* * *
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 
After reading this thread and doing a bit of homework re: Calvinism I must agree to disagree with what I’ve learned so far re: Calvinism. I’m sure most of you (and it’s obvious) have gone round and round debating before and see the futility in it.
I really appreciate all input and any more input re: my questions would be appreciated. Please respond if you can. These are hard questions, but I felt a freedom to ask here where I’ve not felt before. Usually, I get shot down and made to feel quite academically inferior.
I wasn’t looking for Calvinism or had any opinion about it until I came in contact with the teaching that God ordained my baby’s death for His Glory. But that teaching hit hard and so abrupt. It felt like a kick in the stomach.
My experience, as I’ve shared, shaped how I perceive this doctrine. I suggest the Calvinism people send a memo out re: how to comfort a grieving person. I personally wouldn’t share the whole enchilada with them ☹
I thank Amos A Love for his Jesus focus reminder ☺ at 9:05 of which Gary W. comments resonated with me:
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.”
LikeLike
I’d like to address Brian’s point that abuse occurs in other non-reformed denominations. Yes, this is true, I’ve experienced it from two Pentecostals who’ve told me that I wasn’t saved because I did not experience the secondary blessing of baptism in the Holy Spirit, and because I don’t have a charismatic personality (FYI I’m a conservative dispensational Baptist). Either that or they’ve inferred that I’m an inferior Christian. I’ve never experienced abuse personally (that is person to person in the flesh) from a Calvinist, and I’m thankful for that.
Brian, it is true that abuse happens in non-Reformed churches. Alex Grenier’s story in Calvary Chapel is a prime example that many of us are following closely. But what is forgotten is a sense of PROPORTION. The facts are that when you study history, you find that those who have consistently practiced Calvinism in the past have committed grievous sins such as owning other human beings and defending the practice because they believed that other races were inferior and thus deserving of enslavement. Then there is the system of apartheid in South Africa and guess who set up that system? It was the descendants of the Dutch people who settled in South Africa. And guess what the state church was in the Netherlands? It was the Dutch Reformed Church. Others have already talked about Calvin’s theocracy in Geneva, and the horrific punishments inflicted on people during the time of Calvin’s reign. Now there is plenty of abuse in history by Romanists as well, but that is not surprising given the fact that Rome and Calvin are both spiritual descendants of Augustine, who in turn was a disciple of Gnosticism and Plato. There is plenty of abuse in Islam and Atheism/Communism as well. What is the underlying common denominator? It is DETERMINISM and it is SACRALISM, it is the view that the collective is more important than the individual. Look at Steubenville, Ohio. There were town leaders defending the two boy-rapists because they were jocks and football players and the worship of the football team was the collective for that town. Abuse is the natural result of collectivist thinking. And Calvinism is collectivist in nature when practiced consistently, as is evidently proven by history.
LikeLike
Off the top of my head, Calvinism is synonymous with Reformed Theology and Protestantism.
Some people use it in referring to Reformed Theology’s soteriology called TULIP but I believe it consists of –
TULIP
Lordship salvation
The church did not begin at Pentecost but is found in the old testament.
No (scriptural) reason for a national Israel
Allegorical Hermeneutics (especially with prophecy)
Amillennialism
Only a general resurrection and judgement
Sometimes kingdom building
and other things…
LikeLike
“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. ”
Yeh this is where I have a problem. God allows it – I would not say He ordains it.
We have enough issues in this world then for God to come down and hit us with another whammy! My gosh, we have to deal with a decaying world, Satan, the world system of corrupt and evil men, and our own sin. The weight of that alone drives many to suicide. This kind of belief sounds like the Greek god Zeus who just played around with men like pawns and then we he got angry well, too bad.
Look at Job- this is a rich and many faceted book. God did not ordain Job to go through these hardships- He allowed it. He allowed Satan to do these things- why? Well this is the question that many of us would like to know? Maybe God knew that Job could handle it -God knew Jobs personality and faith. He knew Job would stay firm and not waver- God does say that we would have no temptation we could not handle. This was a big one up on Satan. Satan was no contest to Job. This is also a book to show that Jobs friends were no good, nosy, self righteous jerks until they repented. They were continually trying to tell Job that the problem was him……hmmm…. sound familiar. Did we ever see that Job was described as under wrath and depraved? No, in fact he was called a righteous man. Did we ever see that even his lousy friends were zapped for their own depravity? No, actually not….they were told to ask Job for his forgiveness and they did. Looking at this the Calvinist would look at this and say “see, this just shows that God ordains all these things”. Well, I would say not so- we don’t have the mind of God, so we do not know what He will do in each and every persons life. Its different for everyone.
Sometimes God punishes sin with consequences; other times it is let go for a season. Sometimes things from God are allowed into our lives for us to trust in Him more; other times it happens because of the sin of others. Sometimes Satan comes in and reeks havoc; other times it is just nature. We can only know what the Holy Spirit shows us and I believe in that wholeheartedly. He is the Counselor.
Whenever I put my trust in Him for the answer I am never failed. If it is a sin issue- God shows me without the hammer slammed down on my head that I am a failure. This is not God. If He allowed some situation not of my liking into my life then when I open myself up to His teaching, He does it lovingly; not with scorn and self-righteousness. Everything that God allows and does is of goodness, not to cause despair or hopelessness.
LikeLike
“Cheering on MMA cage fights, covering their walls with taxidermy mounts, and/or smacking them hos around, where else?”
Yeah, that’s the ticket! That’ll git them men back into our churches, knowmsayin? /sarcasm off
LikeLiked by 1 person
Monique wrote:
This is something EVERY church needs to spend a few weeks of sermons on. It’s not difficult material to learn, but it does require the one offering comfort to suspend their own self-agenda and just listen and be present.
The first days and weeks are NOT suitable for any theological discussions outside of prayer for and being the incarnation of Jesus’ love and comfort. The platitudes and dismissive words that wind up hurting so much some times come from ignorance, and sometimes the discomfort of the speaker; neither position is an excuse.
NEVER put someone on a timetable to ‘get back to normal.’ Depending on the relationship of who has died, the average times to complete grieving range from a year or so to never for a child. Let the grieving person be exactly where they are at in their grieving, at what ever time that is.
Work on your own compassion and empathy. Sitting with the grieving or dying brings up painful and disquieting thoughts in everyone. Allow yourself to cry with the grieving and by yourself.
Study and practice ways to be a better listener and steadfast companion. Two books that have been invaluable to me are The Lost Art of Listening by Michael P. Nichols (a short and enjoyable read that will help all your relationships) and The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche (a longer book, but provocative and edifying for people of any religion.) Re-read them both frequently.
Learn that sometimes, the only thing that needs to be said is, “I’m so sorry this happened. I love you.”
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Q, and welcome to this very wild thread! 🙂
LikeLike
I will have to say the “one size fits all” doctrines have harmed man more than we know. We cannot say that all is predestined, just as we couldn’t say God stays out of the picture in man’s affairs. “One size fits all” is called collectivism. Each person is responsible for His relationship with Christ and for what He will show Him.
We do know, however, of Gods goodness and that He sent His Son to die in our place. We do know that sin = death and immorality is no good. We do know we have capabilities because we have a brain to use. We must use our discernment skills and gain wisdom through His Word- this will save the day. We are only given enough light for our path, not a floodlight and not the sun. We are only given bread daily- this is the walk of sanctification. We may not understand the deep ways of God and I am fine with that; others aren’t and in that is where doctrines birth.
LikeLike
Great comments and a lot to chew on- thanks Julie Anne!
I did not find this thread at all abrasive, but I tend to avoid the politically correct road anyway. As long as there is no personal threat or foul language, I am good.
LikeLike
Jeff
I disagree with your interpretation of his response.
“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.”‘
Olson does not believe it to be the truth. The reason that he does not is because he has read the Bible and does not see God in this fashion. Neither do I. So, it is a moot point. You, nor anyone else, cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is what is at stake here.
Olson, along with Horton, said something that rang true with me. We are never going to convince the other of our viewpoint. The most that we can do is try to express, as carefully as possible, what the other person means in the way that he means it.
Olson, and Horton, are both godly men and I would not say that either of them believes themselves to arbiter of the truth instead of God.
LikeLike
Monique: I didn’t respond to your comment about the loss of your baby yesterday and I’m glad you brought it up again today because it’s an important one. First of all, I am so very sorry to hear about your loss. As a mother, the loss of a baby has always been one of my biggest fears and so I don’t even know how to relate to your experience except to tell you that I care and am so sorry that you have had to experience that kind of pain and especially that you were treated so carelessly during a time when you could and should have been loved and cared for in a most wonderful way by the Body of Christ. What a shame. It makes me sad and angry.
It’s an honor to me to know that you felt safe enough to share something so deeply personal and also to use that experience to challenge this doctrine that has caused so much pain for you. You have raised good and important questions I think.
I don’t get the idea about someone telling you a typical rote Calvinist answer in response to the death of your beloved child. It makes no sense to me and I’d like to explore that more.
One thing that I have observed among the abusive Calvinist groups is they seem to look at emotions as negative (maybe even an evil) and do not seem to know how to validate them. They think they are loving by giving you the hard truth as a response to your baby’s loss just as Chuck and Tony are giving women at abortion clinics the hard truth by getting in their faces and telling them they are murderers and on their way to hell. They pride themselves on being bold enough to say the difficult truths that no one else will say. That proves themselves as superior and not weak in sharing the gospel. (That proves to me they are bullies.) But I firmly believe they have blinded themselves to believe that emotions are evil and are invalid.
My belief is that Jesus was an emotional human being who felt pain and sadness. We see where he wept when the little girl died and he raised her from the dead. We see how He was sensitive to the physical needs of people and fed multitudes a couple of times because he cared. The man exuded love. He loved the woman at the well with his words of truth and grace. And he even hung out with sinners – whoa. I, frankly, do not picture Jesus worshipping in our traditional churches. When I read how He was out and about mingling with people, I suspect he had church with his brothers/sisters/disciples along the way – – kind of how I sometimes feel like I’ve had church here at SSB among my Believing brothers/sisters. I am sometimes so encouraged when I read here. Occasionally I am built up more here than in my traditional church because the evidence of love and support and encouragement and a commitment to a real Christianity seems to be prevalent among this very unique and special group.
We see the pattern in these abuse cases where the focus is immediately on the perpetrator – getting him to confess/repent. We see very little empathy, compassion, ongoing support for victims and their families. They need to hurry up and get over it. It’s as if they view the abuse as part of God’s plan and they feel they are interfering with God working when they allow others to stop to feel pain and cry. I think this translates with other situations like the loss of your baby, too.
Emotions are real and are valid and I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on the disconnect with emotions amongst the hyper-Calvinist abusive groups. Wait . . . one more thought . . .do these groups approve of anger? I’m thinking this might be the only emotion that they approve of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a very interesting: http://www.carylmatrisciana.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67:brendas (I hope those who believe in Calvinism are willing to read it.)
LikeLike
Goodness, I was long-winded. Sorry, all!
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.”
A Mom, things brings me back to a story about a lay-preacher man I used to know. Picture this: He was a man who drove a big semi-truck for a living, he was a long-haul truck driver who retired and then became a lay-preacher. Anyways, he had this really long beard and had lots of kids and always wore a plaid shirt and jeans with a big thick brown leather belt, and a huge belt buckle that could double as a saucer plate. He lived in this semi-isolated backwoods house. I met him a few times through a mutual Christian friend of ours. He started his little cult church in a little town just outside the city where I reside. He was a big-time Calvinist, but yet he believed that you could lose your salvation. I remember that his wife had really long hair and was always dutifully obedient. Anyways, one time he was preaching about “don’t spare the rod” and he believed that the proper means of discipline was the leather belt and he believed and taught that “if you don’t whoop your kids, that means means you don’t love ’em”! Somebody must have called CPS on him since I heard later that he lost custody of his kids.
