It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 1

*     *     *

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  🙂

*     *     *

origin_2041039779

*     *     *

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?

*     *     *

1,143 comments on “It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 1

  1. “What good was produced when my dad would knock me upside the head with his big honkin’ class ring banging into my head causing knots? Help me Brian. I’m just not tracking with you here. Make some sense for me, please.”

    Julie Anne,

    Do you think that today you are better equipped or worse equipped to help others because of your past? Would you even have this blog if it weren’t for your past? All things work together for good for those that love God and are called according to His purpose.

    Those things don’t just work together for good on their own. God causes all things to work together for their (your) good.

    Like

  2. “It is even bigger than that, Brian. The Jews were God’s “chosen” people… does that mean all Jews were saved before Christ?”

    No

    “The Gentiles are now part of that ……does that mean all Gentiles are saved?”

    No

    Who makes up the corporate entity that made for dishonorable use? WHo are the vessel of wrath that God prepared beforehand for destruction?

    Like

  3. Ed,

    Do you believe everyone is ultimately saved?

    It sounds as if you believe Judas was saved, and yet Jesus said it would have been better if he’d never been born. Judas was called the “Son of perdition” by Jesus himself. And Peter said Judas left them to “go to his own place”.

    Do you believe Judas was saved to eternal life? This is very important in helping me understand where you are coming from.

    Like

  4. Julie Anne,

    Could you magine your family hating you so much that they wanted to kill you, but instead of doing that they sell you into slavery and tell your parents that you were attacked by a wild animal?

    Pretty abusive. And yet, Joseph’s comments to his brothers are these about those evil actions:

    “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)”

    Like

  5. “WHo are the vessel of wrath that God prepared beforehand for destruction?”

    Brian, Did you miss the “IF” as in “What IF God….”. in Romans 9:22?

    Check it in the interlinear. Do you not understand 1st Century communication? The hyperbole, the making of an argument? The over emphasizing things to make a point?

    Read on…

    30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

    “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall,
    and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

    Do you not see the Jew/Gentile dichotomy that is the main theme of Romans? And why on earth would God say “and the one who believes in him” if they cannot unless He forces them to? This sort of thing is all over scripture that contradicts your construct. Jesus’ first sermon was “Repent and believe”. Why tell people that when it has already been chosen who can and who can’t? Bait and switch? A deceptive Messiah? A cruel one telling people to repent and believe when He knows they have not been chosen.

    Like

  6. “Could you magine your family hating you so much that they wanted to kill you, but instead of doing that they sell you into slavery and tell your parents that you were attacked by a wild animal?

    Pretty abusive. And yet, Joseph’s comments to his brothers are these about those evil actions:

    “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)”

    Brian, Are you suggesting that God sacrifices children to bring about good? That is Molech.

    If you want to know what God is like look to Jesus
    If you want to know what being human should look like, look to Jesus

    Josephs brothers had the free will to do evil. God used it for good to save his people.

    Here is something interesting in the story you guys tend to leave out: There is so much sin in that story it is hard to know where to start. We can start with his father who showed favoritism in a cruel way that made his brothers feel unloved. Joseph was a braggert and egged his brothers on. His brothers who were acting out their anger toward him and so on and on and on. God was busy working around all this free will!

    He could have saved a lot of time and simply not “determined” the famine. :o)

    Like

  7. BTW: in your determinist God construct of interpreting the story of Joseph. God has to make HIS people, like Jacob, do cruel things to his own children and his less favorite wife to bring about His good. That is a total contradiction. Are you sure you want to take that path?

    Because quite frankly, it is becoming very obvious to many that in the Neo Cal movement that is the way it is. That is why I often joke about locking up the children.

    I am kinda sorta joking. Because when cruelty happens to children they can say God did it to use it for good.

    Contrast that thinking with:

    10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

    Like

  8. Brian said, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)”

    Brian, This verse is quite simple. Joseph says here that the only party meaning (wanting) evil were his brothers. Joseph goes on to say that God means (wants) good. Joseph did right after he was sold & God used Joseph’s good, right, obedient actions to save people.

    Brian, when I see a baseball pitched at the Little League World Series, I can see where it will end up, based on the trajectory. I see it hurling towards the batter & I know it will hit him if he doesn’t move. Does that make me in complete control of the event, whether it will happen or not? Does that mean I determined it to happen, just because I know what might happen? If you said yes, just because I knew what may or will happen, you would be wrong. I have zero control over the ball & players. Does that make me unloving, unkind, evil? No. I can’t control someone else’s actions: not the one pitching, not the one batting. They both decide & are responsible for what they choose to do. AND is the parent of the batter unloving, unkind, evil to let their kid play ball & then they get hit? NO! The parent is not to blame. We’d be right back to preprogrammed hard-coded STERILE computer people. Sound like fun? Sound like living? I want my family to live!

    Yet this is the picture you paint of God. God MUST be evil if he allows freedom for his creation. God MUST be unloving if someone chooses wrong. The burden of wrong actions always falls on the individual & NOT on God. NOT the other way around as Calvinists say. God must not be misrepresented.

    Brian, as a parent do you exhibit undo control over your kids with fear? Do you hedge them in so they never learn to fear (a healthy not unhealthy fear) for themselves or experience raw joy for themselves? Is that the kind of childhood you had? Kids watching other kids through a window, but never being able to join in?

    Like

  9. Lydia said, “BTW: in your determinist God construct of interpreting the story of Joseph. God has to make HIS people, like Jacob, do cruel things to his own children and his less favorite wife to bring about His good. That is a total contradiction. Are you sure you want to take that path?
    Because quite frankly, it is becoming very obvious to many that in the Neo Cal movement that is the way it is. That is why I often joke about locking up the children.
    I am kinda sorta joking. Because when cruelty happens to children they can say God did it to use it for good.”

    It is NO joke. There are devote practitioners of Calvinist religion. And they are scary.

    I would recommend brick & mortar public school before a Reformed Sunday School. Yes, other denom churches may have the same problems. But the Reformed group already teach all sins are the same, everyone is depraved, none can do good, Jesus obeyed the laws so we don’t have to. Hello?

    Seriously, I don’t know any public school that proudly states this to parents at orientation. And we’d be shocked to hear a police officer tell that to us as well. But in church, “under preaching authority”, we nod our heads and agree. And some walk out of these church services & do depraved, sinful, evil acts, breaking the law, because they have imputed righteousness of Jesus. Jesus obeyed the law for them so they don’t have to obey ANY moral laws. They are taught all they need is faith, one mental thought alone & they are done, good to go. This teaching seems to sever the conscience, instead of heightening sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.

    Please wake up, beloved! Don’t learn the hard way!

    Like

  10. Brian said: Disagree. The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    I said: “What good was produced when my dad would knock me upside the head with his big honkin’ class ring banging into my head causing knots? Help me Brian. I’m just not tracking with you here. Make some sense for me, please.”

    Brian said: Do you think that today you are better equipped or worse equipped to help others because of your past? Would you even have this blog if it weren’t for your past? All things work together for good for those that love God and are called according to His purpose.

    That is a cop-out answer. Sure, it may have worked out for me AFTER the abuse. Yes, the pain has moved me: either it was going to be death or life and I chose life and to help others. But that’s not what I was talking about. During the time of my abuse – during the actual abuse – as that big metal ring was digging into my head as he slapped me mercilessly are you saying the Lord made THAT? Where was He at that moment? I don’t want to talk about after that moment, but right then. When I was alone and no one was rescuing me from a man who was much bigger than me. Look at your words: God made EVERYTHING for its own purpose – even the wicked for the day of evil.

    What kind of God does that, Brian?

    And after you answer that, answer this: what about the people who don’t get over the abuse? They can’t emotionally get over it. Maybe they go to drugs/sex to numb the pain. Is it their fault? What if they have come to the conclusion that God abandoned them at their most painful time in their life and they never come to Christ, they never fully recover. Was this God’s purpose?

    Like

  11. Puritans? The Puritans were self-entitled, self-serving, self-protecting, so much that they killed others who didn’t go along with their religion! That is the truth! And they coveted the Indians land & took it from them.

    HUG said, “And justified it as they were the New Israel settling the promised land. And the Indians? The Canaanites who occupy the Land. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.”

    The Puritan men did the “cleansing”? Seems they were experts at the “spin” cycle. And of course hanging other religious folk out to dry.

    Those “precious puritans”. NOT!

    Our wise founding fathers took one look at their despicable behavior & required separation of church & state. I am all for that.

    Christian Rap: Precious Puritans, part of lyrics are below:

    If you would allow me second to deal with some in-house issues here…
    Pastor, you know it’s hard for me when you quote puritans.
    Oh the precious puritans.
    Have you not noticed our facial expressions?
    One of bewilderment and heart break.
    Like, not you too pastor.
    You know they were the chaplains on slaves ships, right?
    Would you quote Columbus to Cherokees?
    Would you quote Cortez to Aztecs?
    Even If they theology was good?
    It just sings of your blind privilege wouldn’t you agree?
    Your precious puritans.
    They looked my onyx and bronze skinned forefathers in they face,
    Their polytheistic, god-hating face.
    Shackled, diseased, imprisoned face.
    And taught a gospel that says God had multiple images in mind when he created us in it.
    Their fore-destined salvation contains a contentment in the stage for which they were given which is to be owned by your forefathers’ superior image-bearing face.
    Says your precious puritans.
    And my anger towards this teaching screams of an immature doctrine and a misunderstanding of the gospel.
    I should be content in this stage, right? Isn’t that Paul taught?
    According to your precious puritans.

    Like

  12. “And after you answer that, answer this: what about the people who don’t get over the abuse? They can’t emotionally get over it. Maybe they go to drugs/sex to numb the pain. Is it their fault? What if they have come to the conclusion that God abandoned them at their most painful time in their life and they never come to Christ, they never fully recover. Was this God’s purpose?”

    Julie Anne, these are the questions that are causing some who have been in this NEo REformed movement to not only leave it but to become rabid athiests. These are the types that embraced the determinist god and came to the end when they applied your questions to this dark religion.

    The answer to your question as to what happens to them is they are not elect according to Calvinism.. That simple. They were vessels of wrath according to that doctrine.For some reason they think such things Glorify God. I don’t agree, I think it glorfies satan and shows his earthly bondage.

    Even a kid who was raped and becomes a drug addict or molester himself was predestined to be a vessel of wrath?. If anyone does not see the DEATH culture inherent in this doctrine, they have not thought it through or they like the thought of it. I assume most attracted to it they are ignorant or decieved (See 1 Tim) like I was for a short while but when they defend it to the teeth, I avoid them in real life. I do not want them teaching my children anything.

