calvinist. That is the only way that John Calvin has nothing to do with it.
Ed
LikeLike
That’s a good call, FP. Thx!
LikeLike
Strong predestination is a logical outcome of TULIP. Everything that happens happens because God willed it. And to me that makes God very unloving and very unlovely, hence to me, predestination denies the character of God in favor of a sovereignly evil dictator.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
“JA, I am concerned about this one. After 8 years of going around and around with this I have learned that no matter what one says is Calvinism, a YRR/ NC will say that “you don’t understand it at all”
That’s also what they say when we tell them that we can’t fathom a cruel God as a tyrant, too.
We just don’t have the saving faith to understand what they do.
Ed
LikeLike
Nice to return from an internet hiatus to a light topic like Calvinism 😉
I’m with Ed- if there are nuances that distinguish Calvin from what his name has come to mean, ditch the association! Or come forward and explain where the NeoCalvinists have veered from the pure form of this supposed enlightened teaching.
My problem with the calvinism/neocalvinism ideas I have heard and read is not the IDEAS, so much as the EMPHASIS. In idea, I agree with much of it. God is in control; I am a sinner; I cannot save myself.
My beef is with the overemphasis, and in some camps, outright obsession with the depravity of man, with God’s sovereignty, and our unworthiness, which leads to a strange application of these ideas. From what I have observed (including in myself), this overemphasis tends to produce an obsession with our helplessness, our unworthiness, our ability to do good. It immobilizes the Christian from the many good things we could be doing to serve Jesus. It gives a free pass not to evangelize, or to do so in a cold, formulaic way. It causes SIN to be the focal point of ones thinking rather than GRACE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strong predestination is a logical outcome of TULIP. Everything that happens happens because God willed it. And to me that makes God very unloving and very unlovely, hence to me, predestination denies the character of God in favor of a sovereignly evil dictator.”
That is a good approach that I have seen before. Talking about God’s attributes/character. To make Sovereignty the front and center attribute tends to redefine it for us. As Piper teaches that God is concerned for His Glory. The focus is wrong and it blasphemes God as some sort of narcissistic tyrant. Or Sproul teaching that God controls every single molecule 24/7. (How can that NOT include evil?)
A wonderful word in the OT is Hesed. I have been bathed in His pure love researching that word. It means so much it is hard to define. It is often translated as “lovingkindness” which does not really get it all in.
When I listen to Piper and other YRR/NC leaders preach, I often think I am listening to them talk about another god I do not know and don’t want to know..
LikeLike
Off the top of my head: While there is a problem with the existence of as many Calvinisms as there are people who claim the nomenclature, at the core of Calvinism is God’s meticulous, exhaustive, unchangeable sovereignty — sovereignty as defined by Calvinists — in that, God, before the creation of the world, did “by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,” as Westminster states the matter.
God’s foreordination of every event includes the notion of unconditional election, in that, God has preselected to save, for His glory and by His own will, those who are redeemed. Given sinner’s total depravity and total inability to receive Christ of their own free will (and all Classical Arminians, including Arminius and the Remonstrants, believe this doctrine as well), God unconditionally elected to save some; Christ died for the unconditionally elect alone; God will irresistibly draw such to Christ by first regenerating them (hence regeneration precedes faith); and He will preserve them unto the end.
This is Calvinism at the core, and this I walked away from over a decade ago, being a former member of a PCA church.
LikeLike
Some of us understand all too well the tendency of tyrants to create a god in their own image…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pretty good synopsis, William Birch. So far, you are the ONLY only one to describe what Calvinism is rather than to wax eloquent on it evils.
An Attorney said:
“predestination denies the character of God in favor of a sovereignly evil dictator.”
Hey Attorney, in light of what you said, how do you deal with this statement in Scripture:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
(Ephesians 1:11 ESV)
This is just the tip of the iceberg of predestination in God’s Word. You may not like it, but it permeates the Scriptures
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks, man! I admit to agreeing with R.C. Sproul, Sr. who said, in essence, that the system of Calvinism works well as a unit — that to take away any of its core elements (thinking of TULIP especially) undermines the system. One should consistently maintain all five components of TULIP because they work well as a system.
As for An Attorney’s comments: Classical Arminians (even semi-Pelagians) believe in Predestination — which, to be specific, is actually a reference to election rather than predestination proper. I, as a convictional Arminian, don’t think that this doctrine makes God an evil dictator.
And, if you don’t mind me pressing this a bit: I don’t even think that the Calvinist view of the matter would make God an evil dictator, given that we are all rebellious creatures by nature. In Calvinism, if God did not graciously elect some unto salvation, NO ONE would be saved.
I’m no fan of Calvinism, but I think we need to be fair here with what Calvinism actually teaches.
LikeLike
Wow, William…I don’t think I have ever agreed so much with an Arminian before. 🙂
Thanks for taking the time to post on here. I appreciate your willingness to actually engage the topic rather than to attack a caricature.
LikeLike
My snark meter gauge is bobbling, Brian.
LikeLike
I feel all warm and gooey inside 😀
LikeLike
As I think most of you know, I’m a Calvinist (a PCA pastor). I haven’t followed the other thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating stuff you’ve all already hashed out. I’d approach this post with two cautions. First, Paul instructs us not to argue over words. I think that includes the word ‘Calvinism’. I don’t mean we shouldn’t discuss and even debate the doctrine. What I mean is arguing over when we should or shouldn’t use the word ‘Calvinism’. In my view that can quickly decay into the kind of talk Paul tells us to avoid.
Secondly, I think blaming traditions for abuse is dangerous since it can actually keep us from facing abuse’s real causes. When the sexual abuse scandals hit the Roman Catholic church there were many who blamed doctrines specific to that tradition (like the celibacy of priests). That all seemed right until we started to realize the extent of sexual abuse in protestant churches. The danger of blame is that in it we can hide and not address problems in our own fellowships and communities.
One of my favorite jokes goes something like this: Question: What did the young Calvinist say after falling down a flight of stairs? Answer: I’m glad that’s over with. What makes that joke funny (at least to me) is an inherent weakness of Calvinism. We Calvinists can make life sound as if it’s something we observe (since it’s all decreed in advance) rather than something we live. Real life is far richer than our theology. How then can I continue to be a Calvinist? I don’t think any theology fully captures God or even reality. Calvinism is the best reading I know of some of the words I find in Scripture. That doesn’t mean I can’t laugh at myself and my many failures when I try to understand and apply the teachings of the Bible. The real danger ins’t a theology, it’s pride. More specifically, it’s the pride that makes us believe we’ve got God all figured out.
