* * *
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 
Julie Anne,
Well, at least in America, when we have an election, “we the people” have a vote. And, last I recall, our nation was founded based on Christian beliefs, in that we the people have a say in the direction of liberty.
Ed
LikeLike
Argo, I no longer subscribe to the “they are just bad eggs, the doctrine is not to blame” defense. And I include the seeker movement in that, too, that elevated what they called evangelism to build huge churches at the expense of loving people who paid for it.. I have just seen Calvinism to be more destructive inherently to the soul because of the belief that man has no volition and therefore no responsibility toward God or each other.
We have to look carefully at what we believe and why. If we can start with the belief that WE are responsible for what we believe and why we believe it, it would go a long way to maturity in Christ, I think. Perhaps it would stop with the moral chaos that we are all depraved sinners and sinning is normal. We can be like David and be saved even after the Cross/Resurrection. Of course what is defined as sin is always interesting. Not following church membership rules is sinning. So that person is just as bad as the child molester. We cannot make judgments on evil because we are sinners, too. It is total moral chaos. And we are seeing it played out in real time. Not sure why that is not resonating with more people and they see the contradictions in God choosing you and being responsible for what you believe.
If you read about Calvin’s Geneva, the author of this ST, you can see where all this goes in action when they have the power to do so.
If the standard is that we can only discuss the tenants of Calvinism in the way Calvinists approve or we are mean and hateful then that is a form of censoring and no one will dig into it and see the contradictions. They will live with the contradictions and be happy because niceness is more important than our responsibility to God. In the mean time, when we say that believers are continual sinners totally depraved and Jesus imputed His righteousness to them because they cannot obey God, we make a mockery of the heinous crime of child molestation and spiritual abuse of believers by other professing believers. When man has no responsibility for his own beliefs and behavior, this is what it comes to. Excusing gross sin and abusing people a second time around. Can folks not see that Calvins whole life was geared toward spiritually abusing people in the Name of God? That, is “taking God’s Name in Vain”. It is lying about Him.
LikeLike
Hee Hee, I missed the Monkey in the Middle comment until just now. We play with our dog as the monkey and his fav stuffed animal which is disgusting beyond belief. I am jealous about the pool though.
LikeLike
“Destructive reformed juggernaut”
Now that’s a new one!
I think prior comments about the spiritual abuse not being the result of Calvinism need to be taken to heart. I know many of you are looking for something to blame for what happened. The truth is, though, that if your (or others you know) abuse had occurred within a Catholic church, right now you would probably be on an anti-pope blog railing against the abuses of such a system of doctrine.
Think of all the abuse that we know of that has taken place within the Catholic church. That “system” is perhaps as polar opposite from reformed theology as one can get. So, does the abuse flow from their theology, or is it just that there are wicked people in this world, and even in, heaven forbid, within churches?
The simple truth is that abuse exists in all types of churches with all types of theologies. Years ago here in GA we had a huge child sex abuse scandal with a church that hated Calvinism (Chapel Hill Harvester, Earl Paulk).
You guys seem to be spending so much time fighting a certain theology, when that may not be the issue. Another thing to consider is this: what message are you sending to those who have been abused under other non-Calvinist systems?
Just some things to think about.
LikeLike
Ed said:
For those who are of the bad Calvinist camp (like Chuck O’Neal, SGM, etc), I have to agree with you, Ed. You simply cannot measure up to their brand of doctrine. You might as well be going to hell if you are off on one doctrinal point and every doctrinal point seems to be essential to these types of people.
And how about this: if you have a differing opinion, they will tell you to bring it to them so you can have a discussion, but the reality is that they cannot be taught, they already have the answer and their agenda is to force you to believe what they believe because theirs is always right. And it doesn’t matter what anyone else says – if this has been debated for hundreds of years, nope, they have it right. The arrogance is astounding.
LikeLike
“because we have Educated ourselves. September 11, 2001 was my turning point into wanting to be more educated as to why people believe what they believe.”
yes it was for several folks I know, too. Mine came a bit later but 9/11 was a catalyst and here is why. I had several staffers who were serious believers. They got to talking about how they knew nothing really about Islam. So they decided to put together an Islam study group a few days per month. Some agnostics were interested too. They studied history, Qu’ran, etc. A few of them really wanted to witness to Muslims and wanted to understand what they believed about Jesus. (some folk Islam groups see him as a sort of minor prophet and even pray to him). The others just had no clue and wanted to learn. I was just pleased to be a participant when I wasn’t traveling. But I could do the prep work/homework they gave me and learn.
Doing that really helped me recognize the determinist god paradigm. That is what I could not get past in the Institutes. The determinism. It creeped me out. It is a whole different way to view God. Totallly opposite. The doctrine is totally diametrcially opposed to love. It is power. then we studied the history of that doctrine played out in real life. The devastation caused to real people over the centuries is a wake up call.
It seriously worries me. The more we slide toward collectivism in this country and we are seeing it happen in Christendom too. There is an oligarchy then there are the peasants.
LikeLike
Oh, Diane – – that was bad of me. I am queen of snark/sarcasm and use it to make light of things sometimes and that was my mistake because obviously earlier in the thread I was emotional and now I see that was poorly timed sarcasm. Please forgive ME!!!
You were fine with your comment. I was trying to help you out to get a response. Brian, did you answer these yet? I’m still reading.
LikeLike
But Ed. Does it matter if we vote because God already knows who’s going to win?
LikeLike
Brian, Calvinism and Catholicism have the same father: Augustine.
Dualism.
The Catholics deal with it differently, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And it gets me wondering, are Calvinist Christians”
Ed, you and those like you are the ones who have made this into Christians vs Christians. Your post above shows it quite clearly. I have disagreed with your theology but I have not questioned your salvation. You have just done that very thing.
I hope others coming to this site can see the difference in how things are being discussed. One side is attempting to actually discuss the issue, the other brings into question the salvation of those with whom they differ.
The venomous anger is coming, not from those on here who agree with the doctrines of grace…it’s coming from those hate those doctrines and are attempting to vilify those of us who do hold to the doctrines of grace.
LikeLike
“Ed, you and those like you are the ones who have made this into Christians vs Christians. Your post above shows it quite clearly. I have disagreed with your theology but I have not questioned your salvation. You have just done that very thing.”
Actually you HAVE implied there was a problem with Julie Ann’s salvation when you demanded to know if she was submitting to her elders. Why else would that question be important at all? Why would it matter if it has NOTHING to do with salvation?
LikeLike
Talk about some Orwellian newspeak. Too bad churches don’t have to comply with truth in advertising laws.
LikeLike
Lydia said:
This above idea, Lydia, that you shared today and also at length yesterday was hugely profound for me personally. I had the pieces. I knew which puzzle they belonged to, but you helped me fit the pieces together in a way that I can now articulate. That is so huge. Thank you!
I don’t think I would have been able to do that without following SGM for as long as I have, and other hyper-Calvinists. It is the PERSONAL STORIES. Although Oasis did not describe specifics in her personal story, I connected with the ideas shared in a powerful way. I cannot stress that enough. Reading and connecting with personal stories is where people can identify problems and start to become free from abuse. I have not seen a lot of people get free from abusive systems from talking logically. It usually has to hit them personally and emotionally and usually with a cost.
LikeLike
“I hope others coming to this site can see the difference in how things are being discussed. One side is attempting to actually discuss the issue, the other brings into question the salvation of those with whom they differ.”
Brian, I have been on Christendom blogs since 2004 and I have YET to find a Calvinist/YRR/NC blog that allowed this sort of free flow discussion and disagreement. They simply do not allow it. And if they do it is to make an example and rebuke then not allow a rebuttal. Saw it for years. Censoring. They have to have it in some form.
What the YRR?NC delete or moderate has ended up being a huge joke in the blog world. The T4G Facebook page that had their statement defending Mahaney up for 12 hours before it was totally deleted because of the negative comments is the culminating case in point. that has gone on for years in that movement. Then they put it in a safe place with no comments edited but then other blogs discussed it so much they took it down! Discerning? Wise? Open? Transparent believers? I think not. That is the face of this moment today.
LikeLike
“Actually you HAVE implied there was a problem with Julie Ann’s salvation when you demanded to know if she was submitting to her elders. Why else would that question be important at all? Why would it matter if it has NOTHING to do with salvation?”
Lydia,
First of all, I didn’t DEMAND to know that about Julie Anne.
Second of all, I already explained why I asked her the question, but you (and others) refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt. You are already convinced (without input from me) that I was being an evil Calvinist.