    I will take a beating from an unbeliever. But NOT from a long time professing believer. When it comes to shoving this docrine down people’s throats in the way of arrogance, etc, I won’t back down. I don’t play the fake nice game. Because I have seen it in action. We had better wake up because this doctine is attracting teens like crazy. It provides “answers” even though those answers are death not life.

    God help us.

    Like

  13. “When it comes to shoving this docrine down people’s throats in the way of arrogance, etc, I won’t back down.”

    Yes. And yet it would seem that the pushback must be for the benefit of others than these aggressive “evangelists” of a deadly and ultimately blasphemous doctrine, the original prophet of which, John Calvin, proved himself to be a murderer.

    If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. (Proverbs 29:9, ESV)

    The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, (Proverbs 12:15a, ESV)

    [A] fool flaunts his folly. (Proverbs 13:16b, ESV)

    Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge. (Proverbs 14:7, ESV)

    Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words. (Proverbs 23:9, ESV)

    Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. (Proverbs 26:4, ESV)

    Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Proverbs 26:11, ESV)

    Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him. (Proverbs 27:22, ESV)

    Now, I am NOT saying that any of this applies to anybody in particular, and certainly not to Brian. Yet, if you look at the words, acts, omissions and projected attitudes of recognized leaders of the modern day Calvinist/Reformed movement, it is not so difficult to observe the kind of folly spoken of in these verses. Not to mention the overweening arrogance. In my opinion.

    Like

  14. “God was busy working around all this free will!”

    If this is true and God was merely reacting to what what the brothers were doing, then why does Joseph say that it was God who brought him to Egypt?

    Like

  15. Julie Anne, these are the questions that are causing some who have been in this NEo REformed movement to not only leave it but to become rabid athiests. These are the types that embraced the determinist god and came to the end when they applied your questions to this dark religion.

    Communism begets Objectivism.

    Like

  16. Even a kid who was raped and becomes a drug addict or molester himself was predestined to be a vessel of wrath?. If anyone does not see the DEATH culture inherent in this doctrine, they have not thought it through or they like the thought of it.

    My money’s on the latter. Its DEATH for everyone EXCEPT The Predestined Elect. Naturally the Predestined Elect would go for it; they’re God’s Speshul Pets and they have the Get Out Of Hell Free Card to prove it! I Got Mine! Sucks to be you! HAW! HAW HAW!

    Like

  17. “Look at your words: God made EVERYTHING for its own purpose – even the wicked for the day of evil.

    What kind of God does that, Brian?”

    Those are not my words, JA, those are the woods of God himself.

    Do you believe what I quoted is the word of God? If you do, then why attribute them to me and ask what kind of God does that? If you don’t believe it is the word of God then we have a whole new problem because we are not coming from the same foundation.

    You asked me where God was when those things were happening to you…my response is, where do you think he was?

    Where was he when he ordered the slaughter of women and babies in the OT? Do you believe he actually did that?

    Where was he when David was crying out to him in the psalms?

    And where was he when his own perfect sinless son was crying out to him?

    Like

  18. (It is informative that there is no great art, music or anything of that nature from Geneva in that period of time. Instead of people developing gifts they were informing on each other)

    Because if you inform on me, the magistrates/inquisition go after me instead of you. You probably even get a reward from God’s Predestined Elect for informing.

    Ever heard of “Calvin whitewashing the churches of Geneva”? Sledgehammered off all decoration until there was only smooth bare walls. Whitewashed the walls, painting over all remaining decoration. Then (I found out recently) calligraphed Bible verses on the plain white walls as the only “decoration”.

    Plain white walls calligraphed with quotations from the Holy Book.
    Just like the Wahabi do to mosques.

    Like

  19. To characterize what I believe as a death culture is nothing but inflammatory. It is, once again, a false caricature of the truth.

    To sum up what I and others believe concerning how God operates, the words of Jesus himself say it quite nicely:

    “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” – Jesus, John 6:63

    Those are the RED words of Christ saying that the flesh profits “nothing”, yet with your theology of free will you have the flesh profiting everything!

    Like

  20. Brian said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” – Jesus, John 6:63

    Those are the RED words of Christ saying that the flesh profits “nothing”, yet with your theology of free will you have the flesh profiting everything!

    **********

    Brian: My brain is confused. I thought you were using the example of what good this blog has done about MY CHOICE to have a blog which has resulted in a lot of good for quite a few people. People have publicly said how their lives have changed as a result. So, are you saying I didn’t have a choice to make this blog, that the Spirit made the choice for me?

    Like

  21. “If this is true and God was merely reacting to what what the brothers were doing, then why does Joseph say that it was God who brought him to Egypt?”

    Brian, Your determinist god is “either/or”. Perhaps it is hard to enter the realm of “both/and” because you find that means a wimpy grandpa God. I hope you do not think that I believe God NEVER intervenes. I do not think His interventions are chaotic/evil based. I do not think he plots for His people to do evil in order to get them where he wants them to be. For crying out loud, He has the power to stop the famine so why not do that instead of forcing his people to do evil for His purpose?

    Look, when I read the OT, I keep in mind the contrast to a pagan backdrop. I keep in mind that the Pentateuch was most likely written during or after the Babylonian Exile. I do not read it as woodenly as you do. I think it communicates a grand narrative of God intentions and his interacting with man. And mans evil and disobedience.

    When we get into every nuance we miss so much of the poetry, hyperbole, repitition, etc that is inherent in Hebrew communication. Just for grins, read the pagan Hammurubi law code and contrast it with the Law given to Moses. Don’t read anything into that or make declarative statements on what I mean. Just try it and do the contrast.

    Like

  22. “So, are you saying I didn’t have a choice to make this blog, that the Spirit made the choice for me?”

    JA,

    When Jesus says “it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is not help at all”, the context of his statement is referring to salvation. I was quoting him making the point that everyone on here touting they came to God completely of their own free will means they are claiming they came to him through the power of the flesh.

    Jesus refutes that by saying it is the Spirit who gives life, not the flesh.

    Like

  23. JA,

    Do you have any thoughts to my questions regarding your view of Scripture?

    “Do you believe what I quoted is the word of God? If you do, then why attribute them to me and ask what kind of God does that? If you don’t believe it is the word of God then we have a whole new problem because we are not coming from the same foundation.”

    I am curious what your thinking is on this.

    Like

  24. Brian, Your determinist god is “either/or”. Perhaps it is hard to enter the realm of “both/and” because you find that means a wimpy grandpa God.

    Brian appears to be taking a page from Calvary Chapel Pastor Raul Rees’s playbook:
    “Show Me SCRIPTURE! Show Me SCRIPTURE! Show Me SCRIPTURE!”

    Again, rewordgitate Ideology, Ees Party Line, Comrades.

    Like

  25. Brian: My brain is confused. I thought you were using the example of what good this blog has done about MY CHOICE to have a blog which has resulted in a lot of good for quite a few people.

    That’s the whole idea. Hammer the target until their “brain is confused” and they are completely beat down and broken, then fill them up with Your Perfectly-Parsed Ideological TRUTH(TM). Commonly called “brainwashing”.

    And one of the best ways to confuse their brain is to keep switching arguments and examples and TRUTH(TM)s, too fast for them to keep up. YES! NO! YES! NO! YES! NO!

    Like

  26. “To characterize what I believe as a death culture is nothing but inflammatory. It is, once again, a false caricature of the truth. ”

    Brian, I am at the point I do not think you can read your own words objectively. Are you parroting what you have been taught? Think of what you are saying to Julie Anne concerning her experience and God. Do you not hear the logical conclusion coming out of what you believe about God?

    You are basically saying God has to act like Satan to produce good. (And this is for his glory). He has to use little innocent children in a perverse way in order to bring good. That is how it works with a determinist paradigm.

    I am hoping that when you fall out of love with your gurus, both dead and alive, you will be able to see, as I explained above, why this doctrine is a doctrine of demons.

    You questions and answers to Julie Anne concerning her experiences are indicative of this. What saddens me are that these beliefs in the determinist god is becoming the new normal for so many. And I include Islam in that, too, as it is also growing.

    Some accuse me of being OTT with this but I don’t think so. I think there are plenty of Calvinists who would NEVER harm a flea and I honestly believe they have not taken the time to really analyze the foundational premises. Some do it years later. Some never at all. They believe the gurus.. But there are some who take the foundational premises and use them to inflict tons of damage in the name of Jesus, controlling people, managing their image and building a little kingdom of their own.

    The one major thing that is lacking in that movement is Love. They are trying to redefine love as meaning correct doctrine. I am thankful for the internet where this can get a public hearing.

    Like

  27. Brian: When I wrote those words, just as I wrote them in the abuse thread, I was trying to voice what goes on in the mind of someone who has been abused and the inner conflict and turmoil that they have to get over. I do attribute those words to God. There is a disconnect, though, that I see in your words (not you specifically, but the Calvinist mindset). This stuff gets heady for me and I’m not sure if I can articulate it – – especially with all the crazy that has gone on all week. I might have to sit on it for a bit and try to come back and respond with a clear head.

    Like

  28. The one thing that drives this “movement”, as you call it, IS love.

    My theology has God doing for sinners what they cannot do on their own. That is love.

    Your theology has God leaving sinners to themselves to see if they can do it on their own. That is cruel.

    Like

  29. “You call this a public hearing? What a joke!

    This is at best a kangaroo court.”

    We have NO power, Brian to conduct a kangaroo court. We do not have the power to do star chambers or church discipline for non compliance or disagreement.

    We are plebes discussing/debating.. Until the advent of social media this topic has been debated/discussed mostly by theologians/scholars/pastors. And if a plebe wanted to research it, it could take years to find the resources where as now they are a fingertip away and not hours in the Library. The peasants are doing their own research. That always scares the leaders.

    It IS finally getting a hearing in the public square, so to speak, of the internet. Because the scholars/theologians, etc were not really debating the application of this doctrine. That was not their prevue. But now, with the NC resurgence being about 30 years old and reaching critical mass during a time of pervasive social media, the APPLICATION of Calvinism is being analyzed by the plebes.

    And this is good. If you read history, you see the “application” of Calvinism is a problem…think Geneva, think Apartheid, think slavery in the South, think Puritans……. That is one reason it either dies out or goes liberal.

    Like

  30. “My theology has God doing for sinners what they cannot do on their own. That is love.”

    Which sinners? Not those He did not choose before Adam sinned. The “unchosen” ones, He damned to hell according to your theology. That is love in your book?

    My theology ALSO has God doing for sinners what they cannot do on their own.
    And that was done on the Cross and through the Resurrection. And it was for ALL people. Not just the chosen ones in your determinist construct. All who repent and believe and follow Him.

    The problem is you start with the false premise that man has NO volition at all. The only place one can go after that is a cruel god who damns some to hell because they were not chosen before Adam sinned.