LikeLike
Great thoughts, craigvick!
LikeLike
Craig’s comments are spot on, I think, especially given my own offensive behavior — and I’m an Arminian and an egalitarian! I would hate for anyone to blame Arminianism (or egalitarianism) for my sin: that just isn’t fair. I’ve struggled with my own particular demons whilst a Calvinist and an Arminian. Shall we blame both systems for my failures?
Perhaps the notion of abuse in certain circles has little to nothing to do with actual theology but more so with personality traits and/or flaws. And, of course, the root of it all is pride and sin, as noted by Craig.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Hey Attorney, in light of what you said, how do you deal with this statement in Scripture:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
(Ephesians 1:11 ESV)”
My response:
Christians are PREDESTINED to do good works, which also means that the Holy Spirit directs our good works.
It has nothing, AND I MEAN NOTHING to do with predestinating a person for salvation.
I could run circles with you on election, predestination, and choose, chosen, chose, Brian.
Ed
LikeLike
Craig Vick said:
“I feel all warm and gooey inside.”
My response:
Ya gotta be careful with that “goo” word, Craig…if you have been following along in the Guest Post, you know what I am talking about…LOLOLOLOL
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
Hey! I, Sir William Birch the Magnificent, said I feel warm and gooey inside in response to Brian. But now I’m kinda regretting the gooey part, thanks!!! 🙂
LikeLike
craigvick, I agree with you about blaming doctrine for abuse. What I have a problem with his how it has been handled according to some doctrine. At PDI/SGM they taught that all sin was the same and since both the victim and molester were totally depraved sinners then just say sorry, forgive and move on. Since we are all guilty of Adam’s sin and all sins are the same to God, this causes moral chaos. I have not seen this teaching outside of the Calvinism construct. And that does not mean all Reformed types teach this either. But it does fit Calvin’s construct.
Then we see many other NC/YRR leaders totally protect Mahaney. It was said he had correct doctrine and was a strong leader. One problem I see is that authoritarianism/pecking order in Christendom seems to be inherent in Calvinism (the church as arbiter of your salvation, keys to the kingdom stuff, ruling elders, etc)
LikeLike
Ed,
Well, we were created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.
Christians are predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ – Rom.8:29
Christians are predestined for adoption as sons through Jesus – Eph.1:5
The Christian’s eternal inheritance has been predestined – Eph.1:11
God predestined everything that occurred relating to the crucifixion of Jesus – Acts 4:28
I would argue that the Christian’s adoption as a son and his eternal inheritance are relating to his salvation, so I would say, yes, those who are saved are predestined by God to be saved.
LikeLike
“Perhaps the notion of abuse in certain circles has little to nothing to do with actual theology but more so with personality traits and/or flaws. And, of course, the root of it all is pride and sin, as noted by Craig.”
This ignores the fact that both Calvin and this current YRR movement use doctrine to excuse their behavior. How can people ignore Calvin’s behavior and how it fit into his doctrinal beliefs that he systematized, btw.
As I have told my mainline Calvinist friends, you better start speaking out because they are defining it for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia,
Now that is a better point and perspective — not blaming the theology for the abuse, but calling into question the response to the abuse of those who just so happen to also be in the context of Calvinism/NC/YRR.
LikeLike
An important element we could discuss is how, in Calvinism, God’s sovereignty and eternal decree are directly related to abuse, including each detail that led to, happened during, and were consequences of the abuse.
LikeLike
Craig Vick said:
“Paul instructs us not to argue over words”
And yet, Paul argued over words. Different Jesus, different gospel, etc. Words are important.
By definition, a debate is an argument. When you go into court, the attorneys make an argument.
In the KJV in Acts 19:9 Paul disputed daily.
The Greek word used to define this is controvert. Definition of controvert is to argue against, dispute, deny, oppose, debate, discuss.
He had a huge disagreement with Mark, that it split their friendship.
Paul was bold, especially in his scoldings to people’s goofy beliefs.
Foolish Galatians?
Jesus said that if you say, “Thou Fool” that you are in danger of Hell Fire.
In 1 Cor 15:36, Paul said, “Thou Fool”.
I have no idea what the ESV states, but that is how it is stated in the KJV.
Ed
LikeLike
William,
I think Calvin was a spiritual abuser. And I think his doctrine backs him up in it. I think Calvin taught a cruel god. I think Piper teaches a narcissistic god. I think Dever teaches a controlling god. I could go on and one. But they all have the same doctrinal foundational premise:. Determinist god and dualism.
With determinism and dualism at the foundation, what other response could there be in that doctrinal stance?
LikeLike
William Birch,
I think it is pretty well established that the root of the abuse is Calvinism. It draws those who wish to be in control issues. Yes, these issues are with other religions, but not as wide spread. There is a connection, and to deny that is to turn a blind eye.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strong predestination is a logical outcome of TULIP. Everything that happens happens because God willed it. And to me that makes God very unloving and very unlovely, hence to me, predestination denies the character of God in favor of a sovereignly evil dictator. — an Attorney
Calvin and Mohammed were both into Predestination, resolving the Paradox of Evil by putting God beyond Good and Evil — God Wills what God Wills, and who are we to call it “evil”? God wills Good, God wills Evil, at God’s whim. Not only Omnipotent, but Unpredictable, just like the old gods of nature. In’shal’lah…
This defines God as Omnipotent Will, i.e. Infinite POWER. And to be like God (“Godly”), you too come to think of things only as POWER — the Powerful and the Powerless. You can see where this can lead — remember when Calvin got political power over Geneva and acted pretty much like Ayatollah Khomeini when he got political power over Iran?
Also, Calvin was a young LAWYER when the Reformation Wars hit. Law is a realm of precise definitions and exact terminology — natural systems and reality might shade imperceptibly from one state into another (“How Many Hairs Define a Beard?”) but Law requires an exact definition, without any ambiguity. Hence the exact definitions of a legal system.
And Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (his systematic law book regarding God) is about the length of two of LotR’s three volumes. This sounds like an obsessive fanboy trying to work Life, the Universe, and Everything (“42!”) out in exact detail. Like planning out a lifetime minute-by-minute in advance.
LikeLike
I guess I’d have to question how “free” is this “free for all,” because when it comes to Calvinism, I really felt I nailed it with this short piece.
http://paulwilkinson.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/arminianism-and-calvinism-for-beginners/
LikeLike
This ignores the fact that both Calvin and this current YRR movement use doctrine to excuse their behavior…. — Lydia
“Men of Sin” will glom onto any Cosmic-level authority and use it to justify their own actions. Whether that Cosmic-level authority is God’s Omnipotent Will or the Inevitable Dialectic of History.