I have NEVER NEVER NEVER questioned Julie Anne’s salvation, and to insinuate that I did is to slander me.
LikeLike
What I’m beginning to understand, & maybe I’m dense because it’s taken awhile, is that while I find it helpful to engage in back-and-forth discussion, it appears Brian does not, since he likes to ask questions, but not answer them. He is more interested in pushing theology than having a dialogue, it would seem. I find that disappointing, since discussion gets down to the nuts & bolts of issues, & gets both sides thinking about what they really believe. And also what we all do & whether it’s consistent with our own doctrine or not.
That’s unfortunate. Because the ability to really understand one another is other is lost. The ability to see things from another’s point of view is diminished.
The definition of communication is: 1st person says something, and 2nd person repeats it back. Then 1st person restates if there is a misunderstanding & so on.
There have been 2 victims who have spoken up on this thread, quite courageously I add. Right in the middle of a heated debate on Calvinism, telling right? They know we are free to speak up & will defend them fiercely. They have deep wounds that are still healing. Their wounds are directly from Calvinist beliefs that God determined their pain & suffering. This is what they were told! Let’s stop for a moment & realize that. And there are many more who have been told the same thing with a smile & “Have a nice day”. Yikes!
Jeff S, I understand you do good work at COFJ, that you have been hurt, maybe not by people with Calvinist beliefs. But you must understand there are MANY who have been. These are who I am concerned about. When I dialogue with you, they are at the forefront of my mind. Some have left the faith. That grieves me to tears.
Surely you care about them as well? And if so, you would continue to dialogue to understand what we are saying & so we can understand what you believe. Yes, it is difficult. It’s difficult for Oasis & Monique. Yet they put themselves out there. Surely you & I can too. In case you didn’t read the thread on Brian’s post, I’ve taken it on the chin a few times, but I’m a big girl. And like I said, it’s not about me, it’s about the victims.
LikeLike
Lydia – the Monkey in the Middle game is so fun to play with the 5 boys. They range from 23yrs to 7 yrs and we’ve rigged the rules so all can play and have fun, including ME. And it’s crazy fun with the taller boys. Their arms/height combined make it a real challenge when they are in the middle. I love it. We’re in an older neighborhood and it’s a neighborhood pool. It closes at 10 pm and we are always the only ones there at that hour. Lucky us to have the whole pool to ourselves!
LikeLike
Julie Ann, Our precious Savior told stories. They are to make us think. Does not mean we understand completely all the nuances. Even the Apostles did not understand them (connect dots in them) at first. I am sure the Resurrection made many of them come alive for real. The dots connected.
LikeLike
“The simple truth is that abuse exists in all types of churches with all types of theologies. Years ago here in GA we had a huge child sex abuse scandal with a church that hated Calvinism (Chapel Hill Harvester, Earl Paul”
Thats right Brian- which comes to show faulty belief systems and doctrines will lead to abuse. These doctrines all point to the fact that “man must work or PERSEVERE” to know if one is saved or under the grace of God. Calvinism, in its underbelly, does the same thing. It all comes from one source- humanism, man must come up with some system to be able to control the sins of humanity. Is this not what John Calvin had in mind? or the pope? or Muhammed? or Joseph Smith?
Again, each person is in himself responsible for his or her relationship with God and no one can dictate how God will deal with each and every person as far as their journey in Him. The core basics are laid out in Scripture, but how, when, and where God meets that person is individual and personal. No man can neatly put in a package the dilemma of man and how it is to be dealt with- no one has the utopian concept down pat. John Calvin tried it and it failed. Pastors, even with good intentions, try to solve these dilemmas and even get into peoples lives to fix it. It is none of their business except for the sole purpose of being a light and exhorter of the truth. They must show with their own lives how one must live, but to dictate- which I have seen throughout my life (for I have visited many denominations) a problem. The only reason Calvinism is in the spotlight is because it is the one system that seems to making a huge comeback among young families and adults.
LikeLike
“First of all, I didn’t DEMAND to know that about Julie Anne.
Second of all, I already explained why I asked her the question, but you (and others) refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt. You are already convinced (without input from me) that I was being an evil Calvinist.
I have NEVER NEVER NEVER questioned Julie Anne’s salvation, and to insinuate that I did is to slander me.”
Brian, I am not going to argue your intention. I am going to point folks to the thread with all the tweets and let them decide what you were communicating. It is not about intentions. It is about what appeared and how it was interpreted. Taht tweet was your reaction….why?
It is a weird thing to ask someone you have no relationship with. It sounded like a tenant of salvation or why else would you even mention it? I thought it sounded demanding as in condemning. Why condemn over something that is not a tenant of salvation? I just don’t get it. And I see this all the time from YRR here so it is not new. Just analyzing it. I have seen little old ladies asked this question by 25 year old YRR guys. And the elder was 30!!! It is a bizarre movement that really focuses on power.
LikeLike
Argo said, “The topic of Calvinism is painful to many of us… I gave over a hundred thousand dollars to SGM and 15 years of my life just to be told, “We don’t care what you think…here is the door.” I lost friends and family because I was such as hard-core proselyte for the neo-Cal movement. To this day close friends and family members still want nothing to do with me and won’t speak or relate to me because they cannot see me as anything else but a close-minded bully; a devotee of the kind of shrug-determinism that I believe Calvinism teaches. How do you think that makes me feel?”
Wow, Argo. That give me great insight into why you care so much. I am so sorry.
But at least you figured it out. Thanks for sharing.
I think many are starting to realize their money is more important than they are. BTW, RC Sproul’s organization seemed to call me once a week asking for money, even after I asked them to stop with the phone calls. All I could think of was how much money was being spent on all these phone calls & mailings to me. And I’m just one person!
LikeLike
I have a question that I am really interested in seeing the responses.
I have seen multiple instances on here where experiences seem to validate beliefs. People’s personal experiences on here are used as the reason why their position on something (anti-Cavinism, for example) is true.
So here’s my question:
I was the victim of severe spiritual abuse, in a church that aunashamedly embraced reformed theology; the doctrines of grace; Calvinism. So, tell me this: How is it that I did not reach the same conclusion as most of you have, that the abuse was the result of evil theology? Why do I still embrace the doctrines of grace after receiving so much abuse at the hand of someone who embraced those same doctrines?
LikeLike
When I report abuse stories, I report about the abuse in church FIRST. Then we get to the doctrine. It just so happens because of my background and the fact that I read SGMSurvivors for years and that is where I connected the similar theology with my abuse that it clicked for me within Neo-Calvinist circles. Brian, you simply cannot dismiss it. We talk a lot about Sovereign Grace Ministries, but if you look at the patterns at SGM, you will find similar abuse at other churches with similar patterns. By patterns I mean: Patriarchal – husband rules over wife, involved in and ascribe to many teachings within the Homeschool Movement (strong emphasis on how to parent using the rod), Courtship – where father gets to decide who, if, and when adult children get married (and adult daughters aren’t allowed to go to college or even leave the house), etc.
But I know you are right that there are certainly abuses in other churches as well. My friend, Alex Grenier, owns Calvary Chapel Abuse blog and lately, I’ve seen on average 150 people at his site at any given time. Go look up Calvary Chapel in my categories side bar. I’ve shared a number of CC stories (Arminian). Some stories I share, I have no idea what camp they are on.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I think your comments show how you can’t attribute the abuse to the theology. Calavary Chapel hates reformed theology. Is their abuse NOT a result of theology, but SGM’s IS about their theology? Is that being consistent?
LikeLike
Trust4him,
That was a great response to Brian. Brian concedes that belief systems lead to abuse…thus acknowledging that it isn’t merely those dastardly humans not doing the theology right, but the fact that IDEAS PRECEDE actions. SGM didn’t condone abuse because they were acting contrary to their Calvinist assumptions, but we wholly acting IN SERVICE to them. You can trace the abuse via a bee line squarely back to the presumptions of man’s inherent and absolute INABILITY to act by any of their own free agency. Man is wholly the product of some OTHER force which compels them to act…the idea of “will” isn’t even relevant, since in no way can man’s will even be shown to actually exist in the Calvinist construct.
So now, the only question that remains is which belief system are we discussing?
Brain, we are discussing Calvinism on this thread. Calvinism is the destructive juggernaut that codified Augustine’s understanding of the gnostic perspective of primary consciousness .All of western protestantism is rooted in the systematic theology of Calvin’s institutes. That is why it is indeed a juggernaut. Have YOU read Calvin’s institutes? If not, I suggest you do…then “juggernaut” might not seem such an egregious label to you.