This man totally creeped me out and I must have been 19 years old at the time. I told my friend never to take me to see him again after I heard that sermon about abusing kids.
Sorry about the diversion, it is just one story I remember. I prayed for those kids.
LikeLike
Thank you JA for your kind words as well. As my daughter’s death was over 20 years ago, I have received much healing since that time. While I’ll always continue to miss her, I look forward to seeing her again. I’d rather have her here with me and our family, but know and rest in the hope I have in our reunion some day.
If you’ve ever seen the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, there is a scene where Iggi (spelling?) is recounting the birth, life, and death of her disabled son Albert. She shares, “Sometimes I just can’t wait to get to heaven to see him again”, or something like that. I so agree.
There does seem to be a disconnect between feelings and this doctrine. Should you discount and dismiss the “gut” reaction that something is just not right with the whole idea that God creates and sends some to damnation and some he glorifies ~ just because? Are those feelings not to be trusted? Or are they stirrings of the Holy Spirit reacting to an untruth about His character? Are we to just set those feelings aside and not dig deeper and ask questions? As someone looking at Calvinism from the outside, with no vested interest, I really have to wonder if others have felt that “kick in the stomach” or “gut reaction” and just ignored it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dee said: “You, nor anyone else, cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is what is at stake here.”
Which is one of the reasons why I never wanted to entertain this battle . . . . but . . . . lol
I do think there has been some benefit.
LikeLike
I think it’s been valuable. I have to admit for a little while I thought you might need to change the title to It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off with their Heads. After more thought, however, I think the conversation, though heated, has been respectful. I wish I could participate more but I can barely keep up with the comments.
LikeLike
Not yet caught up with the comments since last night, but…
One thing is obvious: Child rape DOES NOT glorify God. Does this even need to be said?
To say he specifically allows it is another way of saying he is controlling the event.
I remember being in church at five-years-old and staring at a drawing on the wall of Jesus surrounded by children. I was so jealous of the child whose face Jesus held in his hands! He was smiling and there was so much love in his eyes. I asked my teacher more than once if someday Jesus would hold my face in his hands like that, too. She said he would, and I believed her.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for me believe that God loves me, if he was the man behind the curtain the entire time. I have cried so many tears over the concept. If any part of him, on any level, wanted those abusers to destroy me in the way they did, then I conclude that GOD DOES NOT LOVE ME. And if this is true, then my sorrow will never end, because my God is no more.
By the way, this is what some kids are told by abusers themselves – they bring the will of God into it, in one way or another. Determinism in these cases agrees with those words from the abusers.
As far as I can see, God created humans with great freedom, as beings made in his image. And both angelic and human freedom means there are other wills involved in things that happen in this world. There is a war going on, and God is on our side, fighting with us against evil. I have no reason to assume that God plans evil, wants it to happen or even always knows for sure that it will happen.
No one has the right to tell me or the child I was that my conclusion (through experience, common sense, what I believe is the voice of the Holy Spirit, lots of scripture, teaching etc.) is invalid. Disagree all you want, but know that for many of us, there is no other safe, sensible, life-giving option.
Physically sick and with a migraine, from talking about this…but I appreciate the opportunity to speak here, especially considering how many other people have been bludgeoned into darkness and need to know there is hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Monique,
It has been awhile, and nobody has responded to your questions of 2:01 PM. I don’t feel qualified, but there is this saying about, where angels fear to tread . . . So here goes.
“There does seem to be a disconnect between feelings and this doctrine.” Agreed. I’m a little reluctant to say it’s the doctrine itself that is to blame, but it does seem to attract some people who are incessant in pushing the doctrine, while at the same time seeming to have little if any capacity for empathetically identifying with another person’s feelings. It’s like truth is truth and never mind if trauma is the result.
“Should you discount and dismiss the “gut” reaction that something is just not right with the whole idea that God creates and sends some to damnation and some he glorifies ~ just because?” I think it is likely much more than just a gut reaction. Sometimes we just know that we know that we know. Maybe it’s not the best word to use, but I will call it intuition. We know right from wrong, and we intuitively know that wrong is not made right just because God is doing it.
“Are those feelings not to be trusted?” I say trust, but verify. We are created in God’s image, and that includes the totality of our beings. I suggest that we ignore emotions at our peril.
“Or are they stirrings of the Holy Spirit reacting to an untruth about His character?” Why should it not be so? I think you are right, although I personally have not acquired the capacity to always know what is of the Holy Spirit and what is of my own self.
“Are we to just set those feelings aside and not dig deeper and ask questions?” If somebody were to ask me what my life verse is, I think I would say “Test everything, hold fast what is good.” 1 Thess 5:21, ESV.
“As someone looking at Calvinism from the outside, with no vested interest, I really have to wonder if others have felt that “kick in the stomach” or “gut reaction” and just ignored it?” I personally have not had that kick in the stomach. It was more a matter of coming to the realization that an emphasis on doctrine was more apt to divide, with no fruit of love. Maybe I experienced something of a “gut kick” experience the day my Sunday school class actually got angry at me when I expressed doubts that a just and loving God would consign anybody to eternal conscious torment, with the very least of unsaved sinners suffering the same destiny as an Adolph Hitler.
No, God does not predestine the death or rape or starvation of a child. While others of good will will adamantly disagree, I am of the firm conviction that to ascribe such horrors to the will of God is to make God into Satan. It is simply blasphemous.
LikeLike
You and me both, Craig. I’m at the fair with choir students now. They have the honor of singing backup for Foreigner. Choir mom will be rockin’ this gig! Woohoo. I’ll be checking in.
LikeLike
“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.”
Jeff, this does not make me angry just very sad. It is such an insult to God and sad for you. God intended a fallen world? His not “planning” a fallen world does not make Him a wimpy grandpa in the sky. It does not mean He cannot be in control. His character is what makes Him not in complete control over every molecule that He intricately designed. IT was not a surprise to Him, of course. But the same way I know my daughter will choose the donut out of a dozen that has pink sprinkles because I know her, He knows. I do not force her to choose it. But I know her well enough to know what she will do. Allowing her to choose and choosing for her are very different things.
What you are really saying is that God planned for man to fall so he could be glorified when humans sin? When cancer entered then world. When babies die? When children are raped? God does not sacrifice babies for His glory.
He planned all of this —is what you are really saying if he intended the fall. He is glorified by our being separated from Him when He created us to be in relationship with Him? This makes NO sense.
That means He did not really want a relationship with us after all and that is at the heart of the matter. Calvinism is all about power. God’s power and the special few God gives power to rule over us. It probably made a lot more sense in a church state construct but now it just sounds evil. Banal. It is not about love. It is not about relationship which drives everything and is a must for real love to take place.
If His goal was to display His glory by “intending” the fall, He did it at the expense of His creation. That only make Him sound like Allah than what we see manifested in Jesus Christ. Allah is distant, unloving to many He does not ultimately choose for paradise and arbitrary.
God;s Glory is manifested in His bestowing on us Free Will. Can you not see that? He is that secure in Himself. That is real love and a true relationship when we seek Him and Holiness. We are His children. He loves us
I can relate to what Olson answered the student even though I am not Arminian. And the reason I can relate is because I have studied Islam.
I want to respect what you believe but at the same time I feel compelled to encourage you to “Come on home”. God loves you. It is not about His glory or power, that is inherent in His creation, it is about a relationship with you.
LikeLike
“As far as I can see, God created humans with great freedom, as beings made in his image. And both angelic and human freedom means there are other wills involved in things that happen in this world. There is a war going on, and God is on our side, fighting with us against evil. I have no reason to assume that God plans evil, wants it to happen or even always knows for sure that it will happen.”
yep! And you know what else, Oasis? If God intended these heinous barbaric things to happen to the least of these then how can we hold those responsible for them? It is not their fault if God intended the fall and all this evil for His own glory. It only means you were sacrificed for His glory. Does that sound right to you? Of course not. Jesus had the power to save all of Jerusalem YET , He wept over it. They had a choice to repent and believe.
I rarely hear Calvinist talk about Satan, btw. Yes, There is a war going on. Some of it is Satan but a lot of it is just plain old fallen man elevating himself. And some of them invent a god that goes along with evil and thinks all sin is the same. It is moral chaos and worst of all, the One True God is big on justice and He is being described as unjust and arbitrary.
You hang in there. Not only does Jesus Christ love you but you know I do, too, and pray for you to continue to be strong in the Lord.
LikeLike
Oasis August 21, 2013 @ 4:20 PM wrote: “I appreciate the opportunity to speak here, especially considering how many other people have been bludgeoned into darkness and need to know there is hope.”
Oasis, I appreciate your voice here. And many others. I read everyday, but my comments are here and there due to a busy schedule & I am trying to find my voice.
I recall when the presence of Jesus surrounded me 30 years ago, He wasn’t angry, he didn’t bludgeon me. He looked past, my sin-filled past, right into the core of my being, and He loved me, all of me.
Then came all the years of church, which broke my heart, & dismantled my first love.
TWW & SSB have helped me to make some sense of what happened. ( Well, first it was Eagle at Internet Monk that directed me to TWW) and I found my way here…
I tried to reason with my pastor when I was in a toxic church, I asked questions. I was told over and over to submit myself to those who were in authority over me. Till the straw that broke this gals back, when my pastor told me, God expected me to give him thanks for being sexually abused as a young girl. Not that God could bring good from the evil I had suffered, he was adamant that I thank God for the abuse.
In our meeting I asked him a question, which put him off, regarding women who had abortions, (using his argument to give thanks for everything) should they give God thanks, and I followed my question up with the gals who shared with me that they were having affairs, should I tell them that they too should give God thanks.
Well, crap hit the fan. Long story, so sad there are so many stories, I just pray that I will completely recover the love that I lost for my Lord Jesus. This place is helping me. Glad you are here, you have the voice of a poet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane – I see now that my answer was unclear. Thanks for calling me a “manlyman” despite that. First, I want to quote what you said about Bridges:
“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.”
If Bridges said that one should never try to change anything about a situation one is in – environment, medical condition, finances, etc. – because that is where God wants you, he is promoting a sort of fatalism. As I understand it, fatalism is the belief that man’s free will is an illusion so there is no point in doing anything to change one’s lot in life. It also relieves individuals of any responsibility, since their actions are illusory or meaningless. I realize that there are some who think that this is what Calvinism really is, but I’m not going to get into that.
Anyway, if Bridges is saying that, he is not saying that free will is illusory; he is saying that it’s real, but that we *should not use it* to change anything about us. So, in the medical area, we should not even take anything for a headache because God ordained that headache. The same with the malformed valve. A dramatic example would be, say, an orphaned child starving on the streets of Calcutta refusing – or someone refusing for him – the offer of someone to take him to America to live a better life. It would supposedly be against God’s Will.
From the little I’ve read of Bridges, I doubt he believes this. What I do think Scripture says is that wherever we are at the moment (not just geographically) is where God wants us to be at that moment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean He wants us to stay there. (After all, he ordained the treatment for the malformed valve.) To go beyond that is to try to see into the hidden recesses of God, I think. (BTW, I’m not saying that any medical procedure should be done just because it exists. Obviously, there are sometimes moral considerations.)
If this is insufficient, I’ll try again, or someone else can take a crack at it.
LikeLike
Dee – The question began “If it was revealed to you *in a way that you couldn’t question or deny*….” I don’t see how this could be anything but the Truth, and I think Olson took it this way also. If it isn’t, the question is meaningless. If it’s, say, from Satan, of course one can question or deny it. If it’s Satan in disguise – well, the questioner didn’t even imply that.
Who can we not question or deny? Though the questioner did not say “God,” I don’t see who else could have revealed it. It seems to me that he is saying that his conviction is so strong even God couldn’t persuade him otherwise. Olson wrote that he “knew [his answer] would shock many people.”