LikeLike
“This defines God as Omnipotent Will, i.e. Infinite POWER. And to be like God (“Godly”), you too come to think of things only as POWER — the Powerful and the Powerless. ”
This is it. The focus in Calvinism is power. It is “grace” redefined to fit the paradigm. Every sermon, every article is focused on something related to “power”.
And the irony is that Jesus does not fit that paradigm at all which is why I think many of them lean to ESS.
LikeLike
Brian…He did not predestine the PERSON. He predestined what a Christian does…not the person.
LikeLike
Brian puts forth Eph 1:11 in support of his contention for the doctrine of predestination. I propose to look at the immediate context, which speaks of Jesus
“9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite ALL THINGS in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Which is immediately followed by Brian’s verse: “11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his will, . . .” (All verses ESV, emphasis added)
It appears that the counsel of the One who works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of His will is to unite ALL THINGS in Jesus. Well maybe “all” doesn’t mean “all” in v 10, as has been argued with regard to other passages. But in that case, maybe “all” doesn’t mean “all” in regard to the working of His will either.
Yes, yes. It will be fairly easy to argue for a limitation on the application of the “all” who will be united in Jesus, at least based on what I perceive to be certain translate-to-theology choices made by the ESV translators. Still, it appears that our Lord’s redemptive purposes must be viewed as quite expansive. I contend that this, as a minimum, seriously circumscribes the notion of a limited atonement, which occupies the 3rd point on the TULIP pentagram.
LikeLike
William Birch,
Oh, sorry about that mix up about the goo. We had fun with that word in the guest post.
Ed
LikeLike
The Calvinists do not see what the predestination is all about. They only see “We were created in him before the foundation of the world”. Even if they read the rest of the sentence, they only concentrate on that alone. They miss the TO BE.
What was predestined was the “TO BE” subject from the foundation of the earth. We were not created in him before the foundation of the earth.
Ed
LikeLike
Paul, that is priceless.
Ed, that sin goo has guilt for Adam’s sin built right in there, too. Very icky stuff. I don’t understand how Jesus swam around in it for 9 whole months. :o) Perhaps Mary was semi divine? :o)
LikeLike
Dear Brian,
I realize your original comment regarding predestination was directed towards An Attorney. I don’t mean to speak for him/her (or anyone else), but I did want to offer my own thoughts on the topic, until An Attorney has the time to respond. Many may think that my ideas on the matter of predestination aren’t fully formed — which might be true — but please bear with me.
As far as I can see, interpreting the term “predestine” in the strictest sense (i.e. God controlling & micromanaging everything in the universe, including our choices, and especially our choice to trust in Jesus) conflicts with a teaching that is very dear to me. “He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” (2 Peter 3:9 NLT)
As such, I take the scriptural teachings on predestination as an attempt (in imperfect human language) to express the _sovereignty_ of God over all things, but not meticulous control or micromanagement. God is in control, but doesn’t simply control us like puppets. He is (somehow) sovereign over even our choices, but without choosing for us.
I realize this personal interpretation of mine doesn’t spell out the exact mechanics of “predestination”. That’s fine with me. I don’t intend to do so. Such a matter is beyond my understanding, and probably beyond that of the writers of Scripture. What I cannot and will not accept is the notion that God would create people, and not be willing to save them from their fallen state. I simply cannot reconcile that with the notion that “God is love”.
There’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
Paulthinkingoutloud,
I don’t know, man, I always thought of Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States…no, not really. Calvin Klein was who I thought of.
Whenever I am accused of being Arminian, I respond by saying that I am an American. I’ve never been to Russia. Is my English that bad?
LikeLike
“Perhaps Mary was semi divine?” Nah, just immaculately conceived. Either that or else the sin nature is transmitted entirely through the man. I think that has to be it. Otherwise, there is still a pesky little problem having to do with Mary swimming around unaffected in all that sin goo for 9 months.
LikeLike
A mom, I hope you don’t mind but this statement you made on the last long thread is so important, I wanted to bring it here:
“I will never tell children, “Let’s pray that God will change our hearts or some person’s heart”. We are each responsible for our own behavior, NOT GOD. This teaching indoctrinates children into thinking they are helpless or off the hook for their own behavior.”
Amen and Amen. I could not agree more. This is akin to teaching the abused wife to pray for her husband to change his heart. This puts the onus on her for his salvation. She did not pray enough or the right way, etc, etc. It is a dangerous teaching.
LikeLike
@craigvick wrote:
Is Calvinism the best reading of agape love, and if yes, then how so? If it’s ok for God to love only some people and hate the rest enough to condemn them to eternal torture for no real reason, then why is it not acceptable to God for us to only love people that we choose.
This is the problem that I see with Calvinism(and other systematic theologies), that it looks solely within the words of the Bible to posit a concept of God without extending those concepts to a conclusion of what that concept of God logically is outside of the limits of scripture.
If “God is love” and the five points of Calvinism are both equally true, then love has very little value at all, and ‘God’ is not a god worthy of worship. A ‘God’ that limits his own love to certain people while commanding any person to love everyone is obviously a ‘God” that doesn’t practice what he preaches.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
“Ed, that sin goo has guilt for Adam’s sin built right in there, too. Very icky stuff. I don’t understand how Jesus swam around in it for 9 whole months. 😮 ) Perhaps Mary was semi divine? 😮 )”
My response:
I’ve argued words with the Catholics about this topic several times, as they think that Mary was just as sinless as Jesus, for they equate Jesus in Mary as The Law of Moses in the ARK of the covenant. Mary is just an ARK of the New Covenant, they say, and therefore was sinless, therefore, Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
Immaculate conception. Funny, as a person that was never a Catholic to begin with, as a kid, I always thought immaculate conception was nothing more than equating the term “virgin birth”. Little did I know.
There is so much confusion about Mary, and Jesus in the Augustine world.
Ed
LikeLike
God predestined you to hell. But it’s all your fault. God gets the glory. It’s for his good will and pleasure that you suffer eternal torture.
Straw man? I think not.
LikeLike
Sure, Lydia.
Oops. I just made my last comments on the old thread. As you can tell, I’m running behind. Yikes, I just can’t keep up! My comments there are in reply to some older comments there as well. I’ll try to catch up.
LikeLike
Serving Kids in Japan,
I don’t know. Maybe you just made a predestinarian out of me. Your verse makes it clear that God wants to save everybody: “He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” (2 Peter 3:9 NLT), Then combine this with Brian’s proof text verse: “[He]works all things according to the counsel of his will,” (ESV)
It’s as plain as day. God, being sovereign, always gets His way. His desired way is to save everybody. It’s all foreordained/predestined, with or without human free will. At least this makes more sense to me than a hard predestination where God desires one thing (that everyone will repent), but nevertheless consigns some/many/most to eternal conscious torment.