And not that it matters–they could be apples and oranges and it still would not change the fact that the Calvinist DOCTRINE is the root of the abuse–but Catholicism and Calvinism are wholly alike in their metaphysical assumptions. Depraved masses = divine proxies mandated to interpret reality and compel the barbarian masses in to proper thinking and conduct.
Unless I am mistaken, wasn’t that Luther’s point? His point was good, even though he was a hypocrite. He never denied the right of the ecclesiasty to ultimately declare TRUTH for everyone else.
LikeLike
Or, is it that you are convinced that all abuse in calvinistic churches is because of their theology, but you don’t know what the driving force is beind the abuse in non-calvinistic churches?
That’s a serious question that needs to be considered.
LikeLike
” Brian concedes that belief systems lead to abuse”
Argo, where did I concede that?
IF true, then ALL belief systems lead to abuse because abuse exists in ALL belief systems.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said, “Well, Argo – you should be able to discuss it here in this thread that was elected (can’t help it) to allow talk on Calvinism. Don’t hold anything back now, ya hear. Well, anything but personal attacks.”
Julie Anne, you just gained a new found respect from me. Even more than I had for you, if that’s even possible! LOL 🙂
What is so critical for all of us to understand is that when free speech is shut down (of course unless it’s abusive) that control has entered in. This is the last thing victims want to see. It’s heartbreaking for them. They are very hesitant to open up because they’ve been severely hurt and/or hurt repeatedly. They will rarely speak up if they see any sort of censorship against someone who is trying to speak up against these horrible explanations, the “why” of the abuse.
For instance, in Calvinism, it is total depravity of their abuser, God is in control of every molecule, God decides who’s going to heaven, etc. For some, these hurtful explanations are worse than the pain or hurtful event(s). At a minimum these wrong explanations reopen wounds that they just want desperately to be healed. It will not feel safe to them & they will suffer in silence.
Rare is the blog which is a safe-haven for those who have been hurt by Calvinistic beliefs.
LikeLike
Brian,
In response to your question: it is because you will not accept the logical outcomes of reformed theology. There could be a hundred reasons for this. This is not proof that Calvinist doctrine is true, it is merely proof that you have not yet conceded that these ideas are directly responsible for abuse. That is fine…free country. But it doesn’t make you right. For you cannot even come to a rational explanation as to how God can elect anything that does not exist. There is no rational answer to that question. If something doesn’t exist, how can it be elected? How can anything which is NOTHING have any attribute whatsoever? The very notion is ridiculous.
And yet this is your premise. And still you concede that doctrines of “grace” make more sense when simple, elementary logic proves this cannot be so.
Your devotion is simply based on what you chose to believe, according to whatever reasons you have.
I know a lot of people still in reformed churches after witnessing the abuse first hand in SGM. So what? How does that in any way provide a rational explanation for a theology that denies MAN’S existence at its core?
LikeLike
” This is not proof that Calvinist doctrine is true, it is merely proof that you have not yet conceded that these ideas are directly responsible for abuse.”
“Directly” responsible for abuse?
So, what is “directly” responsible for the abuse in non-calvinistic churches?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
You are so kind. I appreciate that.
Yes, it is no secret that I go after ideas with a vengeance. Sometimes, I admit, people have a hard time separating their ideas from themselves, and so I get labeled a “personal attacker”.
Over at TWW, I always apologized when I overstepped. I never, ever accept that the HUMAN BEING is of no value. On the contrary, my philosophy is predicated on the fact that the ONLY thing of any objective moral value is the INDIVIDUAL self.
Disagreement is stern and harsh at times, and if I have a reasonable argument for why I think a person holds to an idea which places man in a position of cosmic scapegoat then yes, I will not be shy about saying so.
But I will never vilify a human for their existence. Everyone has a right to exist, and everyone is fundamentally GOOD as a product of our divine Creator. I utterly deny entirely the idea of Original Sin (not in the bible) and Total Depravity (not in the bible).
It is no secret that I cannot stand what Wade Burleson teaches or how he acts over there at TWW and what I think has happened to that site since he has arrived. This may seem like I do not LIKE Wade. Well…I’m not sure I do, to be frank. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t like me. We are not commanded to LIKE people…but to love (the difference is the affirmation of their moral value and GOODNESS before God; their categorical right to BE, and that their being is fundamentally GOOD).
But this doesn’t mean that I don’t value him as a HUMAN. For me, the line is drawn when the speech goes from attacking behavior and ideas to ABUSE by language: lying about some one, name calling, gossip, slander…speech used to DESTROY and devalue the human. That is evil. And when I have done this, I have said I am sorry. I have apologized profusely.
LikeLike
Brian asks, “Why do I still embrace the doctrines of grace after receiving so much abuse at the hand of someone who embraced those same doctrines?” Over on his own blog he says, “I want you to believe what you do – not because Mommy and Daddy believed it – but because it is the truth as contained in the Scriptures.”
Brian also seems to take offense rather easily, as though to criticize his beliefs and, yes, his actions, is to say that he is a bad person–an “evil” person, as he put it. So, I wonder. Did Brian grow up with the perception that he had to please his parents in order to maintain their love, affection, affirmation and approval? Did this mean that he had to believe what they believed? What would happen if he abandoned their beliefs, which his own blog would seem to indicate he does still share with them?
Probably my questions do not at all touch on any reality in Brian’s life, but it occurs to me that the questions I am asking would touch on a very real and difficult reality in many people’s lives–maybe even in most people’s lives. If the questions happen to be real and relevant to Brian, I suggest that the answers to my questions may go a long ways towards answering the question why Brian continues to hold the beliefs he does.
Brian, please do not take umbrage at any of this. Although I believe my questions are well founded in terms of the general parent-child relationship, I am NOT saying one way or the other whether any of this applies to you. I DO think the kinds of questions I am asking are good ones for any of us to ask ourselves. I have asked the questions of myself, and have not particularly liked the answers. If the questions do happen to be relevant to you, I suggest that you NOT respond to them publicly, at least not in any detail.
LikeLike
Brian, Do you believe in “wearing out” kids? You do know what that means, right? Not just a few spanks, but beating them hard & long.
You already know this is what Voddie Baucham advises. Others have pointed it out on the last thread.
There are parents who have accidentally beaten their kids so severely they have had to be hospitalized. Some have been beaten to death. Their reason? They were told & read books saying it was Biblical. These people are in prison. But what about people that wrote & recommended the books? Are they partially responsible for the death’s of these children? This is not make-believe, Brian. This is real.
Brian, How would you feel if someone clicked on your link to Voddie Bacham’s site, bought his book & started beating their kids because they wanted to follow God? We’re talking reality here. Would that trouble you? Would you be able to sleep at night? Take a good look at your own children. Would you be okay with someone “wearing out” your own kids?
So you like his music or his other Biblical teachings or that he was a football player, whatever. The reasons don’t really matter. You turn a blind eye to the very fact that people are buying his book & taking his advice to beat kids because they want to be a good Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one will convince me that love for others & this doctrine go together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian said:
Brian, there are so many cases of abuse in Calvary Chapel, there is no way I can discern all. But there is also another issue going on that must be considered as well. Statistically, pastors are within the 10 top professions for narcissists. You will find that most who abuse have some sort of narcissism or sociopathic issue going on. In the case I have read about in detail from family members, employees, congregants – easily over 20 personal testimonies (many pages long), I’d say the Calvary Chapel Visalia case (Pastor Bob Grenier) would fit that category. I don’t see him using theology to cover up the sins in the same way we’ve discussed about with SGM. We see the psychological pattern quite plainly, though.
LikeLike
I think we have finally hit on something that the anti-calvinism camp must address if it is to taken with any seriousness, and it is this:
It is pretty obvious that you believe abuse in calvinistic churches is a DIRECT result of their theology. But what about non-cavinistic churches where abuse occurs (and make no mistake, it DOES occur there, as Julie Anne has already pointed out)?
Are you guys saying that abuse in churches that hold to reformed theology is directly resulting from that theology, and abuse in other churches is directly resulting from something else?
This is a critical question that needs to be answered.
LikeLike
Brian, Do you “wear out” your kids like Voddie Bauchum advises? Wear out mean beat long & hard. I’ve heard you recommend him on your website via providing a link to his website.
LikeLike
If theology drives abuse, then it drives abuse in ALL churches, not just ones that hold to calvinistic theology.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Yes, and yes to your most recent posts. It is hard to argue with you! You are one of the wisest people I have ever had the pleasure of communicating with.