Gary W – First of all, it’s not my question, it was from Olson’s student. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Calvinism could not be consistent with God’s ways, only with Satan’s ways. Obviously, I don’t make that assumption.
LikeLike
Craig Vick, Jeff, others who espouse the doctrines of Calvinism,
I appreciate all of you listening. We may not be able to change your mind, but God knows (Yes he knows) that I sure wish that you all would take another deeper look at the God that you claim to believe in.
Over the period of time that I have been studying different belief systems, I see a lot of Catholic bashing. I am not a Catholic, however, what I see is that there is so so so much discussion as to why people are not Catholic (Reformers), than as to why they are Christian.
Both Luther and Calvin were former Catholics. Calvin, fresh out of Catholicism himself, and yet, somehow he is going to be the expert for all generations to come after him? He is going to be the one to look to for advice? In all reality, he didn’t really leave Catholicism if he holds Augustine. This Calvin dude has really got a hold on MEN. What is the attraction? There is an attraction. What is it?
Luther, his intentions were good, although he wasn’t right about everything. Calvin, he was just cruel mean man. That does not reflect Jesus at all. How, how is it that he has just a strong hold on MEN. What is it about Calvin’s personality that attracts MEN to believe HIS VERSION of the Sovereignty of God?
Calvinism has a very bad public relations problem, and it needs to be fixed. I do not believe in the God of Calvin. Never will.
Whatever you people believe, fine. I don’t really care. But when you have victims CRYING OUT FOR HELP, and you don’t look to see that it is YOUR DOCTRINES that are causing the problems, then it’s no different than a drug addict that refuses to see that he has a problem.
This is a serious issue. This isn’t about Calvin bashing. Although I love that idea. After all, reformers do a lot of Catholic bashing, due to the nature of the name, reform.
WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN should be the mantra, rather than WHY YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC.
Is reformation still going on, or was it completed some 400 years ago?
I am begging you, FIX YOUR PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEMS. Find out that the real God does not orchestrate evil so that he can get the glory of turning the evil to good. That is what is told to victims. And that’s how we got here.
To tell a victim that they got raped SO THAT God can get the glory for turning rape into good sends a terrible message about God. Fear. Is that what FEAR THE LORD is about? To be scared, and afraid? That is what Calvinism does. It makes victims scared and afraid.
I wish that you Calvinists would see the destruction that it’s doctrines leave behind.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia – I do not believe that God forced Adam and Eve to sin. You admit that the fallen world was not a surprise to him. So He knew about it in advance, right? Could He have decided, then, to not create the world? I think the answer is yes. But He created it anyway, knowing about the fall. Forget for the moment about whether or not He ordained it. He had the knowledge that it would happen. Wouldn’t you say then that he was cruel to have created it? I think that if you are consistent, you would have to say yes. The bottom line is that a world was created that would undergo a fall, and that God knew it would happen.
Lydia, I wonder if you realize how casually you evaluate things of God according to your point of view. I, myself, don’t like the idea of a place of everlasting torment. So what? If I’m in the other place (I hope), maybe I’ll give God my opinion of hell. I’m sure He’ll be incredibly uninterested.
I can’t quote Scripture to back up anything because you dislike proof-texting, and, anyway, I see everything through my filters. (Do you have filters?) So, without Scripture, it’s up to you (and I don’t mean only you) to decide what God must or must not be. What good is and is not. What love is and is not.
“I want to respect what you believe but at the same time I feel compelled to encourage you to “Come on home”. God loves you. It is not about His glory or power, that is inherent in His creation, it is about a relationship with you.”
I genuinely appreciate this, but why must it be either/or? Why can’t God care about both His glory and a relationship with me?
LikeLike
“He had the knowledge that it would happen. Wouldn’t you say then that he was cruel to have created it? I think that if you are consistent, you would have to say yes.”
I will say no and live with the fact you think me inconsistent. :o) And I can say no because I do not believe in dualism.
“Why can’t God care about both His glory and a relationship with me?”
They ARE the same thing.
LikeLike
“It only means you were sacrificed for His glory.”
Yes! Exactly how the teaching makes me feel – like a child on an ancient pagan altar, sacrificed to a god I do not know. This picture accurately portrays the death, not only experienced by the abuse itself, but by such harmful doctrine. And what does God say about child sacrifice in the Old Testament? In one place he says of it, “…though I never commanded – nor did it enter my mind – that they should do such a detestable thing…”
True, if God intended what happened, then I should go a-knocking on a certain abuser’s door right now and thank him for carrying out the secret, contradictory will of God! I bet he would love to hear that. In fact, if God wants evil to happen, and we are to pray for his will to be done, then all of us should pray for it to keep happening. We should pray for child abuse to continue! The glorious will of God, indeed.
“You hang in there. Not only does Jesus Christ love you but you know I do, too, and pray for you to continue to be strong in the Lord.”
Aw, how sweet, thank you! I do need those prayers… Love you right back!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gail, a poet? Wow, thank you… I understand, this is heavy stuff to talk about.
How dare that pastor tell you to thank God for the evil that happened to you. Notice most of the time, these things are said to us by people who cannot begin to comprehend where we are coming from or the impact of their words.
I will pray that you recover the love you lost for Lord Jesus. Ignore the lies you have been fed, and remember and focus on the Jesus who looked right into the core of your being and loved all of you. Seek and follow him only. This is what I am trying to do after clearing the slate almost entirely – reading through the book of John and the other gospels, and only those books, for as long as it takes to gain a much clearer picture and stronger assurance of the nature and character of the true God. Seems to have helped others a lot, maybe it will help you, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed – As I’ve said before, when Calvinism doesn’t line up with Scripture, I say to hell with it (Calvinism), and there are parts that I don’t think line up with Scripture.
What I appreciate about it is that, as I’ve said before, it attempts to take all of Scripture into consideration. If we think that Scripture doesn’t say anything that makes us uncomfortable, we are deluding ourselves. I don’t enjoy being uncomfortable. If I could rewrite parts of Scripture, I would.
But along with the uncomfortability that Calvinism takes into consideration – mainly having to do with God being holy and man being sinful – is, believe it or not, great joy for the same reasons. Someone has said that the main message of Calvinism is “God Saves Sinners.” Not gives them the *opportunity* to be saved, but actually saves. And not against our wills, though I’ve given up trying to convince otherwise.
If I thought for a moment that the child molesters of SGM or any other church or organization were Calvinists, or, more to the point, were using their so-called Calvinist beliefs to justify molestation or to cover it up, I’d give it up in a New York second.
I realize that some of you think I’m deluded, but this is what I believe.
LikeLike
Gail, that pastor was calling evil good. But according to the translation I usually read, the book of James says that what comes from God is, “every good act of giving and every perfect gift.” Also, with him, “there is neither variation nor darkness caused by turning.”
God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. AT ALL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeff,
I am sorry that you believe what you believe. Like I said, you are like a drug addict that refuses to see that he has a problem. As drugs have a stronghold on drug addicts, so Calvin has a stronghold on Calvinists. You both are in denial.
To your beliefs, victims of abuse is God’s will, in order to bring God glory.
That isn’t the God of the Bible. That is your God.
There is nothing wrong with scripture, period.
What is wrong is the Calvinist VIEW of what scripture states.
Quoting scripture, and speaking Christianese does not define beliefs. Anyone can quote, and speak. Calvinism does not speak truth about God.
Victims of abuse is as a result of your beliefs, not scripture.
I pray that you get rid of that stinkin thinkin.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian, when I said: “I’ve never been able to buy this. Suppose I had two kids, and both landed themselves in jail. One kid, I do everything possible to rehabilitate; the other, I leave to rot. And yet I’m not being unfair?”
You answered:
If both deserved the jail sentence, then NO, you are not being unfair to the one who deserves to serve out the sentence. What you are doing is showing mercy to one…the other receives his just penalty.
No. As a parent, it is impossible for me to think this way. It is unfair to lavish one with every attention and abandon the other. It would be just to let them both receive their penalty. It would be loving to rescue both. But to rescue one and ignore the other is neither loving nor just– it’s arbitrary favoritism.
God, as Creator of all people, has responsibility as Creator for what He does with them– just as I, in giving birth to two children, am responsible for what I do with both of them. I cannot believe I’m more responsible than God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oasis, I really loved reading your comments. You have really gone through alot and it is so wonderful to see that you are relying on the Holy Spirit to teach instead of “doctrines of men”. -trust4himonly
Thank you…and yeah, that is my goal! Loving your comments, too – still trying to catch up…
LikeLike
chapmaned24 wrote@ August 21, 2013 @ 8:26
“Find out that the real God does not orchestrate evil so that he can get the glory of turning the evil to good. That is what is told to victims. And that’s how we got here.
To tell a victim that they got raped SO THAT God can get the glory for turning rape into good sends a terrible message about God. Fear. Is that what FEAR THE LORD is about? To be scared, and afraid? That is what Calvinism does. It makes victims scared and afraid.”
Jeff Brown,
What Chapmaned wrote above, is this what you believe? I haven’t read all the conversation, so I might have missed something.
LikeLike
Jeff Brown,
I appreciate the friendly spirit in which you make the case for Calvinism. Perhaps you would be willing to allow me to test your patience a bit further. It seems to me that when Calvinistic ideas are being promoted,the emphasis is on the question of salvation. Who is saved? How are they saved? Who plays what part as between God and Man?
The response to Calvinism includes criticisms of how Calvinism works out in the Christian walk. Some here describe great wounding they have suffered, as a consequence of Calvinistic ministrations, in the midst of great trauma. There seems to be a tendency for Calvinists to respond to suffering with theological explanations, while those who are not Calvinists would reach out with compassion, mercy, understanding, empathy and shared sorrow. (See, e.g. Eric Fry’s comment from yesterday at 12:49 PM. See also http://tinyurl.com/md3xodt where the T4G statement opposes–mockingly it seems to me–the substitution of therapy for theology.)
So, here is the question I have. Does Calvin have anything to say about what I will call ministries of mercy? Does he say anything at any length about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, taking care of widows and orphans comforting those who mourn, pursuing justice for the oppressed, and so on? If so, can you tell me where he does this? Where can I look it up.
Whether or not Calvin himself addresses these matters, would you agree that Christians are called to minister mercy, maybe as a part of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus?
LikeLike
“Lydia – I do not believe that God forced Adam and Eve to sin. You admit that the fallen world was not a surprise to him. So He knew about it in advance, right? Could He have decided, then, to not create the world? I think the answer is yes. But He created it anyway, knowing about the fall. Forget for the moment about whether or not He ordained it. He had the knowledge that it would happen. Wouldn’t you say then that he was cruel to have created it? I think that if you are consistent, you would have to say yes. The bottom line is that a world was created that would undergo a fall, and that God knew it would happen.”
Jeff Brown said this to Lydia…and, you see, this is another one of those ideas that somehow we get about God and it never seems to shake loose, even though the idea changes the entire nature of God and man, even contrary to the biblical notion of God and man in a relationship.
Where do we get the idea, and why do we assume that God, in order to be a perfect God, must someone “know the future”? Jeff’s very comment illustrates the rational force fields to forming a coherent understanding between God’s knowledge of things, His ordaining of things, and thus His moral culpability in such things. There is no way God cannot ultimately be responsible for “evil” that He knows before it happens but does nothing to prevent. Impossible. This is directly because we have a false understanding of time, and we make the false assumption that God functions in a way in which He always understands what “will happen” to some kind of infinite point.
Where in the bible, or in even common sense is this idea manifest as an absolute truth? Not only is God’s perfect wisdom and knowledge NOT predicated on any sort of absolute knowledge of the future, it is a rank logical fallacy to accept this. It destroys the concept of BOTH man and God as any sort of definable “selves” completely.