    Like

  31. “The problem is you start with the false premise that man has NO volition at all. The only place one can go after that is a cruel god who damns some to hell because they were not chosen before Adam sinned.”

    No, the problem is that you start with the false premise that people are basically good. WItrh that initial premise, yes, I can see how you would think that God is being cruel to choose some for salvation and not others.

    But people are not basically good. ALL people deserve God’s wrath.

    God, out of his love, chooses to save some.

    So, some receive mercy, the rest receive justice.

    You may not like it , but predestination is all over the Bible. You may have a different view of it, but it is there. So please, at least handle Scripture honestly and address that predestination exists.

    Like

  32. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given to Him.
    ( Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14; Romans 3:25, 26; John 17:2; Hebrews 9:15 ) – 1689 LBC

    Like

  33. Concerning free will (what I believe):

    Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
    ( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

    When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.
    ( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )

    5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
    ( Ephesians 4:13 ) – 1689 LBC

    Like

  34. How Deep the Father’s Love for Us…

    How deep the Father’s love for us,
    How vast beyond all measure
    That He should give His only Son
    To make a wretch His treasure

    How great the pain of searing loss,
    The Father turns His face away
    As wounds which mar the chosen One,
    Bring many sons to glory

    Behold the Man upon a cross,
    My sin upon His shoulders
    Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
    Call out among the scoffers

    It was my sin that left Him there
    Until it was accomplished
    His dying breath has brought me life
    I know that it is finished

    I will not boast in anything
    No gifts, no power, no wisdom
    But I will boast in Jesus Christ
    His death and resurrection

    Why should I gain from His reward?
    I cannot give an answer
    But this I know with all my heart
    His wounds have paid my ransom – Stuart Townend

    Like

  35. Brian,

    I’ve been busy the last couple days…couldn’t get back to ya. So, here it goes.

    Brian asks

    “Ed,

    Do you believe everyone is ultimately saved?

    My response:

    No. But in the case of the Pharaoh, For before the law, sin was in the world…well, you know the rest. I keep hammering that one over and over and over and over and over again.

    Next, Judas…

    Judas was sorry for what he had done. God had to “use” Judas in order to get Jesus to the cross. But still, Judas was sorry for doing it. And, while on the cross, Jesus forgave everyone for putting him on the cross, for the people all said to crucify him. He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

    When dealing with the Jews, God blinded the Jews, and therefore after the Jews die, God shows mercy on the ones that he blinded. There is a SPIRITUAL reason that God blinded them. And therefore, God will show mercy on them.

    The Apostle Paul wishes that they would get saved during this life, yes. But they are not intended to see Jesus as their messiah…but they will see him whom they have pierced.

    MERCY – The JEWS are BELIEVERS in God. They are blind ONLY in regards to who the Messiah is.

    John 4:22 (Jesus said to the woman at the well about the Jews)
    WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP: FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS

    That last word is plural, by the way.

    Romans 11:32 (discussing the Jews)
    For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    Take for example, the story of Joseph, which we discussed the other day. Joseph is a TYPE, or SHADOW of Jesus in PROPHECY.

    Joseph REVEALED himself to his BRETHREN…NOT THE FIRST TIME, BUT THE SECOND TIME.

    I capped those because Jesus will reveal himself to HIS BRETHREN (JEWS) the SECOND TIME, because he didn’t reveal himself THE FIRST TIME.

    I so much wish that you people would see that all these things is PROPHECY ABOUT JESUS, and it has nothing to do with the question of the Pharaoh burning in hell, or Judas burning in hell.

    You Calvinists make it all out to be a salvation issue.

    So, I will conclude this whole story by saying, first of all, NOT EVERYONE IS LOST TO BEGIN WITH. Your doctrine states that ALL ARE LOST IN THE WOMB.

    That isn’t true. Not only that, the Pharaoh was a sinner, but his sins are not IMPUTED. HE was before the law.

    Do you know WHY Moses never got to go to the PROMISED LAND?

    There is a CARNAL REASON, as I am sure that you know, and will tell me about, BUT BUT BUT, there is a SPIRITUAL REASON, TOO.

    NO ONE CAN GET TO THE PROMISED LAND BY OBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN OBEY THE LAW OF MOSES.

    Moses REPRESENTS the Law of Moses, aka, THE OLD COVENANT.

    For by the law, no man shall be justified by the flesh…that means that no one be obedient to God if you attempt to obey the law.

    Their sins were always covered, no matter how much they sinned, because they had sacrifices in the law to maintain the relationship.

    But the law based those sacrifices on a temple, or in the days of Moses, a TENT.

    So, we also have the ignorant people, you know the people out in the Amazon, them naked people with bones in their noses, and spears in their hands. They are judged of their conscience.

    God is the ultimate judge, and what you people are doing is trying to be the judge of who is in heaven, and who is in hell. HOW IN THE HELL (PUN INTENDED) do you know that the Pharaoh and Judas is in hell? Because, last I recall, you aren’t a judge in the matter. Only God is the judge. This has nothing to do with election, predestination, or otherwise.

    The people who go to hell are those who KNOW SIN, who REJECT GOD.

    You can’t reject something you don’t know anything about.

    But there are Jews who do REJECT GOD. They will be judged by the law of Moses.

    The thief on the cross is another example. Jesus shows MERCY on him because he repented. How much more for Judas and the Pharaoh?

    So, to conclude, no, I am not a universalist, if that is what you are asking.

    Your religion talks a lot about grace, but not much about MERCY.

    Ed

    Like

  36. “No, the problem is that you start with the false premise that people are basically good. WItrh that initial premise, yes, I can see how you would think that God is being cruel to choose some for salvation and not others.”

    No, I start with the premise that we are NOT guilty of Adam’s specific sin. We inherited the consequences and have a disposition inclined to sin because we are now separated from God. (Jesus reconciles that for us)

    “But people are not basically good. ALL people deserve God’s wrath”

    In your determinist god construct where Adam’s specific sin is “inherited” by all, the little innocent baby deserves God’s wrath.

    “God, out of his love, chooses to save some”

    Since man has no volition/choice in the matter, wouldn’t love mean that He would choose all to be saved? After all, man has no choice in the matter.

    “So, some receive mercy, the rest receive justice.

    In your theology this is done randomly before Adam even sinned.

    “You may not like it , but predestination is all over the Bible. You may have a different view of it, but it is there. So please, at least handle Scripture honestly and address that predestination exists.”

    I do not believe “predestination” properly understood removes man’s volition. You do and that means a big difference. It means God purposely chose some for damnation. You cannot get around that one no matter how you try to spin it.

    That is Calvin’s god. It is not unlike Allah in many ways.

    Like

  37. “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us…”

    But that is not what you claim to believe. You have been defending this:

    How Deep the Fathers Love for SOME.

    Like

  38. Brian, Are you copying and pasting a variation of the Westminster confession?

    Man’s systematized theology. They were called Westminster “Divines”. Figures.

    (Read some history Brian. These creeds, confessions, etc were politically motivated)

    The Holy Spirit is a better source for understanding.

    Like

  39. Brian, Are you copying and pasting a variation of the Westminster confession?

    Copy/Paste. The online form of duckspeak.

    Like

  40. “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us…”

    But that is not what you claim to believe. You have been defending this:

    How Deep the Fathers Love for SOME.

    “SOME” as in “Predestined Elect Brian”?

    Like

  41. How Deep the Father’s Love for Us…
    (Brian continues with copy/paste of entire hymn lyrics)

    Is that Calvinese for “LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LA! LA! LA! LA!”?

    Or just the Calvinist version of a Moonie thoughtstopper?
    Recite the Party Line until it drowns out the Thoughtcrime?

    P.S. I would expect similarities between Calvinism and Islam, and Calvin’s Geneva to resemble an Iranian-style Islamic Republic. (And not just because both men had long beards.) Both had similar views of the primary characteristic of God being His Sovereignty (i.e. Infinite Will and Power), expressing itself in Deterministic Predestination. Both had very detailed theological systems worked out (though Islam did not follow through on systematic theology per se; since God could Will differently than The System). Much of the similarities would be fallout from these, offspring of Predestination.

    Like

  42. Brian,

    You ask:
    “then why does Joseph say that it was God who brought him to Egypt?”

    If you knew the SPIRITUAL STORY, you would understand why Joseph went to Egypt.

    1. It was prophesied to Abraham.
    2. The spiritual story is that Moses, a type and shadow of Jesus, would RESCUE them. Moses was the REDEEMER.

    Egypt is a spiritual word for SIN.

    It all starts with Abraham in the promised land, the land of Canaan.

    Liken that to a BABY.

    Then the BABY grows up and goes into EGYPT (SIN)

    Then a redeemer comes along to save (Becomes a Christian)

    Then, we STRUGGLE WITH GOD (Jacobs name changed to Israel, who struggled with God)

    We wander the desert 40 years, struggling with God (Life of a Christian).

    We cross the Jordan River (We die)

    We ENTER INTO THE PROMISED LAND (Heaven)

    Do you see the spiritual story here? Or are you going to give us a bunch of carnal exegesis crap?

    Ed

    Like

  43. Brian said:

    Do you have any thoughts to my questions regarding your view of Scripture?

    “Do you believe what I quoted is the word of God? If you do, then why attribute them to me and ask what kind of God does that? If you don’t believe it is the word of God then we have a whole new problem because we are not coming from the same foundation.”

    I am curious what your thinking is on this.

    My response:

    Yes, you quoted scripture, but, as usual, it has nothing to do with what you want to make it to be.

    In short, you used a scripture that had nothing to do with the topic you were discussing.

    A long time ago, you and I discussed FLESH. But for some reason, it must have slipped your mind. CHRISTIANS LIVE IN THE FLESH FROM TIME TO TIME.

    And that is why we must DIE DAILY. Kill the body (FLESH), and what’s left? SPIRIT.

    What is the flesh? Body. What does the body do? Acts out sin, aka, attempting to obey the law, hence lawlessness.

    So, while you quote scripture, you have no idea what you are talking about. Quoting scripture…my gosh…anyone can do that. But the explanations have nothing to do with anything that you are saying. PERIOD.

    Ed

    Like

  44. Lydia asks, “Brian, Are you copying and pasting a variation of the Westminster confession?”

    Yup, except this time he (barely) escapes a charge of plagiarism with his cryptic reference to “1689 LBC.” But who knows what that means without looking it up? Very clever of Brian, it is.

    Keep a sharp eye on Brian.

    Like

  45. Here is another part of the LBC 1689 (read the history of it and find out the Puritans some of which came here and acted like the Pope!)

    26.4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.