LikeLike
Wow, I have been away for only one hour and lots of comments I have missed.
Brian,
You had said:
“Ed, you and those like you are the ones who have made this into Christians vs Christians. Your post above shows it quite clearly. I have disagreed with your theology but I have not questioned your salvation. You have just done that very thing.”
I disagree that you have not questioned my salvation. It gets back to you only telling 1/2 of the story of speaking Christianese, but not getting to the core of the speak.
I do not believe in your theology. That makes me unregenerate. That makes me one of the non-elect. That makes me not saved.
I will never buy off on your theology.
That is telling you about my salvation.
While you never directly question my salvation, you indirectly conclude my salvation based on Calvin belief check list.
If I don’t believe what you believe, I am not saved, based on your system of belief.
I hate how Calvinists speak out of both sides of their mouth.
1. God predetermined me for hell
2. But it’s all MY FAULT.
Ed
LikeLike
Argo: Thank you for your comment at 6:08. You articulated my very thoughts/confusion ~ put them into words. When I think through predestination/election I always land where God is just a puppet master.
Jeff S.: I appreciate your kind tone in this discussion. I’m sorry that you’re having a hard time with this discussion. I don’t mean to cause you grief over your beliefs, but I’ve always wondered how someone could say that to me and not know how grievous it sounded. God became the cause of my grief.
I appreciate your answer in response to Q. Here’s my Q again:
“So how can a God who elects some for damnation identify with our sufferings then? How can he weep with me and yet then perhaps (?) damn me at the same time?”
Here’s you answer:
“At any rate, to answer your question- if you are a believer then he will not damn you. If your faith is in Jesus as Savior, then you are the elect (even if you don’t believe in the elect). And from what I gather, you are a believer.”
But it’s confusing ~ would Jesus still weep with me if I wasn’t elected? Doesn’t the love and compassion of God extend to everyone? Not just the elect?
The fruit from these doctrines played out seem destructive ~ the idea that God would create some just for damnation with no way for them to respond to Him seems to go against the love and grace and mercy that I have experienced through Jesus.
Maybe some of those who follow these doctrines live differently than what their beliefs are. That’s all I can figure now.
LikeLike
Brian, Do you consider “wearing out” child abuse?
LikeLike
I think it might be helpful to take abuse out of church, first, to study the patterns of abuse. That piece has to be added to the puzzle because as I have said, not all Reformed people abuse. In fact, I think Boz Tchividjian is reformed. The dude is an abuse-fighting machine with his organization netgrace.org and I have had many e-mail conversations with him. I trust him.
After you study the patterns of abuse, you can more easily see how certain theologies will magically line up to allow abuse, allow abusive pastors, etc. It’s not something that I can always easily articulate, it’s just what I’ve been observing and intentionally studying since my crazy life came unglued because of it. And as a reminder, if you are reading this comment one year from now, I have probably changed 🙂 lol
LikeLike
This has been the #1 clue for me when I study abuse. Show me the love. If love is not evident, then usually abuse has fertile ground to root and grow.
LikeLike
“I do not believe in your theology. That makes me unregenerate. That makes me one of the non-elect. That makes me not saved. ”
Sorry, Ed, but now you are just making stuff up.
You won’t find any comments from me or the others on here who hold to reformed theology that have said anything remotely to what you have just attributed to us.
I have NEVER said if someone doesn’t hold to my theology then they aren’t saved.
This thread is hard eough to stay engaged in without having to deal with you just making stuff up.
LikeLike
“The simple truth is that abuse exists in all types of churches with all types of theologies.
Just some things to think about.”
Thanks for stating the obvious. I, for one, did know that. I bet all of the people here know that. Why do I think this is a diversion?
LikeLike
Brian,
“I have NEVER NEVER NEVER questioned Julie Anne’s salvation, and to insinuate that I did is to slander me.”
So, sue us.
Ed
LikeLike
It’s not a diversion. It’s an issue I think you guys need to seriously consider before you spend so much energy fighting against a certain theology.
Having said that, I think I have gone beyond any usefulness on here, if any. So I’m gonna leave it with you.
God bless you all…
LikeLike
A Mom,
Agreed. There is no room for love in the “doctrines of grace”. It is a bit ironic, isn’t it. That the doctrines of grace only work if there is no humanity to actually show grace TO. How do you show grace to one who is never in the free and unfettered possession of him or herself? What exactly do the Calvinists pretend God is showing grace to? A man? A woman? Where? Where are they? Where do they exist? If a human being is going to be said to actually be a “self” then they MUST have the ability…the freedom to RECEIVE grace. If the granting of “grace” has absolutely nothing to do with any agency of man, then just what exactly is grace and to whom does it actually go?
It has no meaning at all. You cannot show grace to someone that is wholly unable to receive it of their own free volition. Man is wholly succumbed to either “sin nature” or “God’s grace”…his choice is a total illusion at best. There is no room for humanity in that equation. God’s grace is arbitrary…by definition. So then how exactly is it grace? Grace is predicated upon NOTHING at all. Then the value of grace is ZERO, because it stems from nothing except…well, God’s arbitrary nothingness.
Why does He show grace to some and not others?
The Calvinists have no answer for this. Any reason can never be found in ANYTHING having to do with man, and by this they must admit that the answer is unknowable. And if this is unknowable then it is impossible to even define GRACE…for grace without any meaning whatsoever in man’s context can have no definition. What is grace? Who knows. Why do some get this unknowable thing and not others?
Their only answer is then: just because. Then, again, grace means NOTHING. It has an applied value of zero. It stems from nothing at all that can be defined according to humanity’s context…it is the very definition of arbitrary.
Those who receive grace were ALWAYS going to receive it. And those who don’t were NEVER going to receive it. THEY, their lives, bodies, minds, souls have nothing to do with it. Before they were born (read: exist) all was determined.
Calvinists use words like “grace”, “mercy”, and “salvation” and “love”. But there is no human OBJECT to any of it. They deny man at every turn. Every single doctrine is, down to every little last crumb, designed separate man from himself. There is no facet of TULIP that isn’t ultimately in service to the idea that YOU are not really YOU.
In this way, it worships the death of man as the sum and substance of all moral value. It demands that man (and woman, of course…in “man” I mean “humanity”) be sacrificed in service to the abstraction of “doctrine”. I have never in my life seen a systematic theology so wholly and utterly devoted to the destruction of mankind as PROOF of the “soundness” of its doctrine.
And as such, A Mom, you are exactly right. You cannot reconcile this doctrine with love.
LikeLike
The “pastoral authority” and “patriarchy” (male domination on steroids) constructs are also major contributors to abuse in the church, as in JA’s situation. Believe it or not, there is a correlation between strong five point Calvinism, as practiced by the “neo-Calvinists”, and the “pastoral authority and patriarchy are biblically mandated” ecclesiology. Correlation does not prove causation, but “whosoever will may come” and freedom to believe or not, and “priesthood of each and every believer”, are contrary to narcissistic, authoritarian leadership in general. However, in specific cases, narcissistic authoritarian leadership creeps in the most non-Calvinistic congregations, and abuse typically follows. It takes a strong-willed congregation or a dedicated non-authoritarian pastor to prevent pastor domination of a congregation in the absence of an external ecclesiastical authority.
LikeLike
Dee and I have spoken about this topic. It’s a tough one for bloggers because obviously it is divisive, it is emotional, it can bring ugliness out and words can hurt. I know on both of our blogs, we want it to remain a safe place for all. It just never occurred to me until 2 days ago that I could allow this topic to go on in a confined and dedicated place for those who want to have at it. I think there can be productive dialogue. I’m still blown away by some of the stuff I read (as it affects me personally) and I might have to go over the comments again to just rehash (so if you guys would quit commenting for a brief moment to allow me to catch up – j/k – haha!).
No, I get it. I really do. I want to touch on something else that I have said before. We all learn things differently and based on our circumstances or our desire to learn. Some of us have no desire to challenge our own thinking. It takes work to do that. Some of us only desire to challenge our thinking when something rocks our boat (daughter abruptly leaving home, friend got fired from staff church position, ex-pastor and elders come to your home uninvited, unannounced 3 wks after you leave hell hole church demanding information with a hidden recording device and then says you are excommunicated). You’re darn right I wanted to learn. I did not want to repeat that again.
