* * *
One of the most popular debates on this blog is the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate that spontaneously shows up in threads. I have set up this blog post so the Calvinism/Arminian discussion can continue here, but not “overtake” other important articles. Part 1 had so many comments, over 1,000, the page was taking a long time to load, hence, Part 2.
I’ll use Ed’s post to start it off. Feel free to join in:
Hannah,
I hope you came over here:
You had said:
Hmmmm….well if there is no one there to preach the Word says they are without excuse… Romans 1 says he will reveal Himself to them…My response:
Romans 10:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ed
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Marsha–
By anyone’s standards, Elizabeth Smart ought to be considered a phenomenal young woman! Incredibly talented and poised and articulate…and if memory serves, she married a great guy in spite of any stigma which may have been placed on her by the church hierarchy.
LikeLike
Miss Daisy–
Conservative Christians are in crisis. They have an entire culture telling them they’re wrong about premarital sex, wrong about homosexuality, wrong about feminism, wrong about evolution, wrong about the environment, and wrong about illegal immigration. There is STRONG pressure to change, and many–especially among young believers–are changing to conform to the culture.
Honestly, some things they should be changing on. But not basic morality. No one I know of in my little corner of the Evangelical world downplays the value of virginity. Find another church. One which supports the convictions which you have held onto for so long. Don’t give up! (I’m praying for you.)
LikeLike
Hans,
I never suggested couples could never “benefit” in a loveless relationship. Some people get married for lust, money, convenience, security, immaturity or pregnancies. etc.
I get where you are coming from. you are saying Love shouldn’t be a prerequisite for couples to get married..
I finally figured out where we differ.
I suggested and believe that couples shouldn’t get married if they don’t love each.
As for giving you marriage and divorce statistics I’m afraid my gift of being a statistician is out of my realm of expertise.
But I.m surrounded by divorce and a lot of it triggered by extra-marital affairs and couples admitting they never did love their spouse. Even the church I attend, nearly half of the attendees or former attendees have been previously divorced.
(many of those marriages were started before they were 22 years old)
LikeLike
Oh my. Some days ago Hans abusively subjected various and sundry commenters to an outpouring of abusive, uncalled-for invective. Then he minimized his behavior by blaming his children and concussion. He assigned the label of bigot to me when I called him on it. Having acted abusively himself, he now he minimizes the seriousness of abuse in general, even going so far as to suggest that the target of abuse may actually be the abuser. It’s called minimization and blame shifting.
Now, if Hans were an isolated example of such misguided attitudes, that would be one thing. The problem is, there are all too many cases in which so called pastors adopt pretty much the same sorts of attitudes as what Hans projects. Such attitudes only enable further abuse. Such attitudes only tighten the vice of subjugation in which not even a single woman should be trapped.
But now it gets really interesting. Concerning me, Hans now says: “You seem to believe you’re always and only right, a real controlling personality. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?” The first sentence is easy enough to chalk up to possible projection. Hans, maybe, is only putting on me what he avoids seeing in himself. As to Hans’ second statement, about me beating my wife, well, it’s probably best that I not speculate on where that might have come from.
LikeLike
Hans,
Just in case you happen to actually be interested in a definition of abuse, you can find a very good one at the top right hand corner of, I think, any given page on the http://cryingoutforjustice.com/ blog. Abuse is all about a mentality of entitlement, of being the center of one’s world. It is all about manipulation, power and control. It is all about getting one’s own way. It can be physical, verbal, emotional, financial, social, sexual and spiritual. It need not have a physical component.
Many pastors are consummate abusers. Unfortunately, so are many husbands/fathers.
LikeLike
Gary–
Clearly, you have a problem holding onto your anger.
I’d nip that in the bud if I were you!
Proverbs 29:11
“A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man holds it in check.”
LikeLike
Hans,
You gave a personal attack earlier:
and then when you get the response you rightly deserved you call him out on anger? That’s just not cool.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
My patience is wearing very, very thin with your double-standards, treating the home folks one way and me another. Gary has personally attacked me over and over again. Here he purposefully disregarded the fact that I had apologized for any “invective.” By all rights, that should be water under the bridge and not brought up again. When I confronted him on HIS almost ceaseless invective, on the other hand, he maintained that there was nothing to apologize for…because everything HE had said was TRUE.
One person makes a mistake and apologizes. The other person keeps on making mistakes and refuses to apologize.
As for your accusation, that I attacked HIM just now, why, that’s absolute hogwash!
The first line, “And who IS the abuser?” is merely intended to show Gary the circularity of his argument. He is “begging the question” in the parlance of formal logic.