    Hmm. Puritan leaders did not “exhalt” themselves when they wiped out Indians, burned women as witches, Quakers, banished people? Pot>kettle>black

    All of these confessions and creeds were church/state politically motivated. The Puritans did not want freedom, they wanted power over people, too, and the only way to get it was for the state church to leave them alone

    Like

  46. Brian’s second cut and past reads like the Westminster written by divines. :o) So we have LBC and WC for his beliefs.

    Like

  47. Ed,

    Jesus did in fact reveal himself to the Jews and they (the majority) rejected that revelation.

    Jesus told them that to reject him was to reject the Father. There is no second for anyone after death.

    You keep saying where there is no law there is no sin, but you miss Paul’s whole point that sin does exist even before the law.

    Like

  48. Brian,

    You are wrong. You really need to quit with all of your Calvinist queu cards, and read the Bible more.

    Jesus didn’t even reveal himself to his disciples until AFTER he rose from the dead. Remember DOUBTING Thomas?

    And, I will hammer it again that BEFORE THE LAW SIN WAS IN THE WORLD, BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHERE THERE IS NO LAW.

    Romans 5:13 is a bible verse, and you just don’t seem to like that verse. NO CALVINIST likes that verse.

    Ed

    Like

  49. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” – John10:24-30

    Like

  50. Lydia, this cracked me up: “How Deep the Fathers Love for SOME.”

    I don’t know how I can sing this song with a straight face anymore. Maybe we need to have a new post on Arminian-version hymns and Calvinist-version hymns. That would be fun.

    955 comments – whoa!

    Like

  51. Brian said:
    “Anyone can build a theology around one verse. The ones that follow that one have to be considered too.”

    My response:
    I did.

    3 times Brian, I laid all of this out, and you haven’t even bothered to read it. But, just in a short synopsis:

    Romans Chapter 4

    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

    WHY will the Lord NOT impute sin?

    Romans 5:13
    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    and

    Romans 4:15
    15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no TRANSGRESSION.

    NO LAW, NO TRANSGRESSION.

    What is the BIBLICAL definition of sin:

    1 John 3:4
    TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW

    Should I post my complete synopsis for the FOURTH time, Brian?

    Ed

    Like

  52. To the unbelieving Jews Jesus said:
    You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” – John 8:44-47

    Like

  53. Brian said:
    “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” – John10:24-30”

    My response:
    Just because Jesus told them does not mean that they UNDERSTOOD.

    Example:

    In regards to HIS OWN DISCIPLES:

    Luke 9:44-45
    44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

    45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

    Jesus tells them to UNDERSTAND, but they DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

    Why? Because it was hid from them, so they could NOT UNDERSTAND.

    Luke 18:31-34
    31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

    32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

    33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

    34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

    So again, Jesus tells them about his upcoming death, but they COULDN’T UNDERSTAND IT, because it was HID FROM THEM.

    When Jesus said that he came to open up the eyes of the blind, do you really think that he was discussing eye sight? NO, it was for opening the eyes of UNDERSTANDING.

    John 9:39
    And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

    ————————————-and here is the kicker—————————-

    John 9:40-41
    40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

    41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

    —————————————————————–

    The BLIND have no sin. Those who CLAIM that they can see, have sin.

    Ed

    Like

  54. Brian,

    You quoted John10:24-30.

    Who was this directed to? Jews in general, or the CALVINIST Pharisees?

    Who was my reference of John 9:40-41 directed to? Jews in general, or the CALVINIST Pharisees?

    I say Calvinist, because I am sure that you believe that Calvinism existed long before Calvin.

    Ed

    Like

  55. Julie Ann, I have heard YRR preach on the evils of singing “Trust and Obey” which was a staple of my childhood. :o)

    Like

  56. Brian,

    As you can see, verse 12 has nothing to do with verse 13.

    Two different topics.

    Verse 12 is discussing death of the body (no eternal life),

    Verse 13 is discussing NO IMPUTATION OF SIN.

    For all have sinned, but SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHERE THERE IS NO LAW.

    A person who sins a bazillion times cannot have sin imputed to him if there is no law. PERIOD.

    Your doctrines is why you must do everything that you can to sweep verse 13 under the rug.

    Ed

    Like

  57. Julie Anne said, “During the time of my abuse – during the actual abuse – as that big metal ring was digging into my head as he slapped me mercilessly are you saying the Lord made THAT?”

    Anyone who would tell you that God made that terrible abuse is beyond cruel, speaking the language of death. That statement is devastation and destruction on an abused person’s heart and soul, and his/her relationship with God.

    If I came to believe that Christianity truly reveals such a dark determinist god, I’d run straight into the sweet arms of atheism.

    Like

  58. Verse 12

    If Adam had EATEN FROM the TREE OF LIFE, INSTEAD OF the tree of DEATH, then what would have been passed down to us would have been ETERNAL LIFE, with NO DEATH. This death reigned from Adam to Moses.

    Eternal life reigns from Jesus onward.

    Like

  59. Randy posts on his blog about Julie Anne, saying:

    “What she needs to understand is that the God Calvin believed in, the God who has revealed himself in the Word of God, hates the abuse she suffered even more than she does. That God has ordained all that occurs in our lives does not mean he has caused it to occur or that he calls it good”

    Here is another one of them talking out of both sides of your mouth again.

    God ordains it, but doesn’t cause it.

    That’s an oxymoron. I guess all orders given by a Commanding Officer absolves responsibility of the Commanding Officer, because a subordinate obeyed the orders. Blame the subordinate. In that sense, the Commanding Officer did not cause the orders to be done.

    The people make absolutely no sense at all.

    “God, hates the abuse she suffered even more than she does.”

    Is that like a parent saying to a child before a spanking:
    “This is gonna hurt me a lot worse than it’s gonna hurt you.”?
    SMACK!

    And for what? Adams sin?

    If God ordained the abuse, is that punishment for Adam eating of that tree?

    Such nonsense Randy!

    Ed

    Like

  60. “If I came to believe that Christianity truly reveals such a dark determinist god, I’d run straight into the sweet arms of atheism.”

    And I am meeting those who were fed this in a YRR led youth group who are now in their 20’s who have done just that. And it is not your typical backsliding. It is worse. When young people reject the only frame of reference of God they know, which is determinism and dualism of man, they reject God totally. I am constantly amazed how hard it is for them to even consider that God IS Love after being immersed in that paradigm.

    Most likely since I live at ground zero, I come across this more as SBTS YRR infiltrated many churches here. And they are rabid and arrogant. Yep, they did not tell folks they were Calvinists. In one youth group the SBTS seminary students who volunteered with the youth, told them their pastor of was not preaching the true Gospel. Sadly, the pastors kids were in the youth group and right there when they said it.

    How cruel can you get? How divisive! Doctrine over people. A cult tactic. The church was a poor one and the pastor barely made a living ministering to a poor neighborhood that was multinational. It was not one of the suburban higher income churches the YRR leaders go for. . On top of that, the pastor has to suffer such insults from the arrogant SBTS students who came to “help”.

    There is NO practical application of Calvinism that is not destructive to the soul. Most don’t apply it to life at all except perhaps to navel gaze, confront people and sign covenants. Because in Calvinism YOU can DO nothing. You are a puppet of Gods. A marionette doll. Jesus obeyed for you. So sin all you want. It is expected and besides, all sins are the same. Whether you are a victim of abuse or the abuser. The sins are the same. God will work it for good if you do anyway. You will spend all your time in Paul but have little of the Gospels, John or James. And you have to have a guru both dead or alive. And you will probably be asked to sign something. Don’t. It has been vetted by lawyers. It is a scary movement.

    Like

  61. “Anyone who would tell you that God made that terrible abuse is beyond cruel, speaking the language of death. That statement is devastation and destruction on an abused person’s heart and soul, and his/her relationship with God.”

    I agree completely. No one here is saying anything like this. For you to act like I or anyone else have is pure lies.

    Like

  62. “Verse 12 is discussing death of the body (no eternal life),

    Verse 13 is discussing NO IMPUTATION OF SIN.”

    Ed,

    They are the same sentence!

    You do realize that Paul didn’t put those verse numbers in, right?

    This is where your poistion rally breaks down. You say Paul is talking about physical death in verse 12. I agree that is PART of what he talking about, along with spiritual death.

    Regardless…Paul says:

    “sin came into the world through one man”

    So, sin entered the world through Adam.

    “death through sin”

    So, death came into the world through Adam.

    “death spread to all men because all sinned”

    So, death spread to all people because Adam represented everyone in the fall.

    My main point is you have stated before that Adam was going to die anyway, apart from his sin. Yet, Paul says that death entered the world through that sin.

    Can you explain your contradiction with Paul? You have said before that Adam was going to die physically anyway…how? As a result of what? Paul says his death was the result of his sin, and that that sin spread to all people and all people were counted as having sinned because of it.

    Please explain why your position differs so much from what Paul is saying.

    Like

  63. Why is that you have such a problem with the sin of Adam being imputed to you, but you have no problem at all with having the righteousness of Jesus being imputed to you?

    That’s one of Paul’s main points in Romans 5! As people were counted sinners through one man’s (Adam’s) sin, so people are counted righteous through one man’s (Jesus’) act of obedience.

    What a glorious truth!

    I was born with Adam’s sin…but I have been BORN AGAIN to new life through the righteous acts of Jesus!

    Like

  64. “Anyone who would tell you that God made that terrible abuse is beyond cruel, speaking the language of death. That statement is devastation and destruction on an abused person’s heart and soul, and his/her relationship with God.”

    I agree completely. No one here is saying anything like this. For you to act like I or anyone else have is pure lies.”

    Brian, I believe that you believe in a contradiction. I am not sure you can see it. We have spent over 1000 comments and you still do not see it. God cannot ordain everything and also not “cause” it. He ordained it would happen He is controlling every molecule. You think that saying He will eventually use it for good erases the big problem. But it doesn’t. There is a lot of evil done that no good comes out of.

    He decides who is saved and who burns. Man has no input in his eternal life. Before he is born, that fate was chosen for him. You call that grace. I call it determinism and death to the soul. That is the bottom-line no matter how it is spun.

    Calvinists have many ways to explain this as in secret will/revealed will. Love for all but ‘special love” for some and so on. It is double speak. You can track this stuff all the way back to Plato and see where it was merged into Christianity by Augustine. Form over substance. Dualism. Determinism.

    My goal is to warn as many people as I can about it because Calvinists in my neck of the woods do not go into non Calvinist churches and tell them they are Calvinist. They do this on purpose. And it can take a while for folks to catch on and by that time a coalition has formed with the Calvinist leader from the seminary and the church is split. I cannot find unity with Calvinism because of how it’s teachings affect youth (especially from dysfunctional families) and those who have been abused as children. I just cannot say, oh, it is just another accepted doctrine. It is devastating to those who have lived in hell as children. This is something I think those calling for unity really miss.