We can say some of this stuff until we are blue and the recipients of our words may remain the same and have no desire to change or question their belief system. The reality is we cannot change people (which is another reason why these debates are sometimes futile). When I go on my tweeting frenzy to people, do you think that I am doing it to get them to change? Nope. I do it for the people who may be following who may be questioning and say, “wait a minute – – there’s someone else who is not fully on board with this? What does she know – – I wonder if she’s observed what I’ve observed.” See, that’s how it worked for me. I knew there was something fishy. Get this, I have OWNED the books Toxic Faith and Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse for many years and I still got myself in a cult. SAY WHAT???? So I knew when I got out of it what I was dealing with. I Googled “spiritual abuse,” somehow landed at SGMSurvivors, they told my story and I devoured it – story after story – thinking they had misnamed the blog – it really should have been Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors. You see, I was the prime candidate for wanting to change and learn. I was injured. I had to know what happened and how to prevent it again. And you know the rest of the story.
LikeLike
A Mom wrote~
“What I’m beginning to understand, & maybe I’m dense because it’s taken awhile, is that while I find it helpful to engage in back-and-forth discussion, it appears Brian does not, since he likes to ask questions, but not answer them. He is more interested in pushing theology than having a dialogue, it would seem. I find that disappointing, since discussion gets down to the nuts & bolts of issues, & gets both sides thinking about what they really believe. And also what we all do & whether it’s consistent with our own doctrine or not.”
You are not dense. I agree with your assessment.
Perhaps Brian could take a break from that winsome SGM music and give our questions a glance?
LikeLike
My take is that literalistic theologies drive abuse to a far greater extent, while Calvinist theology gives an easy excuse to abusers with its determinism and depravity concepts.
Narcissism and psychopathy are definitely the prime drivers in abusive leaders, and Calvinist theology provides a framework that better facilitates abuse, imo. Literalistic theologies provide a rigid framework that is more easily manipulated to the narcissist’s or the psychopath’s advantage.
LikeLike
Brian – – what if he is not making this up? You have to understand that some of your Reformed brothers are saying off the wall things. I know this to be true.
LikeLike
Oh shoot, Brian is going going gone.
Dang.
Our questions must be too hard for him, A Mom. I noticed Jeff B is gone too. Maybe he will come back and elaborate on his single sentence about how Bridges scheduling surgery does not conflict with his “God ordains every single thing that happens to you in your life/knit in the womb just as He wants us” view. Oh……was that single sentence supposed to be a sufficient answer to me that I should accept?
LikeLike
“I have NEVER NEVER NEVER questioned Julie Anne’s salvation, and to insinuate that I did is to slander me.”
So, sue us.
* * * * *
Good grief, Ed. I’ve had enough legal excitement this week. Hush, dude.
LikeLike
Walk in my shoes, buddy.
LikeLike
Chapman,
“God predestined me to hell; but its all my fault”.
Yes! This is the kind of logical contradiction that passes for “wisdom”. Well said.
Not to plug my own blog, but my latest post I deal with that issue (in part). You see, in reformed theology, morality is purely a function of AUTHORITY. He who has AUTHORITY is he who is GOOD. It is part of the implicit Calvinist moral relativism. Good is not a function of will or action or choice, it is purely a function of who has the greatest power to FORCE others into “right” thinking, and behavior. So, the equation is: Authority = moral good = TRUTH. So he who gets to be in charge (by God’s divine “calling” of course), is he who gets to be right, and he who gets to be right is he who gets to define truth for everyone else.
This is why pastors are always right no matter how fast and loose they play with the facts and the logic, and why God is never held responsible in the Calvinist construct for His obvious hypocrisy and injustice at condemning people to hell for no reason. God as the authority to arbitrarily decided what is good, and as such, he gets to arbitrarily define TRUTH. Remember, Authority = GOOD = TRUTH
Reason, justice, logic, love…none of that matters. It all comes down to who is GOVERNING absolutely. THEY and they alone have the monopoly on TRUTH, and so they can do whatever they want, whenever they want just because.
This is why you can never win an argument with a Calvinist. Because they are Calvinists they are ALWAYS right because their “sound doctrine” is proof that they have been granted moral authority. And remember..again, boys and girls, what is the equation?
Authority = GOOD = TRUTH
It is the heart of Calvinism. Never forget this. Memorize it…it will explain a LOT of the abuse you see.
LikeLike
Yes, he needs to put that winsome SGM music aside and stop acting uncharitably by not answering your questions.
LikeLike
Yes, that ^^ is 100% what I was attempting to say. Thanks, Eric.
LikeLike
@JA~
“It’s not a diversion. It’s an issue I think you guys need to seriously consider before you spend so much energy fighting against a certain theology.
Walk in my shoes, buddy”
It was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo a diversion.
And an insult.
And condescending.
Thanks for schooling us, Brian, on how to avoid.
LikeLike
For the life of me, I cannot keep up. I don’t know whether it’s better to read these behind the scenes where it’s easier for me to block quote and respond or to go in order on the blog side. Sorry, I’m whining – lol.
Ed you said this:
Ok, ding, ding, ding – – this is it. Oh my word. This nails it to a tee. I cannot measure up. It doesn’t matter what I do, say, believe. If I get 99% of their theology right, I still don’t make it into their approval camp because of that missing 1%. And then I am treated like a less than, a heathen. I HATE this. I think this is responsible for so many who THINK they are wishy-washy in their faith. They are NOT. They are confused because of this BS. Do you see why so many people would say “forget it” and walk away from their faith (and those pompous jackasses will say – they never really were elect – waving hi to Chuck and Tony if they are on a street evangelism break). I can’t measure up to THEIR standards. But that you see is the problem. It is THEIR standards and not God’s. I’m typing like Ed with the all caps. Watch out. Oh, boy, redhead rant alert. I might need to step aside. FP might moderate ME.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“You won’t find any comments from me or the others on here who hold to reformed theology that have said anything remotely to what you have just attributed to us.”
Brian, Brian,
That is why I said the word “INDIRECTLY”.
You know dog gone well that if I don’t believe in what you believe that I am in the unregenerate category.
Is this really how you defend yourself? By telling us what you didn’t say?
I have had to ADD to your statements in order to force you to come clean on what you believe, and I was successful at it, because you replied with a YES, TRUE, TRUE.
You do indeed leave out 1/2 of the story. Probably on purpose, so that you can claim that you never said what we attribute to you.
It’s not that difficult to read people.
Ed
LikeLike
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Here are some NICE things folks here have said about you…
Gary W @ AUGUST 19, 2013 @ 8:16 PM
“Maybe I should be content to simply pursue Jesus.”
Julie Anne @ AUGUST 19, 2013 @ 8:44 PM
“I guess I’m too simplistic when I think Jesus should get my time,
not Calvin.”
““The foundation of our relationship is Jesus and we’re sure of that.”
Recovering Pharisee @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 12:49 AM
“They simply love Jesus and want to tell others about His love for them.”
Gary W @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 7:29 AM
“I am inclined to think that every doctrine, every teaching, every teacher, every agenda should be tested primarily by whether they point to Jesus.”
“and most of all, give me Jesus
and grant that nothing might distract my attention from Him.”
lydiasellerofpurple @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 10:40 AM
“Jesus gives us the opportunity to be reconciled to God. It is a free gift.”
lydiasellerofpurple @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 11:56 AM
“All I can say is we must weep with those who weep.
We must bear one another’s pain and grief. Jesus did.”
A Mom @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 4:18 PM
“They need to be shown the love of Jesus. They need to hear about the love of the Jesus, who they can choose to love back & follow.”
A Mom @ AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 5:37 PM
“Just love as Jesus loves. So simple & pure.”
Gary W # AUGUST 21, 2013 @ 5:04 AM
“Yes, absolutely. Jesus is the issue.”
“**If the focus is on Jesus,** on the other hand, I submit that the response is more likely to be that we will weep with those who weep, and that we will be concerned to minister comfort, healing and, yes, even justice.”
lydiasellerofpurple @ AUGUST 21, 2013 @ 5:49 AM
“Why would we use David as an example for us today
when we have Jesus Christ as an example?”
trust4himonly @ AUGUST 21, 2013 @ 6:10 AM
“When I read about Jesus, His contact with others; how He treated others;
what He thought of religious despots, I saw a different picture.”
“Jesus loved to be with simple people;
people who did not have pedigrees or stature.”
trust4himonly @ AUGUST 21, 2013 @ 6:23 AM
“They did not desire the “throne of greatness”
yet with Jesus they will be called great.”