The second line is completely tongue-in-cheek, mirroring back HIS inference that I was perhaps abusive because I couldn’t define what “abuse” amounted to in every possible situation. Everyone knows the line–when did you stop beating your wife?–it is the classic example of a question which one cannot answer without incriminating oneself. If that didn’t making it clear I was just playing around, nothing will, not even a whole slew of emoticons.
Gary is nothing but a bully, and you are enabling him. I’m not going to apologize to you…or anyone else…for standing up to a bully. This blog is supposed to be fighting AGAINST abuse, not encouraging it!!!
LikeLike
Hans,
Throughout out our dialogue it never occurred to me that you didn’t think that love during the NT age, should be a prerequisite for couples to be married
LikeLike
Hans, I very well could miss some comments. I generally read comments as they come in. However, I do recall the comment that I quoted to you. Are you going to take ownership for that?
If I missed something of Gary’s today, feel free to quote it for me. If you are referring to something earlier than today, I’m not getting into it if neither one of you called it to my attention.
LikeLike
Mark–
Thanks for your kind reply. Yes, I think we’re getting a little closer together. I love it when that happens.
Love is defined in such sappy ways these days. A young man who get a young lady pregnant, and out of a sense of integrity, marries the girl and takes care of the child she bears is showing a far better appreciation for what love actually means…than the one who hightails it, leaving the girl in the lurch because his heart doesn’t go “pitty-pat” anymore!
In the throes of an extramarital affair, it’s easy to say that one didn’t ever really love his wife. He’s head-over-heels for the one he’s with. The mere mother of his children cannot compare. Even if he once had feelings, he’s not going to remember them. The new one talks to him. The new one understands him. The new one pays attention to him and respects him. All his wife does is nag when he comes home late every night. You can see who has every advantage. But it’s because the man lacks the integrity to stick out his commitment, to love his wife and family above every temptation. It’s not that he lacks love for his wife, but that he refuses to give the love he has within him to her and her alone.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I just explained the comment which you thought to be a personal attack. I did not intend it as such. If I was unclear, then of course, I’m sorry.
It appears evident that Gary has not–for whatever reason–heard the “when did you stop…” line.
I’ve heard it so many thousands of times that I didn’t think it could be misunderstood.
(I have been having a very pleasant conversation with Mark and Marsha and Lydia and Miss Daisy. We haven’t had to contend with that infernal “C” word!)
LikeLike
You’ll have to direct your apology to Gary, but it seemed pretty clear to me that you were calling Gary an abuser and that’s not cool.
You can say the Calvin word on this thread. Have at it. That’s why I created the thread.
LikeLike
Emoticons? Don’t know if this will work, but here goes:
Hans responding to Gary: 😨
Gary responding to Hans: 😊
Seriously though, one of the tactics of abusers is that, when a mere apology without change of behavior fails to gain them freedom from consequences, when it fails to gain them easy absolution, they start condemning the target of their abuse.
LikeLike
“I just explained the comment which you thought to be a personal attack. I did not intend it as such.”
Somebody help me here. If somebody makes a personal attack, then says it wasn’t a personal attack, is that what they call gaslighting? I’m actually not sure, but I think it might be.
LikeLike
Hans,
There are Cohabiting couples that lack all the qualities you are talking about, for the kind of commitments needed for them to get into a divorce free marriage.
(otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing divorce rates so high)
You have also suggested that violent abuse is higher among cohabiting couples than married couples. So why would you want them to get married?
Are you suggesting that violent abuse ends when the couple say I do?
Would you want your daughter to marry a violent man? Or do you want her to marry someone she loved?
I guess we can’t agree.
LikeLike
What was it if it wasn’t a personal attack, Hans?
LikeLike
Oh drat! The emoticons work on my android phone, but not so well when pulled up on a PC. On the phone they display in full color. Much more effective.
LikeLike
Gary, do you know how to send a screenshot on your phone? You can e-mail it to me and I’ll post it.
LikeLike
Still, I think I understand Hans a little better. Earlier today (7:45 AM) I said “When there is abuse, the marriage is over, if there ever was one.” Hans responded by asking “Who gets to decide what constitutes “abuse”?” I responded by saying something like “Certainly not the abuser.” Now in the context of the conversation I would have thought that it would be understood that I was saying that the abusive husband does not get to decide what abuse is. Based on his recent comments, however, we learn that Hans misinterpreted my response as somehow intending to indicate that he, Hans, as an abuser, does not get to decide.
Hans, it isn’t all about you. Why do you think it is?
LikeLike
Julie Anne, no I don’t know how to email a screen shot, but if I can figure it out without staying up into the wee hours, I’ll do it. First thing I have to figure out is how to save a screen shot.