Listen, if God knows the future, and His knowledge is perfect, then everything that happens MUST be determined. Everything you do now is nothing more than an act that was already “seen” by God BEFORE it happened (and here is that logical fallacy again says that something can exists before it exists). And since God is the Creator of everything, then He must be directly responsible for whatever acts He sees you doing in the future, which you have not yet done. And if His knowledge is perfect and He sees you acting in the future, then you MUST act in the way God sees. Your actions are determined. Morality cannot exist. There can be no just reward and no just condemnation. Morality is a lie.
But worse than that is the blasphemy inherent in this idea of God absolutely knowing the future.
God cannot act FREELY in a future He already knows. This means that if He sees the future, and the future must include Him, then whatever actions He sees HIMSELF doing in the future are determined. God not only sees man absolutely in the future, but He also sees Himself, too. God, Himself, is determined.
But what determines God? It is a logical impossibility to say that God freely determines Himself. That makes no sense. Free will cannot choose to determine itself at the EXPENSE of that will. If you freely decided to determine your actions, you have utterly destroyed YOURSELF. If God determines Himself, then it is no longer He who is in control of His actions, but DETERMINISM. And God cannot cannot abdicate Himself in favor of another force. That is blasphemous.
Determinism is an absolute, period. It has no end to it. If man’s future is known then God’s must be, too. Both man and God exist at the mercy of actions that they both must inexorably must engage apart from any self volition. So, the problem with God knowing the future is that He condemns Himself to the same determined action man is condemned to. If God is said to have His own will, then He cannot know the future, cannot know what “will happen”, because what will happen must inexorably include His own actions.
So, no…God did not know the fall and yet create anyway. That is not rationally possible. The fall was NOT supposed to happen according to God’s purpose. It happened because individuals, act always in accordance with their own free and unfettered WILL.
Remember, if God knows the future, He is in no more control of His actions than man is of man’s actions. And this is why this concept is an insult to God’s very self. We MUST be more careful before ascribing what WE assume to be “perfection”. We are blaspheming God in doing this.
LikeLike
Kristen said: God, as Creator of all people, has responsibility as Creator for what He does with them– just as I, in giving birth to two children, am responsible for what I do with both of them. I cannot believe I’m more responsible than God.
That last sentence is huge. And I can hear the response – – that it's blasphemous to consider yourself more responsible than God. . . . that this is one of the glorious mysteries, yada, yada. Some of this stuff is finally clicking for me. I've had these arguments before I even knew what Calvinism was.
LikeLike
Eric said:
Amen, Eric! And when you find a friend who tells you straight up: “I don’t know why you are going through this. I wish I had the answers, but I don’t. However, I’m going to stay with you as you go through it. I won’t leave you. I’m going to keep praying and be available for you through this because you’re my dear friend and I love you.”
Yea, I’ve had this said to to me – – even recently – – and it’s amazing. THAT is the love of Christ right there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt it. Calvin strikes me as the dispassionate abstract theoretician, spinning more and more elaborate (600,000+ words by age 25) theological/ideological systems. The detached intellectual obsessed with working out His Perfect System in every (Predestined) detail — I’ve seen similar obsessions in fandom; it’s one of the ways for a fanboy to flake out. (Ozymandias from The Watchmen, “most intelligent man in the world”, with his Perfect Plan for World Peace?)
600K words when the only way to write was longhand? On top of holding a job as a lawyer? When did he have time to step out of “Mom’s Basement”? Or know people as PEOPLE instead of theological abstractions? (His performance as dictator of Geneva seems to bear that out — Perfect Purity of Ideology crushing those pesky real live people beneath its Correct Doctrine. Like the French and First Russian Revolutions.)
LikeLike
Jeff Brown said:
Why can’t God care about both His glory and a relationship with me?
Well, it depends on your definition of “His Glory”. If his glory is the death or suffering of others, than I would say no way.
When I was initially grieving, the idea that God caused her death sent fear through me and hurt my trust in Him. Pretty hard to have a relationship with the God that caused your grief. But somewhere inside me everything screamed “No ~ that’s not true.” Thankfully as I moved away from those thoughts I did find healing in His love, knowing her death was not His will. We have a real enemy and I believe in free will and a fallen world where His will is not always carried out.
I think any focus on doctrine can tend to make us focus on things to know “about” God, not know Him, especially if that doctrine undermines the character of God (good, love, etc.) which in my opinion Calvinism does. But we can know Him and He is safe to trust. His Spirit lives inside us as believers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Gary W. for treading where angels fear to tread and giving me your input on my questions. ☺
Oasis: I’m so sorry for all you have had to deal with. In reading your comments, I can’t help but wonder if you’ve read Greg Boyd on the problem of evil. I’ve found a lot of help through his writings while wrestling with this difficult subject.
LikeLike
@ Jeff B~
Thanks for your reply and for addressing my specific questions. My question is specifically about sovereign womb knitting, congenital defects, God sovereignly ordaining that, what that really means and how do we take this and apply it to our lives. I listened to the sermon again this morning and it was worse than I remembered. I forgot he said he was born with a malformed inner ear in one of his ears so he can only hear out of one. He also said he was born with an eyesight disability, but did not elaborate.
You wrote:
“If Bridges said that one should never try to change anything about a situation one is in – environment, medical condition, finances, etc. – because that is where God wants you, he is promoting a sort of fatalism……From the little I’ve read of Bridges, I doubt he believes this.”
The fact that he wears glasses for his God ordained knitting in the womb eyesight disability, the disability that makes him exactly as God wanted him to be, shows that he does not believe in fatalism, at least not for himself.
You wrote~
“What I do think Scripture says is that wherever we are at the moment (not just geographically) is where God wants us to be at that moment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean He wants us to stay there. (After all, he ordained the treatment for the malformed valve.)”
Yes, the treatment is available and thankfully Bridges lives in such a time of medical technology that he can pop in for a valve repair and undo the ordained knitting….(too bad for people who lived 200 years ago. I guess they are stuck with God’s knitting)? But God also ordained the original knitting and made Bridges exactly the way He wanted, according to Bridges. So—this ordaining in the womb was only for a specific time? Who decides when it is time to change the knitting? Is there always more ordaining to undo what God previously ordains? Why is God changing His mind about His initial created in the womb knitting for Bridges when Bridges says God’s knitting is EXACTLY the way God wants you to be made?
Here are some quotes from the sermon. Warning…ordaining bad things quotes– so please don’t read if they will upset you (rightly so imo).
“God controls every situation, every incident that occurs in all of His creation. That not a single sparrow can fall to the ground apart from His will.” He related that to death of family members.
“No difficulty, no pain occurs in our lives apart from the will of God. Don’t be afraid, because you are worth more than the sparrows to Him.”
“God is responsible for people born blind, deaf, mute. God is sovereign in every situation in our lives.” He used Exodus 4:11. God’s sovereignty in causing these things is a great comfort to Bridges because he was born with hearing in only one ear and born with a visual deficiency (for which he wears special made to order “undo the knit” glasses.)
Quotes Psalm 139:13 -womb knitting verse. “God made each one of us. When we come out of the womb, we come out exactly the person that God wants us to be.”
“The deformity God caused in my chest is a great comfort” (to Bridges).
Lam 3:37-38 “Nothing can happen to you unless it is first given by God. Nothing will happen unless the Lord ordains it. Poor treatment by others… all these things- physical, economical, social, in the workplace… God is in absolute control of every single event in your life. He makes some rich and some poor.”
“God has ordained everything in our lives both the good and the bad. We must believe God is sovereign first before we believe that God is good.”
“God wants us to live in dependence of not only His sovereignty but his love.”
Bridges speaking- “I physically came into this world exactly the person He wanted me to be to accomplish in my life exactly what He wanted me to accomplish.”
“God is in charge of all weather, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires in Colorado, etc. God is expressing the curse in the weather. God is in charge of everything- every event, every circumstance that occurs in His universe.”
Romans 11:33 “Unsearchable are His judgments. We simply do not know why God caused the fire to destroy over 300 homes in Colorado. We just know God is in charge and His ways are unsearchable.”
“His ways are mysterious and we simply do not know why things happen. But we do know God is sovereign and God is good and you can take that to the bank. And nothing happens in your life that doesn’t come from His sovereignty and his goodness.”
That was the gist of his sermon. No application as to how this doctrine works out in life. God makes some rich and some poor. Forever? If a poor family believes their poverty comes from God and it is His ordained will… and then they win the lottery and become millionaires, is it now God’s will/ordaining for them to be rich? A tornado is sent BY GOD to destroy your home but don’t worry, God loves you?
I want to repeat his quote-
“I physically came into this world exactly the person He wanted me to be to accomplish in my life exactly what He wanted me to accomplish.”
It is obvious to me doesn’t really believe that statement. If he did, he has no right to undo God’s sovereign knitting. To do so would be to impede exactly what God wanted him to accomplish in his life because he changed God’s sovereign knitting.
Major disconnect???
I hope to never type the word knit again.
LikeLike
I don’t know if anyone’s read this, but I really want to emphasize it so please forgive me for re-posting the link. She explains Calvinism so well and what she went through is so detailed. http://www.carylmatrisciana.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67:brendas It’s long but it’s well worth the read.
LikeLike
I do want to say thanks for letting me share. I hope I didn’t make too many feel uncomfortable. Since it’s been a while since my daughter’s death, I forget how awkward it can make people feel. I understand that it’s so hard to know what to say in those times, and I appreciate Eric Fry’s post re: how to help others while they’re grieving.
The best comfort I received was when a good friend just sat and cried with me.
Another good friend, while dealing with the anger, offered to bring me a box of dishes and let me break them and she’d clean it all up for me!
I never did take her up on it, but maybe that’s why I did love going on roller coasters there for a while and feeling free to let out a few yells ☺
LikeLike
@ JA~
“That last sentence is huge. And I can hear the response – – that it’s blasphemous to consider yourself more responsible than God. . . . that this is one of the glorious mysteries, yada, yada. Some of this stuff is finally clicking for me. I’ve had these arguments before I even knew what Calvinism was.”
Yeah, exactly. Mystery. Read my last comment…or post I should say lol
LikeLike
I’ve always found it interesting that Christian churches are so much more skilled in teaching what to believe than teaching how to effectively and properly love people. We spend so much time and energy on teaching things that are far down the list in importance from the two greatest commandments, yet so little on teaching people how to put love for others into daily practice. Thankfully, there are many people that would be called ‘millennials’ or ’emerging’ that are putting more focus on that these days, but that movement faces a huge amount of inertia in the institutional church at large.
The Mahayana Buddhists have long had contemplative practices designed solely to increase love and compassion within each person’s heart, yet in Christianity, we’re left to think that God is going to just do that for us automatically. That type of thought, when left with the same behaviors that a person has always done, brings out the type of stuff with people like Miano, Phelps, Driscoll, Piper, etc., doing incredibly hurtful things to people and defending their boorish words and behavior as ‘love.’ The interesting thing about the Mahayana Buddhists is that these teachings of how to nurture and cultivate compassion and lovingkindness are the most highly held doctrines. But, hey, they’re just wicked, depraved, Godless heathens, so we couldn’t possibly learn anything beneficial from them, could we?
The wrong-headed teaching and practices that come out of so many Christian churches (Love the sinner, hate the sin. Preach the ‘truth’ no matter how you hurt people in doing it. etc.) do more to prevent people from actually learning how to love than they do in spreading the Gospel. Rischard Beck has a great response today to a particularly nasty blog post from Thabiti Anyabwile of TGC yesterday. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-love-and-yuck-factor.html
He does a very good job in comparing what some Christians call ‘love’ to how a truly compassionate person behaves.