    Unity is a big word in the SBC right now. Unity will only mean that Al Mohler gets a pass for defending and promoting Mahaney even after the heinous details came out. He gets to hide behind unity and we are “unloving” if we don’t go along. I don’t do false unity that enables evil.

    Like

  65. “Why is that you have such a problem with the sin of Adam being imputed to you, but you have no problem at all with having the righteousness of Jesus being imputed to you?”

    Brian, I doubt very seriously if we agree on what Jesus’ imputed righteousness means.

    Like

  66. Brian,

    You wrote so much, so I need to itemize it:

    1. You said:
    “They are the same sentence!”

    My response:
    No, Brian, they are not? The parentheses begins in verse 13, and whatever is in the parentheses is a new sentence withing the sentence after the last parentheses. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THERE ARE 6 SENTENCES WITHING THE PARENTHESIS. It is still discussing two different things. Verse 12 is discussing the opposite of eternal life, while verse 13 is discussing that sin is not imputed where no law is. I guess you didn’t see the parentheses that begins verse 13 and goes thru verse 17.

    So, lets this without the words of the parentheses:

    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: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Wow…lots of stuff missing if you delete what was in the parentheses.

    Now, lets see what was in the parentheses:

    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

    So, there ya have it.

    2. You had said:
    “This is where your poistion rally breaks down. You say Paul is talking about physical death in verse 12. I agree that is PART of what he talking about, along with spiritual death.”

    My response:
    I did not say spiritual death. I said death of the body. That isn’t spiritual death. Verse 12 has nothing to do with spiritual death. It has to do with the opposite of Eternal Life, which is death of the body. BODY ONLY, whether it be an eternal body, or death of the body, it’s only discussing body. Not spiritual death.

    That death was a result of eating a piece of fruit, having nothing to do with the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.

    Once he got that knowledge, THEN he died a spiritual death. Therefore, verse 12 has nothing to do with spiritual death, but physical death.

    3. You had said:
    “My main point is you have stated before that Adam was going to die anyway, apart from his sin. Yet, Paul says that death entered the world through that sin.”

    Brian, I am getting really sick and tired of going around in circles with you on subjects that I answer over and over and over and over again. If you really were serious about all this, you would study out my responses.

    1 Corinthians 15:36-50 explains it all. In order to SEE IT, you need to take out a piece of paper and a pen and right two columns. Column 1, name it “NATURAL BODY”. Column 2, name it “SPIRITUAL BODY”.

    The first Adam had a NATURAL body. Natural bodies die, spiritual bodies don’t.

    A spiritual body is an eternal body. It cannot die. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

    BLOOD KEEPS THE FLESH ALIVE. Jesus’ resurrected body has no blood. His body is not a natural body any more.

    Adam didn’t “mysteriously” get blood at eating a piece of fruit.

    So, please stop ignoring what I write, and dissect what I write. I keep submitting things to you, only to find out you are asking the same questions that I answered 4 times already. This is getting irritating.

    Ed

    Like

  67. “And I am meeting those who were fed this in a YRR led youth group who are now in their 20′s who have done just that. And it is not your typical backsliding. It is worse. When young people reject the only frame of reference of God they know, which is determinism and dualism of man, they reject God totally. I am constantly amazed how hard it is for them to even consider that God IS Love after being immersed in that paradigm.”

    Lydia, that is so incredibly sad! It’s a constant, tough fight; the brainwashing has a way of not letting go, even once completely rejected. And who can blame them for rejecting such a dark and nonsensical religion/god? It’s self-preservation, only natural to flee from what tears down and destroys. And whether they realize it or not, by fleeing they also protect hope. In their own way they make a proclamation to choose life over death.

    Like

  68. “I agree completely. No one here is saying anything like this. For you to act like I or anyone else have is pure lies.”

    Brian, you insisted to Julie Anne that God made EVERYTHING for its own purpose, and when she asked you if the Lord made what happened to her, you said, “Do you believe what I quoted is the word of God? If you do, then why attribute them to me and ask what kind of God does that? If you don’t believe it is the word of God then we have a whole new problem because we are not coming from the same foundation.”

    Like

  69. Brian

    To expound on Adam was gonna die anyway, he had to have OBTAINED eternal life by eating of the tree of life. You Calvinists concentrate so much on the Tree of death that you seem to ignore the tree of life.

    There was a purpose for the tree of life in the garden.

    Adam was made to die, but he had to have eaten of the tree of life to have gotten eternal life.

    This is still pertaining to the body only.

    After Adam ate of the tree of death, angels blocked access to the tree of life, showing that he could still obtain eternal life in a fallen state of knowing good and evil.

    My last sentence shows both death of body as well as separation from God…two different types of death.

    But verse 12 is discussing body only.

    AGAIN, TO RE-ITERATE, ADAM HAD TO HAVE “OBTAINED” ETERNAL LIFE BY EATING OF THE TREE OF LIFE.

    And since he didn’t, he was sentenced to die, just like he was formed to do in the first place.

    Ed

    Like

  70. I cannot find unity with Calvinism because of how it’s teachings affect youth (especially from dysfunctional families) and those who have been abused as children. I just cannot say, oh, it is just another accepted doctrine. It is devastating to those who have lived in hell as children. This is something I think those calling for unity really miss.

    Wartburg Watch is tackling this subject today. Dee and I had a long chat about it as I shared with her what happened with me when I connected with Oasis’ comments regarding our abusive childhoods and the Calvinist message we heard.

    This aspect of forcing Calvinism on survivors is so important. Is it really worth subjecting survivors to something that is so incomprehensible to them that it messes with their heads and can lead to such spiritual and emotional confusion?

    The issue for me is this: why can’t they just let it go? Why must they force their doctrine on people and look down on them so harshly? They like to say that it’s not a salvation issue, but they treat it as if it is. They say you’re living in danger territory if you aren’t lining up – like you’re teetering on hell. This is ridiculous. The Bible does not say believe in TULIP and you will be saved.

    I want to be clear, though, because I have Calvinist friends who don’t do this. I guess what I’m referring to is what TWW call “Calvinistas.” Love does not force its way on people.

    Like

  71. “And whether they realize it or not, by fleeing they also protect hope. In their own way they make a proclamation to choose life over death.”

    I never even thought of that.

    Like

  72. JA, I have Calvinist friends, too. And some of them are appalled at the YRR. Some do not want anything mentioned about any of the scandals (they were recommending CJ’s books just a year ago and used to support Acts 29 until the porno divinations). So we just don’t talk doctrine. :o)

    I love these people but at the same time I cannot find unity in their doctrinal stance. They are so into their gurus like Piper, Sproul, Dever, etc that I often wonder where Jesus is. No one is calling anyone to be uncivil but also the cry for unity means everyone walks on eggshells and the contradictions remain. And to be honest, I do not want them teaching my children they are depraved worms and God found nothing good in them to save them. I want my children to know they are responsible to Christ for their actions/behavior. They are to be like Him. Not told there is no way for that to be possible at all. We are to grow in Holiness but also we are not doormats for other believers to shut us up, either.

    In my neck of the woods, at ground zero, finding “unity” (which is being shoved down people’s throats in the SBC with an ex Cathedra unity statement on Calvinism that is helping Mohler overcome his Mahaney problem and pretend it never existed because now we have to be unified and if you aren’t you are sinning) …..means you hand over the keys to your church to them. They really are that aggressive. They never back down. The turn the other cheek means you stand by while others get run over by their monster truck. It is strange how so many people, like I was, think it is sin to stand up to them. I don’t get it. What about the abused people listening to this stuff? And they are infiltrating and taking over churches like crazy here. As one YRR said on a blog a few years back, if the pulpit committee is not smart enough to know the right questions to ask me, I don’t have to tell them I am a Calvinist. This was a young guy who went to seminary subsidized by the very people he was saying this about. People who trust the seminary they subsidize. This attitude is everywhere here. It is a mix of Driscoll and Piper.

    The reason there is a big problem with all this is that their definition of love is completely different. Why should we turn the other cheek with long time believers who should know better? Admonishment is called for when they are treating people with such arrogance and disrespect. Or when they are so thin skinned you cannot say one word about the doctrine without their feelings being hurt? I will take a beating from an unbeliever any day but not a long time believer who is a bully. That enables evil and mistreatment of others.

    I tried for years the ‘be nice to bullies’ stance thinking their hearts would melt over love and respect. All I did was enable others to be hurt in the long run because I was reluctant to speak up and disagree so others might have the courage to ask the hard questions and say, that makes no sense to me and here is why. Instead, people walked on eggshells for the sake of getting along and NO ONE grows when we do that. That just paves the way for the doctrine to become ingrained. They have a real problem with their doctrine being spoken back to them and become very think skinned about it. I personally think most of them have not really thought it through.

    I cringe when people who have been abused as children are told by a Calvinist they are not believing the bible if they do not see God ordains all things. It makes me mad, quite frankly. Haven’t they been pounded enough?

    here is something I would like to say to Calvinists who are uncomfortable with what they are seeing in the YRR movement. Speak up. Get specific. Many are afraid for their positions in ministry if they do. But if you want to say you are not like them then please be specific.

    Just my 2c and I will stop commenting here anytime you feel like I should.

    Like

  73. “BLOOD KEEPS THE FLESH ALIVE. Jesus’ resurrected body has no blood. His body is not a natural body any more.”

    Ed,

    I now FINALLY get it…you are a Jehovah’s Witness! They believe that Jesus’s resurrected body doesn’t have any blood in it. They also do not believe he rose physically with a fleshly body…is that also what you believe?

    Ed, do you affirm or deny that Jesus PHYSICALLY rose from the dead?

    Like

  74. “And to be honest, I do not want them teaching my children they are depraved worms and God found nothing good in them to save them.”

    Lydia,

    So I guess you refuse to let your kids sing hymns like:

    Alas and Did My Savior Bleed – contains the phrase “for such a worm as I”
    Amazing Grace: contains the phrase “that saved a wretch like me”
    How Deep the Father’s Love – contains the phrase “to make a wretch his treasure”

    Seriously, to teach your children that God DID find something good in them to save them is absolutely horrible, not to mention it’s also a lie.

    Like

  75. Brian, I can assure you that I am not a Jehovah’s Witness.

    I am surprised that you have no clue that the purpose of blood is to keep the flesh alive. You sure don’t know much of what is written in the bible, do you? It’s only Paul this, and Paul that, and Paul this and Paul that.

    Leviticus 17:11
    For the life of the flesh is in the blood

    WHAT KEEPS THE FLESH ALIVE IN THE BODY THAT JESUS HAS?