————-
Unto the church of God which is at SSB,
to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,
with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,
both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace,
From God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:2-4
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Thank you, A Mom. (sorry, I’m so behind reading). I think there is definitely value in this conversation. I think it is helpful to keep it isolated here. I have a lot of reasons for that, but this seems to be the best way to facilitate both a safe place for victims (on other threads) and allow a good hearty debate (here).
LikeLike
“It is pretty obvious that you believe abuse in calvinistic churches is a DIRECT result of their theology. But what about non-cavinistic churches where abuse occurs (and make no mistake, it DOES occur there, as Julie Anne has already pointed out)?”
I think this is a very fair question and one that deserves attention. I saw major corruption and using people in the seeker mega world.
From my research and really focusing on this question (I believe the abuse is just more known because of the internet. I think it has always been there) I kept coming up against Augustine.
Now, he did not systematize anything at all. There is no direct process but his ideas (which were really novel to Christianity and were more Greek Philosophy intertwined) became accepted. There is a correlation with total depravity as Augustine described original sin (Adams guilt to all included) and the need for the people to have a sort of philosopher king to help them understand God. So God has given this special knowledge to a few who must teach us. We see this played out with the Catholic church with popes, etc. And this thinking is in most of Western Protestantism. It was systematized by Calvin and pretty much adopted in totality in the Reformation for protestants. Calvin and Luther had their own twists.
What were originally spiritual functions in the Body of Christ became offices and positions. Special people to teach us and we follow them. It is so ingrained in our thinking we have a hard time questioning it. Instead we simply look for “godly” leaders instead of questioning why we are looking to “leaders” at all. Seems we have to keep looking for godly leaders or dumb down sin. Shouldn’t our criterion be of Christlike living to influence us? Some of us have been believers long enough to know better. In most cases, people barely know their church leaders personally. They are ‘set apart’ and special. Some know them but mainly in a very stilted institutional way. Some are wowed by the persona on stage on in the book they wrote. They think they know the person. Christianity is about relationships. Man to God and man to man. We have allowed Augustine to influence our beliefs about what relationships in the Kingdom look like.
LikeLike
@JAA – red head rant alerts are suposed to be given at the beginning of the rant… 🙂
your rant is precisely why living by faith in God (our lives, actions, living, all the one-anothers), boils down to “practice.” We won’t get doctrine right 100%; although some think they do.
LikeLike
Julie Ann, I have to say you are funny and bright. I so enjoy your comments. You are like a bit of sunshine on all of it. I am so glad you started blogging! We did not know we had been deprived of your wit and willingness to seek to understand everyone. You have been so gracious even to those who have not been gracious to you. I do think a sense of humor really helps.
LikeLike
“Yes, and yes to your most recent posts. It is hard to argue with you! You are one of the wisest people I have ever had the pleasure of communicating with.”
Gosh Argo, thanks. (blushing). But I have a lot to be ashamed of, too. I was one of those who helped the leaders abuse others behind the scenes. Then I got “really” saved.
LikeLike
@ JA~
“…waving hi to Chuck and Tony if they are on a street evangelism break”
I think you meant to say if they are on a twitter break.
LikeLike
“1. God predetermined me for hell
2. But it’s all MY FAULT.”
When the YRR/NC would explain this to me it was always like they were saying the person going to hell would not mind anyway. It is all they know and don’t care so they don’t know what they are missing out on anyway. They don’t know they are depraved. (I guess because God did not choose them to know?)
Anywho, I would always think of that Seinfeld Episode where Elaine was dating the pompous Christian guy. He would ask her to do things like steal the neighbors Sunday paper because…….. “she was going to hell anyway”.
Sorry, could not resist sharing that.
LikeLike
“Our questions must be too hard for him, A Mom. I noticed Jeff B is gone too. Maybe he will come back and elaborate on his single sentence about how Bridges scheduling surgery does not conflict with his “God ordains every single thing that happens to you in your life/knit in the womb just as He wants us” view. Oh……was that single sentence supposed to be a sufficient answer to me that I should accept?”
Diane, I have come to the conclusion Calvinism works only on paper and empty words. One cannot practically apply it to real life unless one is willing to obey elders, sign membership covenants and make dates with Satan to go deep with their sin and preach the gospel to themselves every day. Everything else is a mystery and you are not responsible because Christ imputed his righteousness to you. So nothing for you to do there. It is what it is because God planned it all this way. Shut up and do as we say. You are depraved and guilty for Adam’s sin and we were appointed by God to teach the ignorant (paraphrasing Al Mohler speaking to young pastors at the FBC pastors conference).
LikeLike
“I do it for the people who may be following who may be questioning and say, “wait a minute – – there’s someone else who is not fully on board with this? What does she know – – I wonder if she’s observed what I’ve observed.” See, that’s how it worked for me.”
Big time bingo! Same here.
LikeLike
Monique, Keep those questions coming. They are excellent & I, for one, find them thought provoking.
LikeLike
Is this really how you defend yourself? By telling us what you didn’t say?
I have had to ADD to your statements in order to force you to come clean on what you believe, and I was successful at it, because you replied with a YES, TRUE, TRUE.
You do indeed leave out 1/2 of the story. Probably on purpose, so that you can claim that you never said what we attribute to you. — Chapmaned24 re Brian
It’s called “Plausible Deniability”. Every statement vetted in advance for a completely-innocent, plausibly-deniable fallback position. I grew up with a sociopath who was a master of it.
LikeLike
Diane said, “Perhaps Brian could take a break from that winsome SGM music and give our questions a glance?”
I love your sense of humor. It lightens the place up & get’s me every time! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s called “Absolute Purity of Ideology”. And there is always someone whose Ideology is Purer than Thou, AKA “One-upmanship”.
“For in the Devil’s theology, the most important thing is to be absolutely right and to prove everyone else absolutely wrong.” — Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil”
LikeLike
Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party: “How much is two plus two?”
6079 Smith W, Outer Party: “Four.”
Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party: “And if The Party decrees it is not Four but Five?”
(Substitute “if God Wills” for “The Party Decrees” to convert from INGSOC to Calvinism or Islam.)
LikeLike
“I was the victim of severe spiritual abuse, in a church that aunashamedly embraced reformed theology; the doctrines of grace; Calvinism. So, tell me this: How is it that I did not reach the same conclusion as most of you have, that the abuse was the result of evil theology? Why do I still embrace the doctrines of grace after receiving so much abuse at the hand of someone who embraced those same doctrines?”
Brian, I just saw this one. This sort of response to abuse is actually very typical. Often women will marry another abuser after divorcing the last one. The cycle is repeated often. One of the things I learned as a crisis rape center board member is that young girls who are raped often become very promiscuous. Abused children often grow up to be abusers. Why is this?
Because the foundational premises/problems are never questioned or addressed. The red flags are never recognized for what they are. it becomes the new normal. Some of it is learned behavior.You might find yourself around some really nice Reformed leaders who would not take advantage of the doctrinal premises just as you will find devout Muslims who would never take advantage of the teaching of Islam against infidels. But the doctrine says they can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm?
Nobody’s willing to go to the CROSS…
Nobodies willing to go to the CROSS…
Hmmm? Which one do “WE” choose…
————-
Matthew 16:24-25
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
let him **deny himself,** and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever
will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Luke 14:33
So likewise, whosoever he be of you *that forsakes NOT ALL that he has,**
he can NOT be my disciple.
Was wondering…
How come I have to “Deny Myself?”
Why wasn’t I “predestined” – Already “Denying Myself?”
How come I have to “forsake ALL that I have?”
Why wasn’t I “predestind” – To NOT have anything to “Forsake?”
Is being one of His Disciples – NOT “predestined?”
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
“Diane, I have come to the conclusion Calvinism works only on paper and empty words. One cannot practically apply it to real life unless one is willing to obey elders, sign membership covenants and make dates with Satan to go deep with their sin and preach the gospel to themselves every day. Everything else is a mystery and you are not responsible because Christ imputed his righteousness to you. So nothing for you to do there. It is what it is because God planned it all this way. Shut up and do as we say. You are depraved and guilty for Adam’s sin and we were appointed by God to teach the ignorant (paraphrasing Al Mohler speaking to young pastors at the FBC pastors conference).”
Well, I can say this– I see that playing out in the prominent NCalv/Calv whatever they are called churches I can read about…9marks, SGM, etc. Our “leaders.”
Where ARE all the doctrinally sound masculine feel to Christianity manly-men Calvinists who believe in not wasting your “God given” disability (does that include not wasting your malformed heart valve? Guess I am not gonna get to know…) when a gal needs one?