LikeLike
A good post from Alise Wright on the Anyabwile TGC post. http://alise-write.com/your-gagging-isnt-loving/
This part applies quite well to some behaviors of other people that have been written about on SSB:
LikeLike
Shannon, I read it last night. While I don’t think eschatology is as important she does in this discussion, she really hits on how this paradigm gets ingrained and causes your filters to totally alter. Her story could be the story of so many of YRR I know. And some of them did not end as well as hers did. Some are still there. Some are more rabid. Some are atheists. And this in the last 8 years or so!
Do you know what the secret is? Here is the NC/YRR secret folks: They are totally convinced and bold about it. They do not accept any disagreement as valid.
People will believe many things simply because of the “method” in which it is presented. So while you are trying to be nice and “open minded” to have a relationship, they aren’t. (Are all like that? No but most are. The ones who aren’t are the exception and I will say that edicts from some of the gururs are coming down to some groups/bloggers to cool it because the PR is getting that bad and it is backfiring. The catalyst was the CJ Mahaney scandal. You don’t indoctrinate young immature men that they only have truth concerning God and everyone else is ignorant, send them out in the world, often giving them power with church plants, with no seasoning, wisdom or discernment and expect no backlash at some point?)
LikeLike
“So, here is the question I have. Does Calvin have anything to say about what I will call ministries of mercy? Does he say anything at any length about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, taking care of widows and orphans comforting those who mourn, pursuing justice for the oppressed, and so on? If so, can you tell me where he does this? Where can I look it up.”
Calvin refused to go to comfort the dying from his church during the plague saying that if he died, too, it would weaken the church. It was part of the slow wake up call for some Genevans. Especially his protege’ Castillio, a teacher, who DID go even though he was not vetted as part of the Consistory.
LikeLike
“Kristen said: God, as Creator of all people, has responsibility as Creator for what He does with them– just as I, in giving birth to two children, am responsible for what I do with both of them. I cannot believe I’m more responsible than God.
That last sentence is huge. And I can hear the response – – that it’s blasphemous to consider yourself more responsible than God. . . . that this is one of the glorious mysteries, yada, yada. Some of this stuff is finally clicking for me. I’ve had these arguments before I even knew what Calvinism was.”
Yes, Kristen cut right through to the bottomline.
I was thinking today how this determinist god paradigm fits in with some patriarchal groups and how they raised their children. They try to determine their future by totally sheltering them away from the world. They can never learn by making huge mistakes and then living out the consequences for them because they are so sheltered and stilted. But we all know how the story usually ends because some of them are now adults and are writing about it. So part of the “responsibility” as parents is allowing them some freedom to make mistakes and learn.
LikeLike
“But worse than that is the blasphemy inherent in this idea of God absolutely knowing the future.”
No way I could keep silent about this heresy. Actually, I’ll just let God speak for Himself:
8 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Is.46:8-10
LikeLike
” Why is God changing His mind about His initial created in the womb knitting for Bridges when Bridges says God’s knitting is EXACTLY the way God wants you to be made? ”
Exactly. It makes no sense and impugns God’s character.
Diane, I have a hard time understanding how people could listen to this and not see the hypocrisy in it.
“That was the gist of his sermon. No application as to how this doctrine works out in life. God makes some rich and some poor. Forever? If a poor family believes their poverty comes from God and it is His ordained will… and then they win the lottery and become millionaires, is it now God’s will/ordaining for them to be rich? A tornado is sent BY GOD to destroy your home but don’t worry, God loves you?”
Some people I know by acquaintance heard this very same thing taught in a YRR church here. An SBC plant. They did not stay there long btw. But anyway, their question was what about rich people who become poor. We were able to talk about determinism and how what follows is that whatever happens is determined in their paradigm. It makes God out to be arbitrary and cruel in many instances.
In this same church another young couple who are friends of friends had a baby born dead. They were told it was God’s will and to adopt. I mean, seriously? That was the time to mention adoption? The crassness of this movement because they “know truth” is debilitating to people.
LikeLike
“I do want to say thanks for letting me share. I hope I didn’t make too many feel uncomfortable. Since it’s been a while since my daughter’s death, I forget how awkward it can make people feel. I understand that it’s so hard to know what to say in those times, and I appreciate Eric Fry’s post re: how to help others while they’re grieving.”
yes, it is awkward. But one of the best things some did for me during a tragic crisis was to come over and say, “we came to be with you”. That was it. They came. They did whatever they could do and they grieved with me. And they weren’t necessarily serious Christians. They were people I had worked with.
“The best comfort I received was when a good friend just sat and cried with me.
”
We could take a lesson from the Jews on this.
LikeLike
Argo, Aren’t you glad the rack and burning at the stake is illegal now? :o)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I posted a link to this on the SSB FB page, but here is the full 911 call of a school employee who talked a guy out of shooting at an elementary school. If people would treat hurting people like this, our world would be a better place. She builds trust with the guy, validates him, even sharing deeply personal stories to make a connection with him and show him that she cares. This woman said “I love you” to a man with a gun in his hand who could have killed scores of people. Amazing love right here! Who does that? If you’re in a hurry, just listen to the ending. People could learn a lot from this:
911 Call Antoinette Tuff Talked Gunman to Surrender Peacefully
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian, re: your comment of 8:43 AM
You have a fair amount of knowledge, but what about compassion? I previously told you about my grandparents, who loved me, and who I love, and for whom I deeply grieve, and who, according to most evangelical teaching, are likely experiencing eternal conscious torment. That’s forever and forever, without hope. Do you have any compassion for them? Do you have any compassion for me? If so, how might you wish to express it? Previously, all you did was vomit Scripture all over my memory of my grandparents. Can you think of a better way?
LikeLike
Brian, it seems to me with regards to Isaiah 46:8-10, while it does say that God declares the end and knows things not yet done, and accomplishes His ultimate purposes– it doesn’t actually say that this is absolute: that God meticulously plans out every small action by every agent, human or animal, on the earth.
Yes, Jesus did say that no sparrow falls to the ground apart from God– but He could have been referring to God’s permission, not God’s actual causation. After all, the Bible also has verses like Hosea 8:4 – “They have set up kings, but not by Me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.” I think that verse refers to God’s purposeful Self-limiting, in order to allow His creatures agency of their own. There are other verses like this that balance out verses like Isaiah 46:8-10– like the one where God insists that the practice of sacrificing infants in the fire to Molech is so horrible that He never considered it, nor did it ever enter His mind. (Jer. 32:35)
LikeLike
I’m so happy you did, Monique. We are afraid to discuss “uncomfortable,” but I think it is at that very place where we get to the nitty gritty and finally can begin to move forward.
That’s so true. One time I did this by accident. I hadn’t seen a friend for a while. She had a baby who was born with a skin disease in which literally everything he touched caused him to have open wounds. She couldn’t hold him except on a pillow. He died at only a few months old from this horrific disease. We had moved off base and so I hadn’t run into her since the passing of her baby, but I saw her outside while on base one day and knew I needed to stop and say hi. She recognized the car. It was so awkward. I knew I wanted to see how she was doing, but didn’t know what to say. I gave her a big hug, told her I was so sorry and that I didn’t know what to say. The hug lasted a long time. Then she spontaneously asked if I’d like to come inside. Dead silence for a bit and then I just asked what it had been like for her. I couldn’t believe what happened next. She went from room to room showing me parts of Landon’s life, a lock of hair, where he slept, picture of Landon with his sisters, etc, I just listened, and when she cried, I cried. How could I not (it didn’t help matters that Landon was a redhead and I’m a little partial to redheads since I’m mother of a few gingers). I was a mother – I connected with her on that. She taught me a lot. She taught me that I didn’t have to have words of wisdom. I just needed to be “present” for her. Thank you, Jolene, wherever you are. You gave me a gift I will never forget!
LikeLike
Brian,
Your quote of Is.46:8-10 had a context.
Declaring the end from the beginning
Where is the beginning?
GENESIS.
This is SPIRITUAL STUFF, BRIAN…CAN’T YOU READ?
THE END IS WRITTEN IN GENESIS, which is the beginning.
If you read Genesis backwards, that will be how the end will be.
Is this how you prove your point, Brian? Please try again.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
To add to my last to you:
Ecclesiastes 3:15
That which hath been is NOW, and that which is to be HATH ALREADY BEEN; and God requireth that which is PAST.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that HATH BEEN it is that which SHALL BE; and that which IS DONE is that which SHALL BE DONE: and there is NO NEW THING under the sun.
In the beginning was the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb4lwselzk0
LikeLike
You guys, I apologize. I knew this thread was going to get me worked up. I didn’t expect it to hit me so hard and so personally. I thought I was going to keep it at the “intellectual level” for me. Oops, that didn’t happen. I’m working on a post about my response to this thread. When I’m working on such a personal post, I have to step away for a while to regroup emotionally. Calvinism is so heady, yet when you are dealing with other stuff, it can be emotionally and spiritually paralyzing.
LikeLike
Brian,
all prophesy is about Jesus. Including that of Isaiah.
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
If you really read 2 Peter 1 correctly, it’s about Jesus. Private is “ME”, or “YOU”. No prophecy is of any interpretation of YOU, or ME.
One of the major problems with expository preaching is that prophesy is not being taught, or revealed. Carnal is about the only thing that is revealed in expository preaching.
Do you really think, for example, that Noah’s Ark is about a ship with animals, and that God saved 8 souls?
You gotta dig much deeper than that to see a spiritual prophecy in that story of events that have not taken place yet.
That story is about JESUS.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary W – That’s a good question. I think the most sustained discussions in the Institutes are: 3.7.4-7; 2.8.53-55; 3.19.11-13. This doesn’t include the many discussions about *God’s* way of consoling suffering people. Those reveal his heart more, I think.
Concerning Eric’s comment – I completely agree. Foisting one’s theology – of whatever kind – on someone in the initial stages of suffering is the act of an insensitive fool. I’m sorry that professed Calvinists have sometimes acted that way. I truly believe that there is nothing in Calvinism itself that directs people to act that way.
The TGC article is long – I’ll get to it another time.
LikeLike
JA, Reading your experience with Landon’s mom did me in. I was glad I was not reading it in public.
Back when I was on the board of a rape crisis and spouse abuse center, I told my mom that when I was getting to know the operation I could barely endure the horror stories I heard when meeting the clients. They gripped me to the point I could not sleep and it was wearing me out. I was overwhelmed with the horrors and injustice. My mom told then that it was not a duty but a privilege to not only listen but hear each detail they care to share and bear their burden in any way we can. We show honor and value to victims and those grieving to patiently listen and just love them as best we can.
I remembered her words when I read over at SGM that victims were told by pastors that discussing their molestations was the sin of gossip.
BTW: One of the biggest problems the Spouse Abuse center dealt with were pastors who came to tell the abused wife she had to come home and forgive. It was her job to pray harder and submit to him so he could be the leader. We considered it a failure when the woman believed the pastor. They almost always came back at some point….the battering worse than before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie Anne,
Well, I submit to you that Calvinism isn’t that heady at all. It is merely confusing because all of its doctrines involve the necessary (in order that “God’s representatives” may rule) removal of humanity from itself. The body of work that is Calvinism I have found can be boiled down to that very exercise. And because of this, the doctrines sound very heady, “intellectual” and complex. Well…indeed. It is no easy task to convince a man/woman that what they actually experience and observe is not actually what they experience and observe; to convince them that they are wholly unable and ill-equipped by design to observe TRUTH and GOOD and apprehend it, and then work towards it of their own free volition and ability.. No, instead you are taught (look at Brian’s proof texts above) are the “future”, the collective (the body), the “sin nature”, the “grace of God”. At no point do YOU ever get to be YOU, free and unfettered. At no point do YOU get to act, do YOU get to choose, do YOU get to think, do YOU get to be good, do YOU get to have faith, do YOU get to have a say about YOUR life. YOU are wholly owned by the primary consciousness that Calvinism worships.Relationship is replaced by “biblical roles”, and the God/man existential dichotomy is replaced by determinism.