Either God predestines everyone to repentance (including through the soft predestination for which you argue), because that is what he wants, or else he gives us complete free will, with the result that He forgoes the satisfaction of His own wishes. Were my analysis in this comment to prove to be correct, I should prefer the predestinarian option.
Except that gets us back to being mere automatons, at least as to the end result, if not as to the intervening process. Decisions, decisions.
Maybe I should be content to simply pursue Jesus.
LikeLike
Wow, you guys – ha! I have a lot to catch up on.
Lydia said:
I readily admit I am still learning about Calvinism. And I am 100% sure that we will not solve all of the debatable issues on this thread. But feel free to try 🙂 I have always had one strong stance on the subject. I am a Christian and it bothers me that people will say they are Calvinist and refer so much to Calvinism. Why should that dude get so much credit (or any other doctrine for that matter)? I guess I’m too simplistic when I think Jesus should get my time, not Calvin.
Another thing – – this TULIP thing has always cracked me up. To hear a guy talk about Tulips – I don’t know, it makes me think of Tiny Tim.
But one more thing about TULIP is that it, too, is man-made. I jokingly said to my very dear friend Michelle (who was my lifeline during the lawsuit and happens to call herself Calvinist) that next year someone will come up with DAFFODIL and TULIP will go by the wayside. She is still my very close friend and we laugh and argue and have a heck of a lot of respect for each other because the bottom line is that we love each other deeply and won’t let a TULIP or CALVIN or CON or anything get in the way of our precious friendship. The foundation of our relationship is Jesus and we’re sure of that.
LikeLike
I never could have guessed, Ed. 😉
Well, Calvinism rolls of the tongue much more easily than Thorntonism.
LikeLike
RP – I agree, nice light topic, right? LOL
I agree with 100% of your comment. What puzzles me is CON/BGBC are Calvinist, yet they are huge on evangelism. That is different from most.
LikeLike
Craig said:
Excellent, excellent comment, Craig. You’ve got some chutzpah to call yourself a Calvinist AND a (close your eyes, Amos) pastor here. Bravo! 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve always thought this, too, William. Because otherwise, how could Wade Burleson and Jeff Crippen and Craig Vick and so many others be Calvinist and yet huge defenders of the abused/oppressed? I think personality definitely plays into it.
LikeLike
Lydia said:
YES!!! Bingo! This is the kind of pattern that I have observed over and over again. The patterns reveal so much and when you see it replayed in multiple Calvinist churches with ego-maniac pastors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fiat Pax – What I said was accurate to my experience on this and other blogs. I have sometimes even requested that discussions be respectful; it doesn’t matter – the anger and name-calling soon develops. One can quote from Calvin or from Scripture – it’s to no avail. People have made up their minds and that’s it.
LikeLike
William Birch said, “An important element we could discuss is how, in Calvinism, God’s sovereignty and eternal decree are directly related to abuse, including each detail that led to, happened during, and were consequences of the abuse.”
By far the worst element of Calvinism, for someone who actually experienced abuse. I was made a victim of a pedophile ring at a very young age. According to some, God chose to decree evil instead of good in each instance, designing and therefore on some level willing EVERY. SINGLE. HORRIFYING. DETAIL!
Such blasphemous and distorted teaching causes tremendous pain and confusion, only harming an abused person even more. I am still trying to recover from the terrible damage.
The truth is that God is our defender, supporter and healer, and has created us with the freedom that belongs to beings made in his image. He is not a two-faced liar, pretending to hate evil, while directing and orchestrating every single detail of that same evil, like a glorious symphony of destruction, in secret.
“God is responsible for the fact of freedom. Humans are responsible for their acts of freedom.” I love this quote – simple and to the point, sums up much of it for me.
I thank my sweet and wonderful Messiah, God who is Love, with all of my heart, for sending me the wonderful help he did, to restore my peace and relationship with him and heal me from such devastating and destructive false doctrine. Party at my house!
LikeLike
Oasis – Wow – what a testimony! Thank you so much for sharing it. Your story illustrated so well the very bad part of Calvinism – – that notion that God is sovereign and allowed evil and abuse to occur to you. It’s so good to read the rest of the story, that you are not held by that message. Can you pinpoint exactly what helped to restore you (if you feel comfortable in doing so)? I think what you described, the yuck stuff (mom lingo), is where many people are stuck, sometimes for years.
How do they get from essentially saying “God is a perpetrator of evil” to “God loves me and hates evil and oppression?” I know a lot of people who want to join your party!
LikeLike
JA, I remembered your description of BGBC “evangelism” practices, if you can call it that. Their behavior actually seems in keeping with the extreme neoCalvinism we are seeing. That is why I qualified my statement about the lack of evangelism with “or cold, formulaic evangelism.” If there is any evangelism among the staunch Calvinists, it must be done with a sense of obligation and authority as God’s elect.
Not out of a sense of awe of the mystery of God and zeal to tell everyone they know about Jesus. Instead, with a downcast sense of drudgery doing God’s will in this horrible sinful place.
The most passionate and sincere evangelists that I know, who love to do the harder work of really getting to know people beyond yelling at them that they are going to hell, are friends who I’ve talked with about this topic who have never even heard of “reformed theology” and “tulip.” They simply love Jesus and want to tell others about His love for them.
I’m not sure this makes me a nonCalvinist. More of a “I wish I never had learned what a Calvinist or Armenian was” type of a Christian.
LikeLike
The problem is that the concept of sovereignty is misunderstood. Sovereignty is the right and ability to rule, but it does not follow that a sovereign always gets his way. In my understanding, God is sovereign and will be the judge, but as judge has compassion and predestined a means of salvation from the consequence of our sin, which is to believe, repent, and accept the gift of grace and forgiveness. What God predestined was Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
LikeLike
Wow, Oasis, your words are so eloquent.
“The truth is that God is our defender, supporter and healer, and has created us with the freedom that belongs to beings made in his image. He is not a two-faced liar, pretending to hate evil, while directing and orchestrating every single detail of that same evil, like a glorious symphony of destruction, in secret.”
So well said. I’m so sorry for the injustice you have suffered. How amazing that God has shown Himself as your defender and healer.
It never settled well even back when I ascribed to that teaching that the overemphasis on God’s sovereignty seemed to result in apathy toward evil and injustice. I heard far too many times from pastors’ mouths a quickness to talk about how God is in control and that he has a reason for everything. True, yes. But only a half truth. God is in control but also loves us deeply and grieves with us in our pain. To rush to the one aspect of His character overlooks another equally important attribute.