LikeLike
Don’t these FBCs hate Catholics for their priestcraft and top-down hierarchy?
“The new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.” — Milton
LikeLike
Cheering on MMA cage fights, covering their walls with taxidermy mounts, and/or smacking them hos around, where else?
LikeLike
“The new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.” — Milton”
Oh so true! I read church/political history and think of the OT priests!.
LikeLike
Is that anything like “Everybody’s Doing It!”?
(The last time I heard “Everybody’s Doing It!”, the “It” was bisexuality and the guy saying it was a sexual predator who wouldn’t take my “I’m straight” for an answer.)
LikeLike
A Mom ~ I don’t think we have room or a blog big enough for all my questions ☺
I’m just hoping for a response other than “You just aren’t understanding Calvinism correctly”.
Okay, I heard that already. But so far what I’ve come away with is :
God ordained some to eternal life and some to damnation and the ones damned don’t have a chance to obey/respond to Him because of our depraved nature ????
So, the unregenerate can’t respond to the Gospel?
LikeLike
Argo said, “Over at TWW, I always apologized when I overstepped. I never, ever accept that the HUMAN BEING is of no value. On the contrary, my philosophy is predicated on the fact that the ONLY thing of any objective moral value is the INDIVIDUAL self.”
Argo, Thank you! I just had a light-bulb moment about how to better express my thoughts. You say we, as humans, have volition. We can, are able to do right. God loves us, he gives us freedom of choice, but he encourages us to do right. We decide to love him or not. To commit loving actions towards each other or not.
Calvinism says humans are like puppets & God is like the puppeteer.
There is no real value in a puppet, you can buy a new one. Or throw it into the fire, no big deal.
The truth: There is immense value in a human being. There is immense value in just one human being. There is immense value in just one individual. We should believe it. We are not worthless puppets.
This truth, the immense value of a human being, is the opposite of totally depraved, broken, can’t please God valuation of human beings. Human beings are devalued by this belief within Calvinism: TOTAL DEPRAVITY
When human beings are devalued, abuse WILL happen. This fact CAN’T be argued with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOW
I love this debate with “Calvinists and Armenians” AAARRRGGHHH!!! 😉
about “Predestination” and “Free Will.” – Mercy Lord…
In my limited experience…
“Calvinists and Armenians” do NOT really believe what they teach.
Because, it seems that those who believe it’s “either – or,”
and only see their doctrine, have some questions to overcome.
———-
1 – If “Predestination” is the only correct Doctrine?
And a believer/adversary, believes in, defends, and teaches “Free Will?”
Then – Wasn’t it God who “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
For how could they believe in “Free Will” unless
God “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
———-
2 – If “Free Will” is the only correct Doctrine?
And a believer/adversary, believes, defends, and teaches “Predestination?”
Then – Wasn’t it God who gave them a “Free Will”
to choose “Predestination?”
For how could they believe in “Predestination”unless
God gave them a “Free Will” to choose “Predestination?”
———–
So where is the argument?
Now I try to agree with my adversary quickly.
When I repeat scriptures that talk about “Free Will” and choosing,
and I get corrected by a Calvinist, I just agree an say…
Gee, I must have been “predestined” to believe in “Free Will.”
And – when I repeat scriptures that talk about “Predestination”
and I get corrected by an Armenian, I just agree an say…
Gee, I must be using my “Free Will” to believe in “Predestination.”
When Arminius preached, and someone became a believer,
that person believed – they could choose to follow Jesus.
When Calvin preached, and someone became a believer,
that person believed – they were chosen to follow Jesus.
Why would anyone follow”Mere Fallible Humans?” – Or dead men?
When they can follow Jesus – the “ONE” Leader – Who is alive…
As far as I’m concerened – Calvinists and Armenians – Are trouble makers.
And should go away… Please, just go away… You make my brain hurt…
Please, someone, anyone, – Just give me Jesus.
LikeLike
I have enjoyed reading this discussion. There are lots of good thoughts being expressed. I am in the process of reading Roger Olson’s book Against Calvinism which has a forward by Michael Horton (who is a Calvinist). He makes the argument for two types of Calvinism-the traditional and the Neo Cals- who we call the Calvinistas.
John Piper does believe that God causes bad things. He told us that God sent the tornado in MN to punish the Lutheran church for accepting homosexuality. I guess God clues Piper in on such things, kind of like the Pope.There is little question that he believes that God causes bad things for His greater glory. Within this system, how does one then decide when it becomes evil for God since God does not create or do evil? A tornado is OK but a Pol Pot is not? How about a child who gets terminal cancer versus 8 kids dying on a rolled school bus?
The most important, eternal moment in a human’s existence is the decision to place one’s trust in Jesus Christ. If I am not elect and therefore cannot hope to enter the kingdom, then my eternity is determined and there isn’t a blasted thing I can do about it. I will go to hell for the glory of God and it has nothing to do with any goodness or badness. This is determinism, no matter how you slice the loaf.
LikeLike
Diane – I had planned to respond to your question yesterday, but after reading the comments and writing my own, I was tired. Sorry about that.
My reply is that we can never know for sure what God’s ends are. Suppose God wanted Bridges to get an operation because he would learn something about God by doing that? Or because Bridges could witness to someone in the hospital?
God created a world that, of course, didn’t have such a thing as medical problems. And yet He in some way intended a fallen world that did. He does not tell us why, but it seems that somehow His ultimate goal is always to display His Glory. I realize how repulsive that may seem to some, and seems to make Him out to be a Cosmic Narcissist. But He allows us to participate in His Glory, and glorifies some of us. Why doesn’t He glorify all of us? I don’t know, but I believe that He is good even if I don’t understand everything about Him.
I don’t understand why my parents lost their first child at 18 mos. Besides what it did to them, it affected the rest of their children. I have had times, since I became a believer, that I was bitter at God for things that have happened to me and to others. I still do have those times. And yet, at rock bottom, I truly believe that everything He does is good. So when I read things in Scripture that seem to me to be unfair, my faith in His goodness carries me through. I don’t think it is self-brainwashing. *It’s just that we are not the measure of all things – God is.*
If this is so, and He is the ultimate Author of the Scriptures, how much truth can we know without reading it under the guidance of the Spirit? I’m not talking about knowledge only. Knowledge alone is not the truth and does not save. But at some point we must *submit* to the Word and not measure all it says according to our opinions.
If God is good, His revelation is able to be understood by those to whom He revealed it – human beings. If He’s some kind of All-Powerful Trickster Who delights in confusion, then He is not so good. Admittedly, Scripture is not written as an outline, and takes some work. I don’t think it’s wrong to sometimes employ the help of others, whether it is notes in a Study Bible, or people like Calvin or Arminius, *as long as everything they say is checked out with Scripture.* Sometimes they make valid connections that we don’t see. I’m not saying that we must become scholars – I am certainly not one. Just that we must, to some extent, wrestle with the Word.
I agree that we do not come to the Bible as blank slates – everyone has a bias, even if they have never read one word of theology. But if we decide beforehand that we will never see its truth because of our bias, or because it’s too difficult, or for whatever reason, we are left with nothing but our own opinions or the opinions of others.
What I’ve written here is commonplace, and maybe even boring. But how many of us nod our heads and then go right on saying that something can or cannot be true just because – well, because it just couldn’t! God simply *can’t* mean that! He’d have to be a monster! Case closed.
According to what Scripture clearly says about God’s omniscience, I don’t think that my sister’s death occurred while God “had His back turned” or wasn’t looking. According to what it says about God’s omnipotence, I don’t think that He was unable to prevent it. Rabbi Kushner’s conclusion is that bad things happen to good people because, although He is all-knowing, He is not all-powerful. Well, he’s entitled to his opinion.
Speaking of “good,” Paul in Rom. 3 quotes some OT verses that include, “There is no one who does good, there is not even one.” And “There is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.” Some of us disagree. Once again, we’re entitled to our opinion. But should we leave it at that, or do some more inquiring, since God’s Words are probably more valid than ours?
Well, this is already too long. For those who are interested (if any), I’ll continue later.
LikeLike
Monique said,
I don’t think we have room or a blog big enough for all my questions ☺
Questions are great. Don’t ever let anyone tell you different. At least that’s what I’ve decided. 🙂
I’m just hoping for a response other than “You just aren’t understanding Calvinism correctly”.
I hear ya. I’m right in the same boat with you!
God ordained some to eternal life and some to damnation and the ones damned don’t have a chance to obey/respond to Him because of our depraved nature ????