So yes, it comes across as intellectual…it comes across as quite systematic and organized (which it is), but again this is only because they can’t really come out and declare openly where the doctrine inevitably arrives (and to be honest, most Calvinists don’t really think that far ahead anyway): and this is the idea that HUMANITY is THE problem. That humanity’s single greatest moral problem is human beings. And the only solution is two fold: TEACH that humans are an affront to God and thus they don’t really exist as you see them; and declare that anywhere and anytime you see yourself or anyone else acting or believing in a way which acknowledges a self APART from either God or “sin nature/total depravity”, you need to pursue the DEATH of that self. Spiritually (metaphysically) and even, as we have seen in Calvin’s Geneva, physically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane – If Bridges did not explain just what he meant by his statement – “I physically came into this world exactly the person He wanted me to be to accomplish in my life exactly what He wanted me to accomplish.” – he didn’t do a very good job.
I would suspect that he was talking about the role of suffering in leading one to God. There are people whose lives go so well that they never really give a thought to God. In my case, suffering was definitely a catalyst, and I suspect that’s so for many.
Life isn’t standing still; it’s cause-effect, cause-effect. At least that’s how it seems to us because we are limited in understanding. If someone was born into a poor family, that might motivate her to get rich. There’s nothing wrong with being rich per se – it’s *how* you use your money that God is interested in.
I mentioned in another comment that Bridges going into a hospital might have led to him witnessing to someone. Maybe that was God’s intention. So wanting to get treatment, which is not a sin, led to an encounter that might change someone’s life.
If we live life worrying every second about what God intends for us, we will be in terrible bondage. That’s His business. We know one thing for sure – he doesn’t want us to sin, which means that He wants us to continually love Him and mankind. When we don’t do that, we ask Him for forgiveness, which he grants. Now live your life.
LikeLike
I wasn’t going to post this because of its size and content but even though it is primarily about the other side of what is being talked about here, it describes the original Calvinist side believed. I wrote this many years ago when I found some conflicts in what I believed.
James Arminius
The following quotation is taken from the 1993 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia Publishing, Inc.
Arminianism {ahr min’ ee uhn izm}
Arminianism, which takes its name from Jacobus (James) Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), is a moderate theological revision of Calvinism that limits the significance of predestination. Arminius (1560 1609) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who studied at Leiden and Geneva. He became a professor at Leiden in 1603 and spent the rest of his life defending against strict Calvinists his position that God’s sovereignty and human free will are compatible.
A Remonstrance in 1610 gave the name Remonstrants to the Arminian party. They were condemned by the Synod of Dort (1618 19), but later received toleration. English revisionist theology of the 17th century was called Arminian, although possibly without direct influence from Holland. John Wesley accepted the term for his theological position and published The Arminian Magazine. The tension between the Arminian and Calvinist positions in theology became quiescent until Karl Barth sparked its revival in the 20th century.
This paper is a collection of my thoughts and reflections about the writings of James Arminius. Classical Arminian concepts will be contrasted with classical Calvinism on several points. I use the term classical to describe the writings and theology of these early reformation fathers, after comparing their writings to the theology of the typical Arminian or Calvinist today. Comparing their writings objectively to the theology of today, one realizes that major changes in their theology and basic believes have evolved in the past four hundred or so years. Some modern concepts are the direct antithesis to their original concepts.
Arminius’s writings were written much like a legal brief because that is what most of them were. He was called in front of the leaders of Reformed Church of Holland to answer charges against him of wrong teaching. Arminius was charged with teaching in the university’s theology classes against predestination of the believer and that salvation is by works, not by grace through faith. Only the charge of his teaching against predestination of the believer was true. Most of his writings were a very scholarly dissertation refuting the charges against him of heretical teaching.
Arminius was greatly angered by many of the Reformed theologians of his day. They took John Calvin’s teachings too far and used their liberty in Christ and their knowledge of the inability of losing their salvation, to live very sinful lives. They felt that since they were of the elect, they could live any way they wanted without fear of loss of salvation. Nothing could take salvation away from an elect of God so they did as they pleased, living in total liberty (sin). Arminius had a problem with their lifestyles and tried to invoke some accountability into these Christian leaders. Their response was similar to that of the religious leaders that reacted against Christ when He lived on Earth.
Arminius lived a very separated life style. He was a gifted student of the Bible and the writings of the early church fathers. He was also very outspoken about the corruption in the Church of Rome. This made him unpopular with the Roman Catholics of that day. He tried to apply the Bible in all areas of his life. It is my opinion that Arminius was a very Godly person and an intellectual that would not back down from criticism or persecution from anyone. At times, his stand on the issue of predestination jeopardized his position as pastor and professor at the university. He was in constant jeopardy of losing all his earthly income and would have willingly given up everything to pursue the truth.
Christians today, will wrongly call someone an Armenian who believes in a works salvation or believes that a person can lose and regain their salvation many times. The name Armenian has, in fact, become known as a works salvation theology, however, James Arminius did not believe what the modern day Armenian believes. So changed have Arminius’s thoughts and ideas become from his original writings, that a professor of divinity from a university is quoted in the footnotes on page 189 of The Works of Arminius, Vol II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, as saying,
“Were any modern Arminian to avow the sentiments which Arminius himself has here maintained, he would be instantly called a Calvinist.”
The following quotation from Arminius’s writings will indicate he believed in salvation by faith, not works.
“I believe in my heart, and confess with my mouth, that I shall pass as a righteous man before God, only by faith in Jesus Christ: So that, though my conscience may accuse me, not only of having grievously sinned against all the commands of God, but also of not having observed one of them, and of being likewise inclined to all evil; yet, provided I embrace these benefits with real confidence of heart, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ will be imputed to me and bestowed on me, without any merit of my own and purely from the mercy of God: Exactly as though I had never committed any sin, and as if no stain or taint had adhered to me; nay, more than this, as though I had perfectly performed that obedience which Christ has performed for me: Not because I can please God by the dignity of my faith, but because the sole satisfaction, righteousness, and the holiness of Christ are made my righteousness before God: But I am not able to embrace this righteousness, and apply it to myself, in any other manner than by faith.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol I, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 584).
Arminius believed that God had absolute and total foreknowledge of everything, but took a strong stand opposite that of the Reformed Church against predestination of the believer. Arminius’s stand against predestination was one of logic. He built his case against predestination by asserting that if God, in fact, predestined some to eternal life, then those He did not predestine to eternal life, were then predestined, by God, to eternal damnation or reprobation. His argument was based on the idea that if all Christians were pre-ordained to be Christians (as Calvin, Beza and the Reformed Church of Holland claimed) and they had no choice in the matter, then the opposite was also true, that those who are not and do not become Christians were and are pre-ordained to be reprobated or damned to hell. Most of the Reformed theologians agreed that this was true, but did not like to elaborate on the predestined reprobation part of Arminius’s statement. Calvin elaborated at length in his writings on predestined reprobation. Calvin also understood the problem people have admitting to the concept of predestined reprobation but defends it. Calvin states in his writings,
“The human mind , when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without the opposite reprobation.”
“Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, p 225-226).
A major problem Arminius had with predestined reprobation was he felt that this stand took power from the blood of Christ by making it nonsufficient for the salvation of all. Arminius states in his writings,
“But it seems to me that their reasons (Calvin and Beza) can be refuted out of those very things which elsewhere they say about the price of our redemption being paid by Christ. For they affirm that price is sufficient for the sins of all: but if the necessity of Divine justice requires that some sinners be damned, (those passed by) then that price is not sufficient for all.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 74).
Another major problem that Arminius had with predestination was he felt that this stand, if carried back far enough, made God the very author of sin. Arminius and Calvin both believed that man is reprobated or on his way to Hell by his own rejection or lack of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Man’s reprobated state is because of his sin nature and lack of applying the only acceptable payment for his sin (the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ). This sin nature was handed down from Adam from generation to generation. So, because of Adam’s sin, all men became sinners and their just reward was (is) death. (Romans 5:12, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:)
At this point Calvin and Arminius parted company. According to Calvin’s writings and beliefs on predestination, God had (past tense) predestined some to Hell and some to Heaven, no choice for either group. This is all well and good for those going to heaven but not so good for those on their way to Hell. Arminius quoted Calvin as saying,
“God ordained that man should fall and become sinful, in order that He might in this manner open the way for His eternal counsels.”
Arminius responded with, “For he who ordains that man shall fall and sin, he is the author of sin.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 74).
Calvin states from his own writings,
“Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, p 232).
Arminius’s argument against predestination can be condensed as follows: If God predestinated some to be reprobated, He would have had to predestinate Adam to fall because only through Adam’s fall did sin enter into mankind. This caused man to be of a sinful nature and by his sin become reprobated. By logic, this would have made God to have caused Adam to sin, so that Adam’s ancestors that were predestinated to Hell would have the sin nature required to get them there. This would actually make God the very author of sin, and as the author of sin make Him, sin itself. This is contrary to the attributes of God and cannot be true. Therefore Arminius concluded that predestination or election of the believer or non-believer (the reprobate) could not be true.
The following are a few quotations from “Arminius’s Works” of Arminius and other men of his time, and their strong feelings about predestination. With his strong words, it is no wonder Arminius was in trouble with the leaders of the church at that time.
Statement by Gomarus;
“The form of reprobation consists in the pre-ordination of rejection from life to eternal death, and the way thereto creation in an upright state of original righteousness, permission of lapsing into sin, loss of original righteousness, the being left therein. Hence it is called non-inscription in the book of life from the beginning of the world, (Rev. 27:8) designation to damnation, (Jude 4) preparation of eternal fire, (Mat 25:41, with 33) appointing to wrath; (1 Thes. 5:9) and the reprobate are styled “vessels of wrath” and unto dishonor, ” “fitted to destruction” (Rom 9:21, 22) Wherefrom it is also concluded that the reprobate never can become elect, and partakers of righteousness and life.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 596).
Arminius’s response.
“My sub-assumption is this: But to create in order to damn, and to create some only for the purpose of being able to damn them, is the part of the highest stupidity and folly, because it is done to no end, Therefore God did not create man in order to damn him, or creation is not a way of reprobation.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 599).
“But to create in order to damn is to inflict evil on any one by his own proper motion: Therefore the Supreme Good does not create in order to damnation: and therefore reprobation is not a way of reprobation. In other form: The first action of the Supreme Good towards any object cannot be bad for the object: But reprobation is bad for the object: Therefore God’s first action towards an object cannot be reprobation. But what is not created cannot be wicked: therefore is unjust to reprobate what is not created. Therefore God does not reprobate the non-created and on that account creation is not a way of reprobation.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 599-600).
“The end of creation in a state of righteousness is this, that rational creatures may know, love worship, God their Creator, and live in bliss with Him forever.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 601).
“All men were created in one, Adam, with the same condition, without any difference. Therefore creation is not a way of election to save some, and a way of reprobation to damn others.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 602).
Redeemer came, “that He might destroy the works of the devil, ” [1 John iii, 8] that is, sins; wherefore sins are not to be planned in order that the Son of God may come as the Redeemer. For that circle, -“The Son of God came that He might destroy sin; and sin was committed that it might be destroyed by the Son”, -is not only contrary to the Scriptures, but is also opposed to truth of every kind, as leading infinitely astray.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 286-287).
“God cannot reprobate and adjudicate to death any one, unless He has created him upright and good; or strictly and properly, since that creation was instituted by God to this end to serve for the execution of the antecedent (that which came before) decree of reprobation, proceeding the decree of creation; which decree of creation was made on that account to be a way to the execution of the decree of reprobation; so that the whole essence of creation is relative to that precedent decree, as without which creation would not have been about to exist, and on which creation depends and has been accomplished.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 597).