LikeLike
Well, those of you who know me from TWW will understand that this is a topic that upsets me a lot.
I wish I could drop the world “Calvinist” because I am NOT a follower of John Calvin, but I do believe in TULIP, so what am I to do?
John Calvin did not come up with TULIP, and in fact Calvin never said anything about “Limited Atonement”. In fact, TULIP was created as a response to Arminianism.
I have never read John Calvin, and I don’t really have any intention to right now.
Most of what gets described as “Calvinism” on TWW when I read there is hyper-Calvinism. The idea that man has no free will and that people are mindless automatons is not Calvinism.
I note that non-Calvinists on TWW can get labels as “Neo-Cals” sometimes (Paige Patterson most recently), showing just how much people link abuse and Calvinism. It makes me sad.
I understand that some people were burned hard by Calvinist churches. Me? It was the Calvinists who showed me the least arrogance, the most humility, and the most compassion.
I really have no interest in making other people believe what I do, but it hearts my heart so much that so many consider my views off limits in the fight against abuse. You lose some good allies when we are not included. And the real issues of abuse are ignored while people discuss soteriology. I wish that it did not have to be a distraction.
LikeLike
Oasis, I am sorry for what has happened to you and that people have told you that it was God’s will for you.
Historical Calvinism affirms that God is NOT the author of sin, nor does he violate our free will. He did not desire or find it good for any person to be abused.
I’m not trying to convince you that Calvinism is true, but I do wish you could see that I, as someone who believes in TULIP, do NOT believe your abuse was God’s desire for you.
I have gone through my own very dark time. I do not believe that God wanted that for me, though I do believe he used it for good in my life. I think that is consistent with what an Arminian would believe do.
TULIP itself says nothing about any events that happen to us outside of Salvation, so anyone who says that being a Calvinist means believes God ordained abuse is misapplying the theology and moving toward hyper-Calvinism.
LikeLike
lol Just for you JA~ some serious, heavy duty sittin under going on.
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano 4h
I’m not just speaking @ the @bibleevangelism conf. I’m sittin under teaching of @ChuckONeal_, being equipped and edified. #PreachPortland”
LikeLike
Julie Anne, the learning and healing is ongoing because the notion is haunting me at every turn. Just when I feel confident that the agony is over, suddenly I find myself knocked over again in total despair, back where I started, because the doctrine is everywhere and my mind is always in the clouds, wandering and wondering. The war continues, but the good news is that I now know where I stand, and am much stronger than I was even a month ago.
The bottom line is, even though I still have trouble with this issue, and the very concept still causes me a lot of pain and grief, after going round and round I always arrive at the same conclusion: This is the only thing I am ABLE to believe. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. This is the only way I can remain in a relationship with God, the only way I can see and believe in his pure goodness and love, the only way I can love him back, the only way I can live. Because as my wonderful friend Lydia says, this teaching is death to victims. The woman knows what she’s talking about; the fruit is rotten and deadly. I am rejecting death in favor of life. Unless I want to remain in that dark place forever, I have to return to what I understood as a small child.
Even back then I never blamed God for what other people did to me. I have understood since the age of three who was responsible and even why they did what they did. The idea that God was involved in the abuse in any way never once crossed my mind, and it really annoyed me when other people blamed God for every bad thing that happened or could not figure out why bad things happened in the first place. Turns out, until determinism teaching poisoned my mind, I believed in the concept of free will, true free will that implies an element of human control that so obviously at times rebels against the will of God.
To me this is a matter of starting over from near scratch, shaking off the intolerable or contradictory teaching that does not resonate with me, and listening to (and realizing I CAN listen to) my own experience and common sense, along with what I believe the Holy Spirit is saying to me. The teaching of Greg Boyd on the problem of evil (and angelic and human free will) has been a godsend, mirroring some of my own thoughts. Jesse Morrell has also been an incredible help. I have found some invaluable blog posts on this topic, interesting historical information on other blogs, and of course the knowledge and life-giving words of some blog commenters always makes a HUGE difference!
LikeLike
Recovering Pharisee, thanks! Apathy is natural if every single detail of every single event is a direct decision of the secret and contradictory will of God. If absolutely every evil happens for a “reason” (apart from the simple explanation of human freedom) then in a sense, it must be good that it happened. (I completely reject this thinking.)
Jeff S, thank you. While it’s true that I have no love at all for any form of Calvinism, since I have a memory like an elephant I remember you saying at least twice that you personally do not believe in determinism. I will take your word for it. Truly wish I knew more Calvinists who believe as you do. Glad to hear that God brought good into your life after you stepped out of the darkness!
(I like to say that God is able to bring about good IN SPITE of evil, when it happens…)
LikeLike
Diane quoted Miano’s tweet: “Tony Miano @TonyMiano 4h
I’m not just speaking @ the @bibleevangelism conf. I’m sittin under teaching of @ChuckONeal_, being equipped and edified. #PreachPortland”
Oh.My.Word! Hannah was worked up a bit last night and sent out a few tweets and I retweeted at least one of them. You know what I have not discussed much – – Chuck O’Neal is in church discipline. I might need to respond to that tweet.
LikeLike
Jeff S said:
Jeff, Calvinism is a blog moderator’s nightmare – especially when there are people like you, Jeff C, Craig Vick, etc. We just do not know what Calvinism means to each individual. There is so much confusion. We can’t just have Calvinism, we also have hyper-Calvinism. It’s crazy-making stuff and usually so divisive. That’s why (aside from this very special thread where there is a blanket green light), I just don’t want it to be the topic.
I don’t want to throw out you or Craig or anyone else. I do, however, want to highlight the specific beliefs within all doctrinal camps that breed abuse. I think identifying those destructive patterns are going to be most helpful in the long-run – – just as you did here:
LikeLike
I am a Calvinist, but I do not agree with everything he said. Calvin was not infallible and need not be taken as an all or nothing prophet. Generally what people mean, I think, by Calvinist is one who teaches predestination and is against free will. Fair enough, though that is only the edge of what he thought and said. It is a good theological question which people would do well to wrestle with in a mature and non-combative way, but which I have hardly ever seen done by either Calvinists or Arminians. There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to the issue which makes intelligent thought or discussion impossible.
It may be that Calvinist churches are more prone to spiritual abuses, but all of my experience with being abused came from Arminian ones.