    BLOOD? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    YES, I AFFIRM THAT JESUS PHYSICALLY ROSE FROM THE DEAD IN A REAL BODY…

    BUT AGAIN, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE YET TO DISSECT ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SHOWN YOU.

    YOU DID NOT DISSECT 1 COR 15:36-50 YET, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED THE WAY YOU DID.

    I AM GETTING SICK OF THESE GAMES, BRIAN…SICK OF IT.

    Ed

    Like

  76. Brian said:
    “Seriously, to teach your children that God DID find something good in them to save them is absolutely horrible, not to mention it’s also a lie.”

    No, Brian, the LIE is what you teach. Children are not lost to begin with. That is the truth, and that is what I keep telling you, over and over and over and over and over again. But you keep feeding us Romans 5 WITHOUT VERSE 13.

    Ed

    Like

  77. You affirm that Jesus rose physically, but not completely.

    Ah…1 Cor. 15…the old “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” misinterpretation to conclude that Jesus doesn’t have any blood.

    To be consistent, Ed, you must also conclude that he doesn’t have a body of flesh, either.

    How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say he has no blood but has a fleshly body?

    Like

  78. Anyone else on here want to affirm along with Ed that Jesus does not have any blood in his body?

    Ed,

    It would follow from that then that Jesus also doesn’t have the following that are needed only in relation to blood flow:

    blood vessels
    heart

    Ed,

    Are you suggesting that Jesus, in his resurrected body, has no physical heart?

    Like

  79. Let’s see…what else would Jesus not need now that he doesn;t have blood:

    lungs – Does Jesus have any lungs in his resurrected body? Why would he need them?

    kidneys – The kidneys filter the blood, so I guess Jesus doesn’t have any kidneys anymore either.

    Like

  80. Brian said:
    “ou affirm that Jesus rose physically, but not completely.

    Ah…1 Cor. 15…the old “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” misinterpretation to conclude that Jesus doesn’t have any blood.

    To be consistent, Ed, you must also conclude that he doesn’t have a body of flesh, either.

    How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say he has no blood but has a fleshly body?”

    My response:

    Stop redirecting. It states what it states, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

    He does have flesh, but that flesh is NOT FLESH MADE OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and there is NO NEED FOR BLOOD TO KEEP HIS BODY ALIVE.

    Eternal bodies don’t need it blood to keep flesh alive.

    I expect you to take scripture serious, and you STILL have yet to dissect 1 Cor 15:36-50 like I asked you to.

    If you don’t, then I conclude that you have no interest.

    You think Jesus has blood? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ed

    Like

  81. Brian,

    The bible does not state anything about kidney’s, or a physical heart in regards to a resurrected body. But it does mention the purpose of blood.

    You really need to study the Bible more. I HATE YOUR CALVIN CUE CARDS.

    Throw them away. They do you no good.

    Ed

    Like

  82. “He does have flesh, but that flesh is NOT FLESH MADE OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND”

    ED!

    Do you realize what you are saying? You are denying that Jesus rose with the same body that he died with. Are you sure you don’t want to revise your statement?

    I am curious…IF the body Jesus rose with is not made of the dust of the ground, then of what is it made? Pixie dust???

    Like

  83. OK, Brian,

    You are going off on tangents, and I can’t stand it.

    I suppose you think that the resurrected body produces sperm, and that women have ovaries, etc?

    YOU ARE RIDICULOUS.

    Ed

    Like

  84. Brian,

    I am going to ask this ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU TO DISSECT 1 COR 15:36-50 WITH A PIECE OF PAPER AND A PEN, MAKING 2 COLUMNS.

    Column 1 (NATURAL BODY), Column 2 (SPIRITUAL BODY).

    You are refusing to do that. And I have had enough of your goofy games.

    Ed

    Like

  85. Hey Ed – – no need to yell, buddy. Brian – Can you try going along with Ed with the two column thing and see if you get anywhere? I mean – what have you got to lose? lol

    Like

  86. JA,

    I understand. I just am getting frustrated answering the same questions from Brian 5 or more times, and then he comes back asking the same questions again and again, after I keep answering the same answer. I’ve about had it with him.

    Ed

    Like

  87. Brian, yes, he ate, but what does that have to do with you dissecting 1 Cor 15:36-50 like I have asked time and time again?

    We will eat in heaven, too. But does that mean that we will be sitting on a toilet? Produce sperm? Women menstruate? Come on Brian, get serious, and stop your nonsense.

    Ed

    Like

  88. Ed,

    I think you are taking 1 Cor. 15 in too much of a wooden literal sense. By “flesh and blood” Paul is not saying that our resurrected bodies won’t be “flesh and blood”. Rather, he is saying that a body that is still corrupted by sin (unglorified) cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

    And this still needs to be addressed, and you have not done so yet:

    Are you denying that Jesus rose from the dead with the physical body he had when he died?

    Like

  89. I see how you work, Brian. Your other guest post had the highest amount of comments and now you want the credit for #1,000 comment on this post. Just like a kid, I tell you! 🙂 (I would have done the same – ha!)

    Like

  90. Argo said, “hurting MY feelings because they went on without the slightest protest from the moderators. ”

    That might be in reference to me, I’m not sure.

    I was polite to you, but you can be very pushy, or were being very pushy in some thread where you were arguing about the Trinity, and most people at the TWW blog rolled over.

    The posters try very hard to be diplomatic there. I was firm with you (not hateful or mean), but I was not a doormat, either, and did not roll over like many of the other posters, and I suspect getting push back is what bothers you.

    Like

  91. Lydia said, “No one is calling anyone to be uncivil but also the cry for unity means everyone walks on eggshells and the contradictions remain.”

    Exactly, Lydia. Civility should be easy enough, but choosing to be silent when it matters, or to be dishonest about our true feelings or beliefs, are other things entirely. It’s okay to disagree, even about something that carries a Christian label, to vehemently and adamantly disagree. To completely disagree in every way on any particular issue or doctrine, and to call them and each other out if need be, without biting and devouring anyone. As long as everyone walks on eggshells, people will continue to suffer from false doctrine.

    “The reason there is a big problem with all this is that their definition of love is completely different.”

    Asking someone who was abused as a child to concede that God sacrifices children and orchestrates every single second of the pain and horror, but loves them at the same time, is insulting to his/her intelligence and experience. Is abuse an expression of love? No, I will never believe that, and I will never pretend to be confused about what love is, or what it is not. This is not a mystery to me.

    Like

  92. @ lydiasop said,
    I no longer subscribe to the “they are just bad eggs, the doctrine is not to blame” defense.

    That is how I feel about Calvinism, rather we are talking about the “regular” kind, or “hyper,” or “Neo.” I mentioned this at the TWW blog, and it got a few of the regular Calvinist posters there upset, so I backed off.

    I realize that some individuals who say they adhere to Calvinism may be genuinely nice guys, but I feel they are an anomaly, or an exception the rule – or are nice, not because of, but in spite of, agreeing with TULIP/ Calvinism.

    Most Calvinists I have debated with, talked to, or questioned in the past (or just observed them while lurking on their blogs and forums) have been very arrogant, intellectually prideful, etc, which is why I find it so funny that a commentator above said all his dealings with Calvinists have been such that he feels that they have humility in spades. That is sure as heck not been my experience with most of them.

    Even among the one or two Calvinists I’ve been friends with online for years in forums, I see a streak of arrogance in them.

    I don’t think spiritual or other types of abuse are limited to Calvinists. If I’m not mistaken, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are not Calvinists, but they have many frequent problems with child sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and spiritual abuse in their churches.

    Like

  93. Brian Thornton said,
    Ed, you and those like you are the ones who have made this into Christians vs Christians

    I’ve seen some Calvinists over the years equate Calvinism/ TULIP to the Gospel or Bible itself and declare anyone who says they are a christian but who doesn’t believe in Calvinism/ TULIP to be a heretic or not a real Christian.

    I’ve seen this on some blogs by Calvinists who are defending Calvinism, and in blogs/web pages by Non Calvinists who type up quotes taken out of books by famous Calvinist preachers who say these sorts of things. So there are some Calvinists who also make this debate “Christian vs Christian.”

    Like

  94. Brian T said,
    The venomous anger is coming, not from those on here who agree with the doctrines of grace…it’s coming from those hate those doctrines and are attempting to vilify those of us who do hold to the doctrines of grace.

    A Christian does not have to be a Calvinist/ TULIP supporter to believe in God’s grace.

    Like

  95. BrianT said, If theology drives abuse, then it drives abuse in ALL churches, not just ones that hold to calvinistic theology.

    Knowing, demonstrating, or realizing that abuse happens in non-Cal churches does nothing to change the fact that it can and does happen in Calvinist churches, so I’m not sure I see what benefit it is to your position to get people to admit that yes, sometimes abuse happens in non-Cal churches.

    And yes, I do think theology of the abusers can be at least one factor, either in causing the person or leading the person, to abuse, or they use it as a handy cover to hide under, or to excuse or rationalize their sin / abuse.

    Like

  96. “Seriously, to teach your children that God DID find something good in them to save them is absolutely horrible, not to mention it’s also a lie.”

    Brian, You cannot get off of the premise that it is all God and we have no input whatsoever. We cannot respond. We cannot seek, etc. God has to force us too. So it is not about God finding something ‘good’ in us for salvation. It is GOD LOVES ALL and wants NONE to perish. So there is no “good” involved.

    There is most definitely a conviction of sin or there would be no need for repentance on OUR PART. God cannot repent for us— as you believe. And that is your process. God forces faith and repentance. I don’t believe that. I do not believe we are robots in that way. That is like saying the abuser can be saved but that God forced him to repent so the abuser really did not repent. (We have actually witnessed such a thing with the SGM business) That is the LIE.

    The absolute horror I have seen with teens is them going around saying they are worthless worms (teens love movements and mantras) and nothing good in them. For most teens with stable homes and LOVING parents (who are not like the God they are taught, ironically) this does not really become a problem. But that teen who does not have a stable loving family or endures abuse at home and comes to church to find “family” this becomes their death sentence. I have seen it way too often. It is like telling them, even God finds you worthless– so your abuser is right.

    What to do about those teens who have been taught that God ordains everything that comes to pass? (And they are sitting there thinking of the horrors of their abuse)

    What I do is try to get them into the Gospels (because their YRR leader has saturated them with Paul as seen through Piper, etc) if possible. Saturate them with Jesus Christ. It is powerful after all the saturation of a determinist god to come to understand that same God lowered Himself to come as a helpless baby born to a poor family and face the same temptations and hard living as the oppressed of His time. That is power, Brian. Real power. Total opposite of the “worthless worm” mantra of determinism.

    Real spiritual power is manifested not in force but in LOVE. The forces of the world crave the force of power in coercion. That is darkness. Not the Light of the World.