As controversial as his stand on predestination was the stand that Arminius took on the loss of salvation was equally as controversial. Arminius believed that no believer could lose their salvation but their belief in Christ could be reduced to a point that they no longer believed and thus be lost. Much later in his ministry he seemed to change his mind and added that a person could lose their salvation by sinning against the Holy Spirit. This sin against the Holy Spirit may have been identical or similar to Arminius’s earlier stand of belief reduction to the point of lost salvation. This is not totally clear from his writings. Arminius wrote,
“Sin against the Holy Ghost may be thus defined: The sin against the Holy Ghost is the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ, who, through the testifying of the Holy Spirit, has been assuredly acknowledged for the Son of God* (see note following), (of, which is the same thing, the rejection and refusing of the acknowledged universal Truth of the Gospel, ) against conscience and committed for this purpose, — that the sinner may fulfil and gratify his desire of the apparent good which is by no means necessary, and may reject Christ.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 746).
In either case, Arminius said, if a person could lose their salvation that Hebrews 6:4-6 would come into play and that person would no longer be able to regain their salvation, ever.
(Hebrews 6:4 6.) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come* (see note following), If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (The Works of Arminius, Vol II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 733).
*(note) “For they who embrace Christ even with a temporary faith, do this through the illumination of the Holy Spirit: Because “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, except by the Holy Ghost.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 742).
As controversial to the Calvinists as Arminius’s position on the loss of salvation was, the very stand he took, for all purposes, was the same as Calvin took. Most modern Calvinists would argue that salvation cannot be lost because salvation was pre-ordained to be so. This is not what Calvin taught. He taught that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would cause permanent loss of salvation. Calvin defined blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in his writings and said,
“I say, therefore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting.”
” The spirit of blasphemy, therefore, is, when a man audaciously, and in set purpose, rushes forth to insult his divine name.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, p 528-529).
Calvin went on to say in his writings that if a Christian did commit the unpardonable sin and sinned against the Holy Spirit, then there would be a nonrenewable loss of salvation. Calvin, like Arminius, believed that if a person could lose their salvation, Hebrews 6:4-6 would come into play and that person would never regain their salvation. Calvin said in his commentary about the Apostle Paul’s persecution of the church and Christians,
“”But I (Paul) obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13):” “otherwise he had deservedly been held unworthy of the grace of God. If ignorance joined with unbelief made him obtain pardon, it follows that there is no room for pardon when knowledge is added to unbelief. If you attend properly, you will perceive that the Apostle speaks not of one particular lapse or two, but of the universal revolt by which the reprobate renounce salvation .”
“For he is directing his (Paul’s) discourse against those who imagined that they could return to the Christian religion though they had once revolted from it. To divest them of this false and pernicious opinion, he says, as is most true, that those who had once knowingly and willing cast off fellowship with Christ, had no means of returning to it.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, p 529).
If James Arminius’s entire philosophy of religion were summed up in one paragraph it would be as follows: Salvation is by faith, a free gift of God’s grace which is accepted by the free will of man and also can be rejected by the free will of man. In Arminius’s words, “it always remains within the power of the free will to reject the grace bestowed, and to refuse subsequent grace; because grace is not an omnipotent action of God, which cannot be resisted by man’s free will.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 470).
Does Arminianism teach a works salvation? Not if you read what the father of Arminianism says in his writings,
“Faith, and faith only, (though there is no faith alone without works; James 2:26) is imputed for righteousness. By this alone are we justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared righteous by God, who delivers His judgment from the throne of grace.” (The Works of Arminius, Vol II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p 701).
LikeLike
JA said:
She went from room to room showing me parts of Landon’s life, a lock of hair, where he slept, picture of Landon with his sisters, etc, I just listened, and when she cried, I cried.
You were and are such a blessing to her I’m sure ☺
I know for me it was important to share about my daughter as well, mention her often by name, and not pretend like she never existed. I know it may make some feel uncomfortable, but at least for me it was so validating of her life. I couldn’t just pretend like life was “normal”. Some have phrased it as learning to find a “new normal.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia wrote:
Yes! Our stories are sacred things, and need to be treated as such. This is Incarnational love: “It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking” 1 Cor.13:5a.
The doctrines and emphasis of Calvinism tries to discourage this Incarnational Christianity, this true dying to self. Jn 15:13 (Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends) has much greater depth when we look at ‘lay down one’s life’ in more than a physical sense. When someone opens up and tells these dark and painful things to us, they are effectively laying their lives down before us, and to listen with the love that honors God and our fellows, we must do the same. Having absorbed the messages of determinism and depravity makes it extremely difficult for the majority of people to truly do this, except in the most dire of circumstances.
When we engage in this love that connects and comforts, that lays each other’s lives down for each friend, we affirm and celebrate Christ’s incarnation and resurrection. Fully God and fully man, He understands and feels the pain, grief, and agony, as well as the tenderness, compassion, and acceptance of the other that makes up this fullest expression of human love. These are the points in our lives where we are most human, and most like Christ at the same time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, I’ve been thinking about grace today. It is by God’s love that we are saved, when you get right down to it. God’s love for mankind, his creation. Grace is an EXTENSION of God’s love. So is mercy, justice, discipline, correction, compassion, etc. God IS love. God is the very definition of love. Cals seem to completely miss God is love. Anything that’s not rooted in love is NOT of God.
That clears things up quite a bit, even without a Bible, right? What about all the centuries before the printing press? A child or mentally challenged person can figure that bit of wisdom out without much Bible study. And I say knowledge or learning DOES NOT automatically instill wisdom or intelligence or right action in a person.
It seems that the word “grace” gets the praise & top billing. Same with gospel. God is lost in all that Cal mix. So are God’s other attributes…..
If a Calvinist says God ordains molestation, but would NEVER tell his own child their molestation was ordained, then his love over-rides his theology, because that is NEVER a loving action.
If a Calvinist says we should “wear out” our children (God is wrathful towards sinners) but other Calvinists can’t do it, it is because their love over-rides their theology, because that is NEVER a loving action.
When a Calvinist tweets “Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead. Job 1:19” regarding a tornado that kills children, we are disgusted. That was not a loving action. But this theology doesn’t produce loving actions if it’s really put into practice. This theology produces quite the opposite.
If love and theology don’t agree, it’s the theology that’s the problem, not loving action. Wrong theology needs to get in line with love. PERIOD. If you can’t practice your theology in good conscience, that indicates there’s a problem with the theology.
When theology harmonizes with loving action, because God IS love, then you have the right theology! No other theology, no matter what it is or is called, will do.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff. What you refer me to is a bit too long to read now while I’m supposed to be working. Maybe this evening.
The T4G statement does go on. The part I was referencing is in the third paragraph, which reads “We are also brothers united in deep concern for the Church and the Gospel. This concern is specifically addressed to certain trends within the Church today. We are concerned about the tendency of so many Churches to substitute technique for truth, therapy for theology, and management for ministry.”
I am picking up on the word therapy, which seems to me something of a derogatory way of dismissing such things as just being there for somebody, crying with those who cry, carrying one another,s burdens, and so on—with theological pronouncement being the preferred means of ministry.
It would be easy for someone to disagree with my reading, but I am influenced by the fact that the rest of the statement seems to say little, if anything, about what I am calling ministries of mercy. The word love appears once, but in reference to loving God (not Christ/Jesus), as opposed to loving one another.
Calvin uses words like charity, mercy and humility (Institutes 3.7.7). I can’t find any of these words in the T4G statement. The word compassion is missing. Maybe there is something I am missing, but the whole statement seems to me to be centered on the mechanics of getting people into the kingdom, the promotion of institutional expressions of the faith, gender roles, and submission to ecclesiastical “authority.” (Sorry, maybe I should have resisted the temptation to put authority in quotes.)
It just seems to me that something like the T4G statement should have something to say about loving one another, by which, Jesus says, we will be known as His disciples.
LikeLike
All this talk about some kid and his stuffed tiger…
Oh wait, wrong Calvin…
LikeLike
Jimmydee, that was excellent – thanks for posting. In reading the history of the later Reformation, one thing that is striking is Arminius’ general overall good fruits as a result of salvation. He would use reason and love in disputing with Anabaptists, rather than coersion, torture and death.The first four points of the Remonstrance are very biblical and consistent with a loving nurturing God. I don’t agree with the fifth point of the Remonstrance, but neither do I hold to the Calvinist’s “Perserverence of the Saints” doctrine. It is just nasty the way that Calvinists have maligned the name of Jacobus Arminius.
LikeLike
Jeff Brown,
There sure is a lot of speculation in what you are saying to Diane. I think it would be smarter for you to just say to her that you don’t have a damn clue. That would simplify things. What you are trying to do is to biblically justify his statements, which is indeed confusion.
Ed
LikeLike
Ryan:
Were Calvin and Arminius personal enemies as well as theological opponents?
Or was Calvin the type of guy who always Had To Be Right and held a grudge HARD?
(If the latter, he could easily justify it through Predestination — he held a grudge because God wanted him to, and therefore his personal grudge was of God; add the Arrogance of the Elect (who know it) and you have a bad combination.)
LikeLike
JimmyDee,
You are right, that is long, but well worth the reading. The problem is, I am an American, not an Arminian.
I say that out of sarcasm, as 90 percent of America has no clue who or what an Arminian is. I think it get’s to a point where we don’t really care, either. Having said that, I am called an Arminian by people who don’t even know me. Why?
If it isn’t Arminian, it’s something about a pelican, or something like that, paligian, palastinian, pelican, I can’t remember the word. I am not an artisian, but I do drink Olympia Beer once in a while.
Strange foreign words that I am not familiar with. Why do Calvinists accuse people of being what they have no clue about, i.e. Arminian.
I don’t even know what those things believe. All I know is what I believe, based on my research.
Ed
LikeLike
“In reading your comments, I can’t help but wonder if you’ve read Greg Boyd on the problem of evil. I’ve found a lot of help through his writings while wrestling with this difficult subject.”
Monique, yes. Someone recommended to me his book, “Is God to Blame?” I was afraid to read it at first, but after finding his blog and checking out some of his teaching videos…seems safe, will read. His teaching on the problem of evil is good for me. Gives me tons of comfort, hope, peace, joy. I really love him for it.
Your story actually reminded me of a story he relates about a woman he met who lost a baby etc. I almost asked you yesterday if you’d read anything by him or heard him speak. Your story is incredibly sad. So glad you have been able to heal some over the years, and that Greg was able to help you, Monique!
LikeLike
Since I’m spouting off, I’d like to make some general remarks.
The events that led me to this blog and others were those having do do with SGM – first the reports of spiritual abuse, and then those of sexual abuse (which are also, of course, spiritual abuse). I had attended Covenant Life Church for about six months, and stopped doing so when Brent Detwiler’s documents appeared online. As with many of you, I was outraged by what had been going on. I read many of the stories and comments on SGM Survivors and SGM Refuge. They led me to the more general blogs (though still concentrating on abuse) of The Wartburg Watch and this one.
I was motivated to do a little confrontation with some people online – not nearly as much as Julie Anne and others – and nothing to get a medal for, though I am proud to have been banned from commenting on certain sites. I’m only saying this to demonstrate that, though the spiritual abuse I went through at a congregation was minor (similar to Brent’s, but on a much smaller scale), I have some understanding of what it entails, and great sympathy for those who have suffered.
I won’t pretend that I’m somewhat dismayed that Calvinism has gotten, in my opinion, a disproportionate amount of blame for allegedly leading to abusive situations. But Calvinism isn’t important. Scripture is.
Assuming that the Bible is God’s Word, and that it can be understood, is there any point at which it should be diluted or ignored because there is some chance that what it says might hurt someone who has suffered from spiritual abuse? Please forget Calvinism (that should be easy for many of you) and what it says or what you think it says – Scripture, obviously, came before Calvinism. Calvinism didn’t place Acts 13:48, for instance, in Scripture; it was already there. It, like the rest of the Bible, is a verse to wrestle with in good faith.