I would encourage people to read Calvin and take whatever good they can find in what he says. Even when he says things you disagree with, that is where you will find most opportunity to grow in your own understanding – not necessarily by changing your mind but by being pushed into thinking more clearly and precisely why you disagree. He really was a spiritual giant, and though he said some things that I totally disagree with, he is worth treating with respect.
LikeLike
” wish I could drop the world “Calvinist” because I am NOT a follower of John Calvin, but I do believe in TULIP, so what am I to do?
John Calvin did not come up with TULIP, and in fact Calvin never said anything about “Limited Atonement”. In fact, TULIP was created as a response to Arminianism.
I have never read John Calvin, and I don’t really have any intention to right now.
”
I don’t really understand your comment. If you have not read Calvin how do you know the TULIP is not a summarized fair representation of what he taught? How do you know that limited atonement is not described in the institutes even thought the shortcut nickname might not be in there?
“Most of what gets described as “Calvinism” on TWW when I read there is hyper-Calvinism. The idea that man has no free will and that people are mindless automatons is not Calvinism”
I don’t understand this either. If you believe in TULIP you might not be taking the doctrines to their logical conclusion. You cannot have both free will and the real definition of total depravity (total inability), and the rest of TULIP as it is defined. I realize many Calvinist teachers say that we have the free will to sin and that is their definition (compatablism I think they call it?). They are trying to keep the doctrine from God being the author of evil and I understand that. But there is little logic in the whole thing so they appeal to mystery. So it boils down to God is good and totally Sovereign and God controls every molecule 24/7 yet God is not controlling evil.
LikeLike
Oasis said:
This paragraph rings so true to me as an abuse survivor. I was being tormented by this crazy thinking. With CON, if you don’t believe this way, you are not one of the elect and you will suffer the wrath of hell. Little did he or many of these hyperCalvinists know that for those who have to reconcile some of these hyper-Calvinist beliefs with our abuse is revicitmizing. Chuck O’Neal preached a whole retreat on hell – probably 5 or 6 sermons and they were all long. You can find them on his sermonaudio. For a victim, the real hell couldn’t be much different than what is already going on in our minds, applying that evil abusing-God doctrine. So, send me to hell for not believing that “perfect doctrine,” then, because I cannot justify that a loving God would abuse me or have it in his Sovereign plan to allow abuse of me and Oasis and so many others. Oasis, thank you so much for articulating what has gone in my brain so many times.
LikeLike
“It is a good theological question which people would do well to wrestle with in a mature and non-combative way, but which I have hardly ever seen done by either Calvinists or Arminians.”
Carroll, I am not sure who all here is an Arminian. I know I am not.
My experience in these discussions is that when we discuss them, many Calvinists are offended that we would conclude that Calvinism taken to it’s logical conclusion makes God the author of evil. That is the logical conclusion of the determinism/dualism. It seems we are to believe their word on it instead of digging into it.
So I am not sure it is possible not to offend if we want to discuss logical outcomes of this doctrinal position. My position is man is responsible for his actions/behavior and CAN respond to God. God does not have to force belief or faith. I believe a very Sovereign God created beings who can say no to Him, defy Him, lie about Him and others can love and obey Him. I believe humans have volition.
A friend of mine was telling me about the youth pastor her free will church hired who turned out to be Calvinist but did not tell them. She picked up on it over time because he was teaching the youth they are totally depraved and there is nothing good in them that God should “choose” them, IF He chose them and that is grace. He taught the Sovereignty position of Piper and other obvious TULIP positions.
This parent went to him and told him she believed in free will and would be teaching her children that at home until they could find another church because she was uncomfortable but since the hiring committee hired him, she was just one person and would not cause a problem for him. . She was very irenic about it. You know what he told people? She was “hateful” about his beliefs. Now I know her and know she would never be hateful about such a thing she was being open and honest about her beliefs and how she wants her teens to view God. But that was his view—it was “hateful”. And this shocked her. When she went back to him concerning what he said, he maintained she was “hateful” about his beliefs. And that is the view taken by many YRR if you disagree. I have seen it over and over.. So not sure how we can keep from offending Calvinists if we dig into this thing. There is a double standard that is impossible to maintain if we dig into this doctrine.
the thin skin is a way of censoring from getting to the meat of this determinist doctrine. It is not just another way to view God. In my opinion, it blasphemes God’s character and makes Him anything but loving to those HE did not “choose to choose”.
LikeLike
Well, for my part, this is what I think Calvinism is:
I believe that scripture teaches that before we become Christians, our wills are inclined away from God and only his drawing can incline us toward him. Once we see him for who he is, our wills are drawn wonderfully toward his grace and mercy, and that is a gift. I am grateful for that gift and desire to honer it as a new creation in Him.
To me, this definition is far, far from what I see people railing against on blogs.
The reason this matters to me so much is that as long as we are focused on discussing things like Arminianism vs Calvinism (or other views), we allow abusive people to be free to run around and keep beating up Christians.
To me, the issue of abuse comes down to unregenerate, entitled people who are loose in the church gaining allies among those who refuse to see them for who they are. It isn’t a matter of soteriology, but of educating what wolves look like: sheep.
The wolves need to be ousted and the misguided sheep need to repent. When we get that sorted out, then perhaps we cal talk about whether a person making a choice for Jesus is a meritorious work (as Calvinists would claim) or not (as Arminians claim).
That’s how I see it, anyway.
LikeLike
“Because as my wonderful friend Lydia says, this teaching is death to victims.”
(sniff sniff). You are beloved by HIM!
He wants us believers to be the kingdom RIGHT NOW. And that is not works for believers, that is living out the kingdom on earth (His will) as it will be in heaven. And it won’t be perfect but it will look like love, justice and mercy. It won’t look like SGM.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I’ve read about Calvin. I’m assuming trustworthy sources when I looks at the history of how TULIP came about. I do understand that LI is reasonable to deduce from Calvin’s teaching. It matters not to me. I believe what I believe because of what I read on scripture, not because what Calvin taught.
I’m not sympathetic to arguments of “if you are a Calvinist, you should be a hyper-Calvinist”. I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I do not believe hyper-Calvinism is a logical extension of Calvinism. We disagree there, and I’m OK with that. I just know what I believe, and I don’t believe hyper-Calvinism, nor do any Calvinists that I know.
I really have no hope or desire of changing your opinion on Calvinism, and I’m OK with that. I just wish it could be let alone because it isn’t the real issue.