    Like

  97. “The venomous anger is coming, not from those on here who agree with the doctrines of grace…it’s coming from those hate those doctrines and are attempting to vilify those of us who do hold to the doctrines of grace.”

    Here is how it works in my neck of the woods. The YRR comes on strong like Brian did with “Are you submitting to your elders” tweets. They are in your face. Some try to engage them nicely and that might work for a while as they machine gun bible verses, reframe questions, redirect a line a thought, etc. Then after a while there is pushback to this. And that pushback is described as venomous. You are then accused of the sin of being “angry”.

    Never mind you were set up for it because you played into their hands. They are never rude for how they approached you with their rebuke or nasty question. After all, that is love because it is (their) truth. At the point you actually pushback, then you are “angry” and are sinning.

    It is uncanny. It happens every time. I have seen it so many times in the last 8 years in person and on blogs. When they are arrogant mean and nasty it is for “truth” and ok. When there is pushback from their arrogance, nastiness, etc, it is venomous and anger and therefore sin. Another redefining of sin.

    They are so bold with this that people miss it at first. Like many of us have.

    Anyone who has dealt with some personality disorders recognizes this dance. So I have tried to figure out how it is that a movement is actually producing this behavior in so many young men. (Some are not cut out for it and having a lot of trouble climbing the ladder in the movement).

    But when I started reading the Puritans, Calvin, Luther, etc, etc. It became clear where it comes from.

    Like

  98. “If theology drives abuse, then it drives abuse in ALL churches, not just ones that hold to calvinistic theology.”

    It is the proportionality of the matter. And there are different levels of abuse. Your tweets about submitting to elders was a mild form of abusive behavior that is totally acceptable in your world even though you have NO spiritual relationship to Julie Anne.

    It was a red flag that you would think it normal to tweet such a thing to her in the first place.

    Like

  99. Do the hyper-Calvinists believe themselves to be totally depraved because their doctrine says they are, or have they adopted the doctrine of total depravity because, for them in particular (as opposed to the rest of us), they live totally depraved lives?

    Either way, once one comes to see themselves as being totally depraved, is it possible to live lives that do not reflect the self-perception?

    Once somebody adopts the view that all people are totally depraved, why would they submit themselves to the authority of any pastor, elder or overseer who, by definition, is totally depraved?

    If those of you who are still responding to Brian are totally depraved, why is he playing the fool by continuing to expend time and effort trying to lead you into the glorious truth of your supposed not-worth-fecal-matter value?

    If Brian is as totally depraved as Calvinist doctrine would make him out to be (and I am not saying he is), then why would anybody pay any attention to anything he has to say.

    If anybody is promoting the doctrines of a man who was as demonstrably depraved as John Calvin, why would we pay any attention to them?

    Like

  100. Lydia said:

    The absolute horror I have seen with teens is them going around saying they are worthless worms (teens love movements and mantras) and nothing good in them.

    And this above and the end result of teens living with this corrupt teaching: abandoning faith, acting out spiritually or in other ways, not caring about life because it doesn’t really matter whether one sins, they can never measure up – – – THIS INSANITY is why I posted my Google review and eventual blog. How ironic that CON et all are pretty much calling me a porn distributor to minors and yet I wrote my google review thinking of the kids who were sexually wayward and acting out in other ways, completely defeated spiritually and dying inside (and many remain in that state today). And at the time I wrote that Google review, I never knew it was this form of radical Calvinism. I had no clue.

    Like

  101. Never mind you were set up for it because you played into their hands. They are never rude for how they approached you with their rebuke or nasty question. After all, that is love because it is (their) truth. At the point you actually pushback, then you are “angry” and are sinning.

    oh my, I 100% ^^^^^^^ agree. And isn’t it funny how only they get to define love and anger – always on their terms – – they always have it right and you are wrong. They of course don’t have anger and it is tough love that caused them to respond to you that way.

    Like

  102. It was a red flag that you would think it normal to tweet such a thing to her in the first place.

    It’s now the dead giveaway for me. Christians who do not know each other simply do not ask that question. It’s obnoxious. It’s interesting that so many ask that question – as if they went to Calvin Indoctrination School (CIS). Aren’t these patterns crazy? Brian does it and maybe doesn’t even know he behaves the same way.

    Like

  103. “So I guess you refuse to let your kids sing hymns like:

    Alas and Did My Savior Bleed – contains the phrase “for such a worm as I”
    Amazing Grace: contains the phrase “that saved a wretch like me”
    How Deep the Father’s Love – contains the phrase “to make a wretch his treasure”

    Hee Hee. I don’t operate that way with my children. We try to take the time to discuss what things mean. We love our old hymn books at home. And I have just about everyone one of them that was ever published from my mom’s music library I inherited. We are always singing out of them. I love old hymns. It is such a joy to sing and discover you are singing Lamentations! Who reads Lamentations anymore?

    I am such a stick in the mud, I will take Fanny Crosby over the new stuff uncreative stuff any day. Guess it was because I just grew up with it at home all the time. Not one day went by my mom was not on the piano at some point. We just sang all the time. It is a joy that at my age I remember the words of so many hymns and can ponder their meaning and what the writer was communicating.

    My goal is not to shelter my children from different interpretations or views of God but for us to discuss them. They are old enough and well aware that no one can be their Holy Spirit for them. I have drilled priesthood of believer and the concept of soul competency in to their heads for a while now. I hope they follow Christ and not man. But I will say, our view of God almost always determines our view of life and others. So, it is important.

    Like

  104. “We cannot respond. We cannot seek, etc. God has to force us too.”

    Another untruth. God doesn not have to force us to respond and seek. When he awakens the soul with new life by the Spirit through the hearing of the gospel, a person does nothing else BUT respond and seek. The person who has ben made alive in Christ needs no forcing.

    Like

  105. “Do the hyper-Calvinists believe themselves to be totally depraved because their doctrine says they are, or have they adopted the doctrine of total depravity because, for them in particular (as opposed to the rest of us), they live totally depraved lives?”

    Don’t know…never met a hyper-calvinist.

    Like

  106. “Brian does it and maybe doesn’t even know he behaves the same way.”

    Julie Anne,

    I a little confused by your remarks about me concerning my question to you on Twitter about submitting to elders in a lcoal church. You know full well that I explained my reasons for asking that. It wasn’t devious, it wasn’t a power play, or any other evil reason that someone like this CON person you refer to might ask the same question.

    You know I explained the reason why I asked the question. You were making extremely negative statements about church leaders in general, and I was trying to get a handle on how you viewed the local church.

    Now, you can choose to ignore my reasons and not believe me, but that is being quite disingenuous. I am not a “submit to authority above all else” person that I have been made out to be on here. I have posted comments on here showing that truth, agreeing with others about when a person should not submit to their church authority, and when they should leave that church and find a healthy one.

    I would appreciate it if you didn’t group me in with CON and others when you agree with someone’s comment on here. From what I have discerned from your remarks about CON, Tony Miano and others, I would never stand with them, no matter what their theology is.

    Like

  107. “We cannot respond. We cannot seek, etc. God has to force us too.”

    Another untruth. God doesn not have to force us to respond and seek. When he awakens the soul with new life by the Spirit through the hearing of the gospel, a person does nothing else BUT respond and seek. The person who has ben made alive in Christ needs no forcing.

    That is just softer gentler way to rephrase what I said.

    In your determinist construct I have great sorrow for those He did not choose to “awaken their soul” and…. by implication ….damns them to eternal torment…no choice in the matter. There is no other way around the implications of your doctrine, Brian. You can use sweet sounding words but the determinism/dualism is obvious to those who really analyze it and for those who know this comes from Augustine’s Mani/Plato paradigm. You call that grace. I call it Allah.

    Like

  108. “In your determinist construct I have great sorrow for those He did not choose to “awaken their soul” and…. by implication ….damns them to eternal torment…no choice in the matter.”

    Lydia,

    You have essentially the same problem with your understanding of God (unless you are willing to embrace the heresy of open theism).

    Your God knows all things, and yet he still allows people to be born whom he knows are headed nowhere but straight to hell.

    This is why open theism (a damnable heresy) is the only logical conclusion that many people who believe like you end up at, because they can’t stand the idea that their God knows all things and then still allows the people who will never be saved to be born and spend eternal torment in hell.

    Like

  109. “Your God knows all things, and yet he still allows people to be born whom he knows are headed nowhere but straight to hell.”

    Brian, I know exactly what choices my daughter is going to make because I know her that well. That does not mean I force her to make those choices. That does not mean I manipulate her to make that choice. I can put things in front of her to influence her but that does not mean she does not make the choice.

    The irony of your ST is if earthly parents are anything like the Calvinist God, they are tyrants who love some of their children more than others. And chose some of them to live before they were even born. We would consider that barbarian if human fathers acted that way. Yet that is the god of Calvin.

    I am not real educated on Open Theism as a doctrine but I get the feeling that there are some out there who would not mind if they were burned at the stake. Who knows, if they believe we are responsible for our own behavior, that not all sins are the same making the child molester on par with the victim sin wise, and believe we can choose to respond to Christ or not, then I might just see what they are about. And then, I will praise God that some Deists decided to put forth ‘self determinism” instead of the divine right of kings and to make burning heretics illegal.

    Like

  110. The basics of Open Theism is that God actually responds to prayer, and that prayer can actually change what happens, because God listens and chooses to respond to the importuning of his child. Jesus taught us to pray “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” which at least implies that God’s will is not always done on earth. Jesus also taught that earnest prayer does receive an response from God. It would be a cruel God (or parent) that did not listen and respond to the importuning of their child. Otherwise, there is no reason to pray at all, since, according to Brian, it has no effect at all on what will or will not happen.

    Like

  111. Brian said:
    “Your God knows all things, and yet he still allows people to be born whom he knows are headed nowhere but straight to hell.”

    My response:
    How do you know that he knows?

    After sin is forgiven, does he know your sin anymore? Or is the Bible false when he states that he will remember your sin no more?

    You are assuming too much.

    Ed

    Like

  112. Be serious, Ed.

    Scripture is saturated with the declaration of God’s omniscience.

    You don’t have one iota of support for the absurdity that God doesn’t know all things.

    Like

  113. Brian,

    I am serious. The word omniscience is not in the scriptures. We have a FORGETFUL God. I have 4 iota’s.

    Isaiah 43:25
    I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

    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.

    Hebrews 8:12
    For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    Hebrews 10:17
    And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

    Like

  114. Do you not understand a figure of speech when you see one? Good saying he will remember someone’s sin no more is the same thing as him “not counting their trespasses against them” in 2 Cor.5:19.