According to a theological dictionary, the definition of theodicy is: “A response to the problem of evil in the world that attempts logically, relevantly and consistently to defend God as simultaneously omnipotent, all-loving, and just despite the reality of evil.” I would add “omniscient” (all-knowing). The point is that this is an old problem (if it is a problem) that has existed because it arises out of Scripture itself. It’s difficult to read the Bible and see God as only a well-meaning but limited being whose desire is to give us what we want, or what we think we want. I really don’t mean this sarcastically – I think that all of us, at some level, would like a god like this. Because he’s limited, he’s off the hook as far as evil is concerned; otherwise, he obligingly does what he can to grant our wishes.
Maybe I haven’t described exactly the kind of god you would want, but I think you get the idea. It’s a god that comes from the way we see things – from our ideas of fairness, love, justice, etc.
But what if the God of the Bible (and I’m including Jesus and the Holy Spirit) isn’t just like this? Would He still be good? Would He love us? Would He be worthy of our love? Can we by faith believe that He is even though we do not entirely understand His ways?
Discuss amongst yourselves, if you wish.
LikeLike
Hi HUG, Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564. Jacobus Arminius lived from 1560 to 1609, so they are about two generations apart. Thus they were not personal enemies. But many of the followers of Calvin in Holland did consider Arminius an enemy, especially Franciscus Gomarus, who was the “Speaker” of the Calvinistic Synod of Dort.
LikeLike
Ryan:
At which point the Arminian-bashing wouldn’t have been Calvin, but the next generation or two of Calvinists/Calvin Fanboys.
I’ve heard it said that near the end of their lives regarding their followers, Charles Darwin said “I am not a Darwinist” and Karl Marx “I am not a Marxist.” By the same dynamic of followers taking the original guy’s idea and running with it, could Calvin have said “I am not a Calvinist”?
LikeLike
Technical Jargon gone lunatic. Like C++ programmers speaking in three-letter acronyms and WIndows API commands with the English word “object” sprinkled here and there. They understand the jargon perfectly, why can’t you?
LikeLike
Jeff Brown,
What you are saying is that Calvinism existed long before Calvin existed. I think that the Catholics use that one on us all the time.
YOUR VERSION of the Bible, or I should say, your interpretation of the God of the bible is not the same God that the rest of us read from the same bible, so I am not buying what you are selling.
Ed
LikeLike
“I knew this thread was going to get me worked up.”
Julie Anne, same here. Not been able to eat anything the past few days. But one thing about this thread…there are so many wonderful comments, so much enlightening information, so much love. I always tell people never to underestimate how much what they say on a blog may help another person, now or later.
I am beyond thankful for all of the supportive and kind words, every one of them, in this thread…
LikeLike
Jeff, the problem with your argument is that the Holy Scriptures do not describe a Calvinistic deterministic god. It describes a much bigger God who has infinite love expressed through all of eternity though the Trinity, and it describes a God who has the ability and attribute for FOREKNOWLEDGE, a God who has the ability to look at all the infinite numbers of possible actions and interactions of every being and every particle in the universe. Furthermore, he can look into the future to see what will actually come to pass. He created man and woman with a reasonable free will and the ability to perform self-caused actions. Now THAT is a God worth worshipping, not some puny cosmic puppetmaster.
And by the way, the God of the Holy Scriptures also has the ability to keep the promises he made to national Israel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ryan, Jeff,
Any religion that dismisses the future promises that God made with national Israel thousands of years ago are out of sync with the God of the Bible.
I am a Zionist. I believe in Zionism.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed, the reason I think these YRR Calvinists have been taught to call all non Calvinists “Arminians” is because Arminianism is Calvin-lite. It keeps the fight internecine and the focus off the larger doctrinal problems. It “frames” every discussion. That is why I always ask who is an Arminian. Or how they know if I am an Arminian or not. (I am a 0 pt Calvinist. :o)
LikeLike
But what if the God of the Bible (and I’m including Jesus and the Holy Spirit) isn’t just like this? Would He still be good? Would He love us? Would He be worthy of our love? Can we by faith believe that He is even though we do not entirely understand His ways?”
So the question becomes why did God decide to reveal Himself as Jesus Christ? In your construct of what you have described on this blog as to your beliefs about what scripture teaches us about God, why would He not come to earth with great power and show that power? Why so lowly? Such a nobody IF His Glory is His highest aim.
And that is the point of it all. Your interpretation of the One True God of Abraham does not fit what actually happened. How He chose to manifest Himself in the incarnation. He was not seeking glory at all. That is the point.
LikeLike
Lydiasellerofpurple,
“Arminianism is Calvin-lite”
Tastes great, less filling? This is one of many reasons that I don’t give a damn what dead people thought. Jesus lives. We are living. What do we think? That is far more important. LET US REASON TOGETHER. God wants us to talk to HIM, reasoning with HIM.
Ed
LikeLike
HUG
“They understand the jargon perfectly, why can’t you?”
Maybe…because…God hasn’t regenerated me yet? Maybe I might understand when God gives me “saving faith”?
Then I can invent a jargon more confusing that C++?
Ed
LikeLike
“Diane, I have a hard time understanding how people could listen to this and not see the hypocrisy in it.”
Me too…that’s why the sermon stuck in my mind and thought I could find me a Calvinist 🙂 who could explain it.
“We were able to talk about determinism and how what follows is that whatever happens is determined in their paradigm.’
Is every second of your life ordained then? Only to experience new and sometimes opposite / contradicting ordaining events maybe even within the same hour? God ordains a cough for you. God ordained the cough medicine. An hour later, God ordains the cough medicine to work and your cough is now gone. Seems to me God could have saved Himself a lot of unnecessary micromanagement by skipping the cough in the first place. What did I learn from my cough? To depend on God? Well, I guess I learned I could depend on my cough medicine.
I just do not see the point in all of it.
LikeLike
@ Ed~
“Jeff Brown,
There sure is a lot of speculation in what you are saying to Diane. I think it would be smarter for you to just say to her that you don’t have a damn clue. That would simplify things. What you are trying to do is to biblically justify his statements, which is indeed confusion.
Ed”
Thanks, Ed. Was starting to think I was going crazy there for a minute reading his response.
LikeLike
Diane,
The following were all speculative in his 12:44 post:
I would suspect
and I suspect
that’s how it seems
might have led
Maybe that was God’s intention
an encounter that might change someone’s life
LikeLike
Jeff Brown said, “It’s difficult to read the Bible and see God as only a well-meaning but limited being whose desire is to give us what we want, or what we think we want. I really don’t mean this sarcastically – I think that all of us, at some level, would like a god like this. Maybe I haven’t described exactly the kind of god you would want, but I think you get the idea. It’s a god that comes from the way we see things – from our ideas of fairness, love, justice, etc.
Can we by faith believe that He is even though we do not entirely understand His ways?”
Jeff, On the one hand you indicate we can know who God is by reading verses in the Bible. Well, the Bible says God IS love. Period. 1John4.
Then you say we are making God into what we want. That’s not fair… unless you don’t believe God is love. Then I understand you.
On top of that, you hint that we can’t know God when you say we don’t understand His ways. Well, we don’t need a dictionary or even a written Bible in our hands to understand that God IS love and God’s actions are consistent with WHO he is. Children get that, when adults fail to. We’re are the ones who get mixed up on what loving actions are, especially when “religion” interferes. But God is not a mixed up love/hate, good/evil, yin/yang God. God IS love. God wants us to love back, follow & love others. This seems so hard for you to grasp. I am grieved by that.
Why do Calvinists seem to get upset or worried when someone says God IS love?
LikeLike
Do Calvinists believe in cause & effect?
LikeLike
@ Jeff B~
Thanks for your reply. You wrote-
“Diane – If Bridges did not explain just what he meant by his statement – “I physically came into this world exactly the person He wanted me to be to accomplish in my life exactly what He wanted me to accomplish.” – he didn’t do a very good job.”
He did not explain it. I want to know if this is typical Calvinist thinking. If it is and you believe it just as Bridges worded it above and you were born with a physical disability that you are trying to change, then you either have a low view about taking God seriously when you say He ordains everything, or your meaning of ordain is different, or you don’t really believe it. I am being very specific here about birth defects because that is the example Bridges is using here….among others.
“I would suspect that he was talking about the role of suffering in leading one to God. There are people whose lives go so well that they never really give a thought to God. In my case, suffering was definitely a catalyst, and I suspect that’s so for many.”
Leading “one” to God? Who? Christians that were there or unbelievers? You must mean unbelievers. He gave no mention of Jesus, salvation or how our sufferings brings us closer to God. That could have been helpful. Nor did he present the gospel. He did tell them not to worry as God is ordaining everything that comes your way……God loves them like he loves the sparrows.
“Life isn’t standing still; it’s cause-effect, cause-effect. At least that’s how it seems to us because we are limited in understanding. If someone was born into a poor family, that might motivate her to get rich. There’s nothing wrong with being rich per se – it’s *how* you use your money that God is interested in.”
Well…it might motivate an unbeliever to get rich…but it shouldn’t motivate a Christian who has ben taught that God ordains everything in your life as He wants it to be- the bad things along with the good and it should be a comfort to you.
Bridges gave no examples of how we, upon receiving our daily ordaining events from God, can improve our lots in life. He never mentioned what we can do.
“I mentioned in another comment that Bridges going into a hospital might have led to him witnessing to someone. Maybe that was God’s intention. So wanting to get treatment, which is not a sin, led to an encounter that might change someone’s life.”
I know you did but that has nothing to do with what I am asking. I am asking what RIGHT Bridges has in changing God’s ordaining him just as He wanted him to be in the womb. That is the hypocrisy and disconnect I am getting at…not what may or may not have happened 83 years later in a hospital because Bridges undid what God created. Isn’t it making oneself sovereign over God to undo how God made you in the womb…teaching that how He made you is exactly how He wants you to be? Yes or no?
“If we live life worrying every second about what God intends for us, we will be in terrible bondage. That’s His business. We know one thing for sure – he doesn’t want us to sin, which means that He wants us to continually love Him and mankind. When we don’t do that, we ask Him for forgiveness, which he grants. Now live your life.”
Not the point. No one is worrying. SGMers sure aren’t. I am not. Who is worrying? Bridges says it’s all from God. What is there to worry about regarding a source? I don’t understand what your last paragraph has to do at all with Bridges statements, God’s ordaining and the womb, but thanks for the mini-sermon on sin and living my life. It reminded me of my RC upbringing when the priest would say after confession, “Now child, go and sin no more.” 🙂
E for effort and still a manlyman, Jeff.
.
LikeLike
Just topped 500 comments.
LikeLike
Very interesting series of articles of the Eastern Orthodox view of Calvinism. http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/05/09/eastern-orthodox-view-of-calvinism/
Also, in 1638, the Council of Constantinople anathematized the Eastern Confession of the Christian faith by Cyril Lucaris, an attempt to bring Calvinist doctrine to the Orthodox Church.
LikeLike
An indication on the LIMITATION of God’s Sovereignty.
God PROMISES to FORGET our sin. Does God get Alzheimer’s?
God sovereignly made this declaration, in that he will remember our sin NO MORE.
That is literal, for those who think it is allegorical.
Jeremiah 31:34
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
How do the Calvinists view a forgetful God?
Ed
LikeLike
Jonah 3: 3 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. 4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5 And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.
The People of Nineveh Repent
6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.”
10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.
If God knew the people of Nineveh would repent & turn from their evil way, why would God tell Jonah to warn the people that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown? And then God changed his mind, had mercy on them because they repented & did good, & God DID NOT destroy them after all.
Does this sound like a God who controls everything? Or does this sound like a God who gives people a choice with consequences? And is this a God who is loving & merciful if people choose themselves to do right & not evil?
LikeLike