LikeLike
I stand to be corrected, but on Brian’s guest post we appear to have been well into the 4th day before Brian mentioned the name of Jesus. Others mentioned His name many times. I have not taken the time to confirm whether Brian may have used the title Christ. Still, I suggest that the absence of the name of Jesus in Brian’s comments over several days may be emblematic of a tendency for some to emphasize knowledge, doctrine, and agenda’s to the exclusion or near exclusion of the pursuit of the One of whom it is said:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, ESV)
I am inclined to think that every doctrine, every teaching, every teacher, every agenda should be tested primarily by whether they point to Jesus. It also seems to me that there is a failure of the test where there is this strident, no-holds-bared emphasis on ecclesiastical authority, gender roles, child discipline, election and so on.
I say to the Abyss with all these theological traditions and agendas of men. Just give me Scripture as my sole guide to doctrine, give me Holy Spirit to open my eyes to what Scripture reveals, and most of all, give me Jesus and grant that nothing might distract my attention from Him. Unfortunately, I deem myself to be too easily distractible.
LikeLike
“The reason this matters to me so much is that as long as we are focused on discussing things like Arminianism vs Calvinism (or other views), we allow abusive people to be free to run around and keep beating up Christians.”
Jeff, I believe when people finally understand they are responsible for what they believe and who they support or submit to, we will have less and less abuse. The abuse occurs because people have been taught to look to some expert or one with title to understand God when the truth is it is a relationship and NO ONE can broker that relationship. People who are coming to Christ need to be encouraged to seek truth/wisdom etc outside the institutional construct instead of being taught to believe whatever a pastor teaches them. Only the pastor can steer them into being Bereans.
But if they are taught they are NOT responsible and God is controlling every molecule and they should be preaching the Gospel to themselves every day and going deep with sin all the time, the abuse will only worsen.
I saw tons of spiritual abuse outside the Calvinist construct in seeker mega churches. They went to great pains to hide it because they could not use the same excuses used in determinist construct.
LikeLike
Gary W. said:
Gary, this is the kind of thing that became so blatantly obvious at BGBC. The omissions. Or the reading of certain things in Scripture, but it would never play itself out in real life. It always comes back to behavior – – watch the behavior. The public and private behavior of church leaders will give them away if they are abusers – it contradicts their words.
LikeLike
” I just wish it could be let alone because it isn’t the real issue.”
I believe the Augustine influence is a big part of the issue no matter how it plays out in which denomination. I will probably be run off lots of blogs and that is ok because I believe it is fatalistic, deterministic and dualistic and blasphemes God’s character.
I think history proves that believing in a cruel God makes a cruel man. This is over simplifying it a bit but If we go back to about the 4th century, what made men think that Christianity should become the formal legalized? Gnosticism. Modeled after the Greek Pagan Institutions and their determinist gods and their belief in dualism.
LikeLike
“Jeff, I believe when people finally understand they are responsible for what they believe and who they support or submit to, we will have less and less abuse. The abuse occurs because people have been taught to look to some expert or one with title to understand God when the truth is it is a relationship and NO ONE can broker that relationship.”
I agree with this. I just don’t see this as a problem unique to Calvinism, or particularly made worse by Calvinism.
And not a single Calvinist I down would be described by themselves or others as “deterministic”. My church is not deterministic, even though it is PCA.
LikeLike
@lydiasop~
“But there is little logic in the whole thing so they appeal to mystery. So it boils down to God is good and totally Sovereign and God controls every molecule 24/7 yet God is not controlling evil.”
The “mystery” part I have personally have said to me was Romans 8:28- God causes (or all things work together for good) all things to work for good for those that love Him. Cancer? don’t worry…God will work it out for your good. I don’t think the context fits that twist. I think verse 29 explains 28 and it speaks of salvation.
Another thing I heard said recently at the Hotel Church in Louisville (Mahaney) is that God ordains everything in your life. Everything. Jerry Bridges (is he considered a Calvinist?) spoke about this in a sermon he gave there a few months ago. Here is what I have a hard time fully grasping. Bridges was talking about how God ordains everything: sickness, loss of a job, death of a child, cancer, disabilities etc. He conveniently left out how God ordains crimes such as rape, murder or molestation. but just mentioned the more run of the mill hardships people go through in life. He definitely said everything in your life is ordained by God….how we are knit in the womb by God… how we are made just as He wants us made, etc.
He then used himself as an example and shared that he was born with a heart valve malformation. He said he lived with it all his life, iirc, but did not reveal what, if any, medical treatment he had for it all those years. He then shared that recently he underwent surgery for the repair of the valve, and gave glory to God for that. My question is… why did he have the surgery?
He was knit in the womb by God (malformed valve and all), according to what he just said. He just got through saying God made us as He desires us to be made. God is sovereign and He ordains it all. What right does Bridges have to mess around with God’s ordained plan for his heart valve that God Himself knit in his mother’s womb?
LikeLike
So, send me to hell for not believing that “perfect doctrine,” then, because I cannot justify that a loving God would abuse me or have it in his Sovereign plan to allow abuse of me and Oasis and so many others. Oasis, thank you so much for articulating what has gone in my brain so many times.”
Do you want to see smoke come out of my ears and my head blow up? Just let me hear ONE person quote Romans 8:28 to an abuse victim who is barely hanging on to Jesus Christ with their fingernails.
My joy in life is seeing a victim become strong in the Lord. To know they are so loved and that man is responsible for the evil he/she does and this is very important: all sin is NOT the same. yes, there ARE people who are more evil than others. If we do not recognize this, we only have moral chaos and that is what I think Calvinism ultimately is in practice: moral chaos.
LikeLike
“I stand to be corrected, but on Brian’s guest post we appear to have been well into the 4th day before Brian mentioned the name of Jesus.”
Gary,
Did you even read the guest post itself? I refer to Jesus no less than FIVE times in my article.
So, disagreeing with what I’ve written isn’t enough? Now you have to examine what you perceive to be something I’ve left out in the hopes that you can accuse me of not focusing on Jesus? That’s tantamount to a witch hunt. Of course, what I expect to see in a response will be that I did not specifically use the name JESUS, and because of that I am somehow guilty of holding other things above Him.
This is getting a little silly.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
It is disappointing to see that, instead of correcting Gary’s assertion, you affirm his comments above.
LikeLike
Diane said:
DING, DING, DING – I’ve thought the same thing – – why aren’t they going along with those churches like Followers of Christ (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/858-to-the-followers-of-christ-oregon-city.html)
who withhold all meds from their children? If God ordained a child to have diabetes, then someone is doing a little monkeying around by giving said child insulin, right?
These guys are not being consistent with their theology.
LikeLike
Ha! Diane, we were posting at the same time and you brought up the infamous Romans 8:28 that is supposed to make you feel better about being raped as a child or your baby dying of cancer.