So, the unregenerate can’t respond to the Gospel?
Calvinists believe the unregenerate can’t respond to the Gospel on their own ability. Calvinists believe God has some sort of irresistible fairy-dust that he sprinkles only on the elect first, which causes them to want to respond to the Gospel. They are irresistibly drawn. And then post sprinkling, they are able to actually respond to the Gospel. They call this freewill.
Does this sound like freewill to anybody?
LikeLike
I’m still trying to figure out when the big ‘W’ Word, the eternal Logos, quit being Jesus and became the Bible.
LikeLike
I’d like that.
LikeLike
I think Calvinism is one answer to the question of evil, wrong, bad in this world. I think the comfort comes in saying it glorifies God. Even in saying God determined it, because it glorifies him in a way we can’t know or comprehend.
I understand pain & the desire to alleviate it. My Dad died a while ago & I still miss him terribly. I can choose to think God wanted his death to happen because it brings God glory.
But what if I thought God doesn’t enjoy death or get glory from it, but grieves with us? And that we are right to grieve with each other? What if I believed he is a most loving God who understands our relationships with each other & wants them to be restored, as well as us restored to him. Isn’t that why God became flesh, died, rose again? So that we could choose to be restored to Him & have life everlasting? Life everlasting is the opposite of death, right? Praise God!
So if I really believed this, then isn’t that what I seek as well, my goal, my purpose? So maybe my belief will cause me to become a doctor so I can seek cures to cancer, to work in an abuse shelter, etc. Wouldn’t I seek to help & love others like my loving God loves me?
Do we want to live in a world that doesn’t affirm life or human value? In a world that believes God glories in death, evil, destruction? That’s not the God I serve.
Romans 12: 9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
LikeLike
JA, Calvinists serve a God that glories in death, evil, destruction & sending people to hell with no ability or choice of their own. That doesn’t sound like a God that affirms life or human value.
Remind me. Why does C0N stand outside an abortion clinic? Is it because he finds value in human life? Or is it more of automatically doing what God tells him to do, even though it contradicts the personality & actions of the God he serves? That action would further a belief that a puppet does what the puppeteer wants, even if the action is futile.
Hmmm. And maybe his form of street evangelism doesn’t implore people to come to God, but just tells people they are going to hell without option of choosing God? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out.
LikeLike
After I posted my last comment, I read Dee’s. Since part of it has to do with something I recently mentioned, I’d like to say something about it.
I’m referring to Dee’s mentioning that she’s reading Against Calvinism, by Roger Olson, which I’ve read. On page 85, Olson repeats a question put to him by a student: “*If* it was revealed to you in a way that you couldn’t question or deny that the true God *actually is* as Calvinism says and *rules* as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?” (emphases his) Olson’s reply: “I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster.”
Consider what he is saying. The way the question is put to him strongly implies that what he is hearing about Calvinism is the truth. If it’s the truth, then it must be what God affirms. Yet Olson says that, nevertheless, he would not and could not worship Him. Is this not the ultimate example of someone making himself the measure of truth? Because *he* cannot understand how God, in this circumstance, could not be a moral monster, he cannot worship God as God. Olson, not God, is the arbiter of truth.
I’ve been pushing this book so much that I should receive royalties, but I again recommend the companion book, For Calvinism, by Michael Horton (introduction by Olson) to anyone who is interested in a fair and knowledgeable book on the subject (in my opinion, of course).
LikeLike
Calvinists don’t believe someone can “walk away” from their faith. They believe once saved, always saved. They believe if someone “walks away” from their faith, well then they were never a Christian to begin with. Pretty ugly stuff.
Lydia says salvation is above her pay-grade, yup. It’s above all of our pay-grades.
I think people can & do walk away. I believe God gave us freewill & that we always have freedom to chose. I also believe that people can walk back to Jesus, just as they walked away. This is my hope & prayer.
LikeLike
“Now, he did not systematize anything at all. There is no direct process but his ideas (which were really novel to Christianity and were more Greek Philosophy intertwined) became accepted. There is a correlation with total depravity as Augustine described original sin (Adams guilt to all included) and the need for the people to have a sort of philosopher king to help them understand God. So God has given this special knowledge to a few who must teach us. We see this played out with the Catholic church with popes, etc. And this thinking is in most of Western Protestantism. It was systematized by Calvin and pretty much adopted in totality in the Reformation for protestants. Calvin and Luther had their own twists.”
Go to the source… go to the source….. and you will find the culprit that feeds the beast. Yes Augustine was seeped deep in gnosticism and platoism. What you are taught will generally (not always) guide your actions. If you came out of an abusive family, what that system taught you will generally follow you and be taught by you; unless, you by choice, make a change. The path of least resistance and the gravity of sin though, takes us differently. We become use to it and “need” it. Augustine was no different- he had some good ideas and intentions, but he made the choice to demand that others follow his “enlightened” path. Actually, he believed in an inquisition- don’t believe it? the history books and his own writings will show differently.
I have no problem with people giving out their own opinions or beliefs- I may concur that I do not believe or feel that they are right and I may try to convince you otherwise; But you own them and have to wrestle that out with God. The problem I have is when one demands that another follow the patterns or belief system of his or her own making? Did Calvin write the Institutes? Yes or no? Did he set up a church state government in Geneva? yes or no? Did he demand that people follow these certain Institutes he set up? yes or no? So I would conclude that all of these questions were a yes- yes? the history books and his own writings confirm it.
Then we have to ask- why in the world have we put this man up to a standard close to God and the apostles? It is an easy one to answer because if we just took Calvin at face value then why not take Nietzsche or Marx or anyone else at face value?
Well one would say, just take the good and throw away the bad- thats easier said then done because someone, dag nabbit, will definitely use it to his or her advantage. Look at Martin Luther for example, Hitler sure loved him. This is why I have a problem with writing sometimes, because people have to be so careful in what they write and how they say it- words mean something. We have become so flippant with words in my opinion and not weighing on how they can affect outcomes and even change political structures- ask anyone coming out of a communist country how much they love Karl Marx.
LikeLike
@ Jeff B~
Thanks for your answer. I respect you for coming back and addressing my question and not blowing me off. I hereby dub you a true manlyman!
That was a long answer, and I am so darned mad at what seems to be a lacking in my ability to understand… but I am as confused as ever.
You wrote~
“My reply is that we can never know for sure what God’s ends are. Suppose God wanted Bridges to get an operation because he would learn something about God by doing that? Or because Bridges could witness to someone in the hospital?”
Well, I am not really asking about His ends. I am sure there are a lot of possibilities and what ifs. My question is more about what actually Bridges believes about God ordaining and His sovereignty…not about what may or may not happen if Bridges chooses to reverse the God’s ordaining.
If the above paragraph is the go to answer to the “God ordains everything in your life that is horrible so suck it up and remember God loves you” belief, ok. If that is the Calvinist answer…it’s a mystery… and who are we to pry into the mysterious things of God…I can accept that is the answer. I am not convinced, but I understand the answer.
But I am trying to ask a very specific question and I need to try to word it better.
Bridges said God ordains (authors, fixes, establishes, orders, decrees, enacts) every single thing that happens to you in your life. He gave examples of hardships-job loss, death, cancer, illnesses, etc. He said those are ordained by God for you and that fact should be a comfort to you in your suffering. He spoke about God knitting you in the womb to make you just as you are. He is sovereign in His knitting. That we can be certain that however we turned out, or things turned out in our lives, God is sovereign and ordained it.
My question is–since God ordained Bridges with malformed valve-indeed, knit him in the womb with it and made Bridges exactly as He intended to make him, what right does Bridges have to reverse that by having surgery? How dare he do it if he really believes God is sovereign over his own womb knitting (for lack of a better term)? This was, after all, God’s creative power he was speaking of….knitting him in the womb.
Is God’s sovereign ordaining power only valid until man finds a way to reverse it?
If so, is man sovereign over God in that respect because he undid what God did?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Jeff Brown,
Please allow me to put your hypothetical question (11:04 AM) another way: “*If* it was revealed to you in a way that you couldn’t question or deny that the true God *actually is* as Satan is and *rules* as Satan would, would you worship him?”
If you would answer the first hypothetical “yes,” then according to your own logic you must answer my version of the question “yes,” or so I submit. If you answer no, would this also not be the ultimate example of someone making himself the measure of truth?
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like “This Time We WILL Achieve True Communism; We Just Have To Understand and Implement It Correctly!”
Purity of Infallible Ideology Without End, Amen.
LikeLike