    Like

  115. It’s not a figure of speech. Cults, like the one that you are in, consider it a figure of speech. They say the same thing about hell fire, too. Hell fire, to them, is just a figure of speech. So, anything that you don’t believe in, becomes a figure of speech.

    Like

  116. If mere humans can work in cooperation with unpredictable quantum phenomena on a subatomic level to achieve fully predictable results at the levels of classical and relativistic physics, I see no reason why the God Who created the universe and Who knows the end from the beginning should be thought to be impotent to achieve His infinitely loving purposes, while at the same time conferring the gift of human free will. No, a god who so weak that he must withhold human free will in order to achieve his own will simply cannot be said to be omnipotent. A god who is not intelligent enough to achieve His own will in the presence of Human free will cannot be said to be omniscient.

    Therefore, John Calvin’s god is not God.

    Like

  117. Ed,

    God remembering or not remembering something is what is called an anthropomorphism. It is attributing a human characteristic to God the Father. The Father has no physical brain with which to actually forget or remember something. Therefore, it is a way of communicating to us that, for those who repent and believe the gospel, he does not count our sins against us.

    Like

  118. Ed,

    It’s the same thing as God saying as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our sins from us. It’s a metaphor to help give our finite minds some understanding that for sinners who have been forgiven, they will not be judged for their sins because Jesus has already been judged for them.

    Like

  119. Brian,
    Trying to justify your goofy beliefs, Brian? Ain’t gonna work. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and now you are saying that he doesn’t have a physical brain? Is Jesus God? Does Jesus have a physical brain? You say that God has blood, but no brain?

    You are funny.

    Ed

    Like

  120. Brian,

    No matter how much you try to justify your goofy beliefs, God is forgetful about our sins. He does not remember them.

    So, there are things that God does NOT know. You just want to chalk it up to a figure of speech.

    You are funny.

    Ed

    Like

  121. “If mere humans can work in cooperation with unpredictable quantum phenomena on a subatomic level to achieve fully predictable results at the levels of classical and relativistic physics, I see no reason why the God Who created the universe and Who knows the end from the beginning should be thought to be impotent to achieve His infinitely loving purposes, while at the same time conferring the gift of human free will. No, a god who so weak that he must withhold human free will in order to achieve his own will simply cannot be said to be omnipotent. A god who is not intelligent enough to achieve His own will in the presence of Human free will cannot be said to be omniscient.”

    EXACTLY! Bravo!

    In fact, one of the red flags early on for me was their insistence that my view of God made him into a wimpy grandpa shaking his head over the humans. It dawned on me one day, they do not really view Jesus Christ as truly God in the Flesh. (Therefore-ESS)

    Jesus is too nice and loving. Jesus Christ mainly rebuked the religious leaders of the day who were controlling people.

    There are a few Calvinists who are against ESS but their view of God does not really map well to Jesus Christ.

    Like

  122. If the comments in this thread aren’t convincing enough that people cherry-pick what they choose to give emphasis to in the Bible, then nothing will convince you.

    The fact that everyone cherry-picks the Bible isn’t the problem; it the fact that the people who wish to claim authority from the Bible refuse to allow other people the freedom to choose their own concept of God. But as soon as people disagree with them, they love to whine about how they’re being oppressed and persecuted. Hypocritical crybabies is what they are, and nothing more.

    If someone feels that it’s necessary to convince people to believe exactly as they do in order to be a Christian, then that person has missed the point entirely. They’ve done nothing more than build an idol to worship on the altar of their own certitude.

    I wouldn’t listen to an idolater, were I to be you…

    Like

  123. “You do realize, don’t you, that man plans his way, but God directs his steps?”

    When you make a statement like that included are such steps directed FOR Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Terrorists, murderers, child rapists to Augustine stealing peaches from his neighbors tree.

    You cannot get around it without some fancy mumbo jumbo verbal gymnastics of a mystery “we” cannot understand. (Piper is the master of this) Only people who follow Calvin and his guru’s can understand this complicated “mystery”

    Like

  124. All (except Brian),

    Brian says, “You do realize, don’t you, that man plans his way, but God directs his steps?”

    Once again Brian shades what Scripture SAYS in order to convey what he wants us to believe it MEANS. Once again the difference is subtle, but significant. The actual verse to which Brian appears to be alluding, in his usual twisted sort of way, is:

    The HEART of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. (Proverbs 16:9, ESV, emphasis added)

    In what way are a man’s steps “established?” Well, look at the immediate context:

    Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established. (Proverbs 16:3, ESV)

    And don’t neglect:

    Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart. (Psalm 37:4, ESV)

    The obvious import of all of this is that God responds to our wills, granting us the desires of our hearts, but on condition that we CHOOSE to delight in and commit our work to Him. While conditions are imposed, in these verses it is God responding to our wills, not us responding to God’s will. Brian’s misrepresentation of the content of Scripture, to achieve his desired meaning, has it exactly backwards.

    I suppose one’s reading of these passages will depend on whether they start with the notion that God is Love, or whether they start with the notion that god is narcissistically, even psychopathically, obsessed with his own glory. A god that is obsessed with his own glory looks an awful lot like a monster created in the image of John Calvin, who was a murderer. I will go with the God of whom Jesus is the image and only begotten Son.

    Like

  125. Oh, and here is another sense in which Brian is not being completely up front with us. Brian has typically expected us to accept his use of the Grudem/Piper sponsored and approved ESV. Now, however, without so much as mentioning he is doing so, Brian must switch translations to find “directs” in place of “establishes.” Well, it is easier to twist “directs” to mean something other than “leads” than it is to twist “establishes” as in “gives effect to,” but either way, it is God responding to give effect to man’s will and not the other way around.

    Like

  126. But Julie Anne! I don’t expect anybody is expecting Brian to actually respond and change his mind about anything. It’s just that he is such a useful foil (that’s foil, not fool) to give the rest of us good practice in responding to the monstrous doctrines that flowed from the mind of John Calvin. Have I mentioned yet that John Calvin had the mind of a murderer?

    Like

  127. “You do realize, don’t you, that man plans his way, but God directs his steps?”

    Brian has drunk Calvin’s Kool-Aid and digested it. Christ is now just a front for
    Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, Calvin,
    TULIP, TULIP, TULIP, TULIP, TULIP,
    Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination,
    Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, Calvin.

    Like

  128. JA, Too funny!

    Gary, I am off the hook with Proverbs anyway as it was written to young men. (wink) However the “wisdom” is female. Ha!

    This was CJ Mahaney’s favorite proverb which one constantly heard him quote:

    17 The one who states his case first seems right,
    until the other comes and examines him.

    The PDI/SGM pastors LOVED to examine people. The scripture as a club to beat with.

    Kind of backfired on him when people finally stopped thinking that talking about their molestation was “gossip” and they were just as big of a sinner as the pervert who molested them.

    And read around NC/YRR blogs and they quote that proverb all the time.

    But I appreciate your pointing out the proof texting and why in a larger context it can mean exactly the opposite. We see this all the time with their quoting Psalms to affirm determinism. Or the proof texting that has to take place in order to make people believe God has 2 wills. Revealed and Secretive. The bait and switch god of Calvinism.

    If you want to see how the master manipulator teaches it, check this out:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

    I have come to the conclusion that if they can make it confusing with lots of passionate verbosity and quote many “experts” they can just about make people believe anything. Because people need the guru to explain God to them because they obviously cannot really “know” Him like the guru does.

    Like

  129. This aspect of forcing Calvinism on survivors is so important. Is it really worth subjecting survivors to something that is so incomprehensible to them that it messes with their heads and can lead to such spiritual and emotional confusion?

    The issue for me is this: why can’t they just let it go? Why must they force their doctrine on people and look down on them so harshly?

    Because forcing you to accept their Perfect Doctrine means They Are RIGHT and You Are WRONG, Haw Haw Haw.

    “In the Devil’s theology, the most important thing is to prove yourself absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong.”
    — Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil”

    Like

  130. This was CJ Mahaney’s favorite proverb which one constantly heard him quote:

    HUMBLY, of course (chuckle chuckle).

    Like

  131. This convo is not for Brian to change his mind but for every poor soul who has been taught the false premise of the determinist god. A god who controls everything 24/7 and was watching while they were being molested or beaten but determined it good for HIS glory. And the poor child beaten or molested are just as bad of sinners as the abuser. This is vile and they will tell you that is not how it works but their own words state different they are just using more flowery speech. The conclusion is the same.

    A god they claim allows free will for the evil yet is in control of it the whole time. The contradictory god. Calvin’s idea of “free will”

    The reason it took me so long to see it is that it is considered “mean” for the Non Calvinist to take on disagreement. And that is understandable as they get very mean or their feelings hurt so to take it further makes everyone very uncomfortable and you end up looking mean because you decided to stay with it because it takes a while to see how circular their thinking really is.

    Therefore it is never really thought through. The NC/YRR Calvinist wins converts through sheer verbosity, slogans on Sovereignty, boldness and pseudo intellectualism. Or they use ” don’t hurt my feelings”. And at that point, it makes people look “unloving” to point out the contradictions. Personally, I am over that. I just stay away from serious convos on Calvinism on those type of blogs. They don’t want them anyway. And I have to admit there are quite a few tenants of Augustinianism in the entire Protestant tradition–mainly dualism. The Calvinists just do it better and more intently with the determinist god part.

    When Calvinism is carefully analyzed by the peasants, it does not come off so good. Grace for some. But not all. Why? Because man has no volition…and the master puppeteer did not choose them before they were born or even before Adam sinned. But that is not evil? That is “grace” to them. Because they are in the exclusive club?

    If we are chosen before Adam sinned then why the need for a Savior? believe me they have very crafty and verbose explanations for this one. God determined the fall, you know.

    Like

  132. Lydia,

    Piper’s article you link to at 8:49 has Piper saying that “It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that ‘God’s willing all persons to be saved’ does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons . . .” At least Piper, unlike Brian, informs us when he, Piper, is taking the position that Scripture MEANS something other than what it SAYS. Still, Piper is rewriting Scripture. Strike 1.

    Than Piper goes on and one to make the case, essentially, that God can simultaneously possess two self contradictory Wills, or so I understand Piper’s position. Probably this is an example of what NT Wright (and Bonhoeffer?) refer to as the invocation of the intellectual crutch that goes by the name of deus ex machina. In other words, Piper really can’t explain this one, but god is god, and is not bound by logic, so just take Piper’s word for it. Strike 2.

    Finally, Piper gets around to saying “God’s emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend.” It is like Piper is admitting he can’t explain what he is saying, so he retreats into “mystery,” but take Piper’s word for it because he is the expert, and the burden is on those who would disagree with him to prove that Piper is wrong, end of discussion. Strike 3.

    No wonder they can’t open their blogs up to unmoderated discussion.

    Like

Comments are closed.