But Bridges is on to something and I have mentioned this before. It was ordained for him to have a bad heart valve. It was ordained for him to have it fixed. It was ordained for him to talk about it at the SGM hotel church (yes he is a big Calvinist).
So, it was ordained for the SGM children to be molested by members of SGM. It was ordained for SGM pastors to not call authorities and tell them that both are just as big of sinners so forgive. It was ordained by God that years later a blog would start and out all of this. It was ordained by God that a lawsuit would come about. It was ordained….
Are you seeing my point? A lot of stuff MAN does is strangely ordained by God (to give specific things a good spin?) as if God did not give us a free will. Anything to get a way from man having volition. Do they not realize this only means we should not listen to them because they are being controlled by either God or Satan and in some cases God is controlling Satan who is controlling man! No matter what, it was meant to be. That is fatalism. It is death to people who are abused
BTW: Where did God revoke the humans dominion over the earth totally?
LikeLike
Brian said:
For the record, I took Gary W.’s comment to mean that it was 4 days until Jesus was mentioned in the comments.
Brian, I was using Gary’s comment as a jumping off point and really did not directly address his point. I was looking at a pattern that I have observed (which had nothing to do with you). Take a look again.
LikeLike
Can somebody tell me what “TULIP” means?
LikeLike
Yes, Lydiasop-
I have seen a lot of harm done with Romans 8:28. It’s the mystery verse.
“But Bridges is on to something and I have mentioned this before. It was ordained for him to have a bad heart valve. It was ordained for him to have it fixed. It was ordained for him to talk about it at the SGM hotel church (yes he is a big Calvinist).”
Yes, I get that God knit him in the womb and ordained a bad valve. But…..
I still do not see how Bridges can reverse the knitting…since GOD CREATED him that way. He is tampering with God’s creative power.
And…how fortunate for Bridges that he lives in such a techno-advanced medical time as this that he can pop in and defy God’s ordained knitting. What about those poor people 100 years ago? They must have had to just suck it up, suffer with CHF and live with the knitting. Sucks to be them.
So…does God love Jerry Bridges more than those people 100 years ago because he was ordained to live in this time and had access to the medical technology to reverse God’s knitting?
How do you know if God is really ordaining your open heart surgery, or if you are?
Is the fact that something is…..mean it’s ordained by God?
Maybe Brian can chime in? 🙂
LikeLike
Random Methodist Reader asked about TULIP:
This is a simplistic explanation (link follows) Click on the link for a more detailed version:
T — total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U — unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L — limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I — irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P — perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time. (http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html)
LikeLike
Regarding Brian’s use of the name Jesus, I said I would stand to be corrected, and I fully disclosed that I had not confirmed his use of the word Christ. Brian now claims that he referred to Jesus no less than five times in his article. I am almost persuaded to concede that I have been corrected. But no, Brian used the title Christ, not the name Jesus. He committed an act of plagiarism/copyright violation, which he then attempted to justify, on I have now lost track of what day. Now, he now attempts to take credit for having referred to the name of Jesus when, really, he had only done what I had already said he might have done in referring to Christ. To me, this is just an example of the kinds of no holds barred advocacy in which the proponents of a position or agenda aren’t particularly careful about accuracy, or even–well, were I to say what I’m thinking it would be unnecessarily adversarial.
As to the habitual use of Christ in place of Jesus, what’s with that? Christ is a title. Jesus is His name. In my experience, it seems that those who exhibit a one-on-one relationship with Jesus use His name. Those who mostly only know about him use his title. Maybe I’m wrong in more instances than I recognize. I hope so.
LikeLike
Brian: Do you really want to argue with an attorney? LOL
LikeLike
“So…does God love Jerry Bridges more than those people 100 years ago because he was ordained to live in this time and had access to the medical technology to reverse God’s knitting?”
When I have asked Calvinists about the people God does not give irresistible grace and his limited atonement to…….whether God loves them less OR the ones He chooses, love more?
They (mostly seminarians/pastors) They say that God has special love for those whom He chooses but that He loves the others He does not choose, too. Then they often map this special love to husband/wife and say to a man, You don’t love ALL women like your wife do you? Or to a woman, you don’t love ALL men the way you love your husband, do you?
It is unbelievable. I cannot believe what I am hearing pass for normal beliefs about the Godhead.
LikeLike
@lydiasop~
“So, it was ordained for the SGM children to be molested by members of SGM. It was ordained for SGM pastors to not call authorities and tell them that both are just as big of sinners so forgive. It was ordained by God that years later a blog would start and out all of this. It was ordained by God that a lawsuit would come about. It was ordained….”
If everything is ordained by God in your life, as Bridges said, and he did say everything, then crime is in the “everything” category and must be included.
I personally reject that and think that thinking is in error and extreme.
Then again, I have never read his books. What he say about horrific crimes happening to you? Ordained by God, still? Ordained by the devil? Can a person who holds to the belief of God ordaining everything simply change their mind when it comes to a grotesque, mind boggling, unable to explain (except our friend Romans 8:28) evil such as the murder (not just death due to illness) of a child and attribute THAT to satan (like SGM does to the lawsuit)? Or to evil people?
You know lydia, I have read there are many reasons the SGM lawsuit exists. God’s discipline, He ordained it and it’s a mystery why, it’s from satan, it’s spiritual warfare (the free spiritual warfare e-book that was on the SGM website -maybe it still is), it’s the lying, gossiping and slandering evil bloggers’ (in SGM’s view) fault who caused the lawsuit…take your pick. Seems the SGM players cannot decide just how that lawsuit came into existence. Oh, I forgot one…Brent’s documents. I doubt Mahaney really believes those documents are ordained by God. 🙂
LikeLike
T — total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.”
In the Calvin construct this means “total inability”. No ability to respond to God. In many constructs you cannot even have faith. Faith is a gift given to you. You cannot repent. You must be granted the ability to repent. Man has no input into belief, repentance, etc.
There are lots of non Cals who believe in total depravity as described above. Many take this one to be– we are born “inclined toward sin”. Not that we are born guilty of Adams sin and sinning the minute we are born as most Calvinists believe.
LikeLike
“You know lydia, I have read there are many reasons the SGM lawsuit exists. ”
Because PEOPLE decided to take responsibility and stand up against evil? Think about those poor victims, they were children when it happened! I praise God they have grown into adults who will stand up for themselves and warn others about the evil. It is our job to warn about evil, stand up for justice, see evil doers are punished by the laws of the land, etc, etc.
Where are Mohler, Dever, Bridges, :Piper, Truman, Ortlund and all the many others who have INSTEAD stood with Mahaney and his evil?
Talk about a bankrupt movement.
LikeLike