LikeLike
The problem, Gary, is that you have an android 😉
LikeLike
I have an iPhone and I could see the emoticons too.
LikeLike
Oh, that’s interesting – it sounds like the issue is when you get to a computer.
Gary sent me the screenshot:
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Yes, I am emphatically denying that it was a personal attack, and I explained why. Believe me, I WANTED to attack…and restrained myself.
This is a pattern with Gary, and if you can’t see it, then I don’t know what I can do.
In answer to my question, “Who gets to decide what constitutes “abuse”?” he did not merely answer, “Certainly not the abuser.”
But added the following:
“Still, Hans, I’m not surprised that you seem to need somebody to tell you what abuse looks like.”
So, yes, without any doubt he was inferring that I might be an abuser simply from the way I was handling the argument. I have never touched my wife.
Perhaps you cannot see it, Julie Anne, but you ARE taking sides. I have no clue why Gary thinks this is funny. I will not continue to post here if I can’t feel safe. If even the moderator mocks me, what am I to do?
Is there a place to report abusive sites? Ironically, this may be one.
LikeLike
Mark–
I clearly stated that there are cohabiting couples who lack any semblance of the prerequisite characteristics to properly love and commit. Part of this, I believe, is a direct result of the culture we live in, which deincetivizes personal responsibility and integrity. So, we are agreed on that.
No, I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a man with the slightest hint of a violent history.
Still, I didn’t say that ALL cohabitators were violent, just that the tendency toward domestic abuse was stronger. Part of this is the youth and lack of maturity of many who live together without benefit if marriage, and part of it is the inherent insecurity of the arrangement. Getting married can indeed “grow one up” a bit, and it certainly adds a layer of needed security. So, yes, for some couples it might indeed bring the chances for abuse immediately down.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
“Gaslighting,” by the by, is an extreme form of mental manipulation, intended to make the victim doubt his or her sanity, and often resulting in nervous breakdown or even suicide. It is a method often employed by psychopaths.
Do you still believe that Gary is harmless?
LikeLike
Hans,
I haven’t suggested that all cohabiting couples would fail at marriage.
For us to determine the kind of qualities needed for cohabiting couples to make the commitments in a “until death do us part” marriage is hard to predetermine.
The fact that they are cohabiting should be an indication they don’t have enough of those qualities to make that commitment. And certainly in abusive relationships marriage coercion would be reckless.
LikeLike
Hans says “I have never touched my wife.” Now, I am NOT NOT NOT saying Hans has abused his wife. I have no idea. However, I am given to understand that it is a common refuge of domestic abusers to attempt to exonerate themselves on the basis that their abuse has not been physical. As I mentioned above, abuse can be physical, but it can also be verbal, emotional, financial, social, sexual and spiritual. It need not have a physical component.
Again, I absolutely am NOT NOT NOT saying Hans has abused his wife. However, I do contend that Hans is demonstrating some characteristics which, if exhibit by a pastor, would be cause for me to avoid that pastor and his church. One characteristic I haven’t mentioned earlier is that Hans is showing a propensity to seek allies (in this case Julie Anne) in dealing with people who displease them (that would be me, but also others).
LikeLike
Hans, I don’t have time to waste in this. I read your words to Gary and quoted the problematic excerpt. That was clearly what I call a personal attack. You accused him of abusing his wife.
He said nothing even close to what you said. Why you insist that your words are acceptable is beyond me.
I put these Calvin debate threads up because I got tired of other threads getting dominated by unending doctrinal debates. I wanted a place to send debates so people would feel free to post if they needed support or encouragement on their spiritual abuse journey on the regular threads.
This Debate thread is not where I want to be spending my time. I’m happy that others like to utilize it. But I’m not going to be investing a lot of time moderating here when I don’t consider this thread to where my heart is for ministry.
Hans, if you don’t like what Gary has to say, solve your problem the way most people would, don’t engage him. Talk to other people instead.
Please stop critiquing my moderating. Of course I’m not perfect. I’m only one person (for the most part) and I try to have a life, too. Own up to your own words.
LikeLike
Hans, Gary was absolutely not implying that you abused your wife. You misunderstood.
LikeLike
All of us are pulling on Hans. I’m hoping he is able to give me a short response of my 6:40 comment to him.
Even though I think Marriage Coercion in loveless cohabiting relationships is a major problem in the Christian Community, I can see there are those that need to clear up certain misunderstandings.
LikeLike
“One characteristic I haven’t mentioned earlier is that Hans is showing a propensity to seek allies (in this case Julie Anne) in dealing with people who displease them (that would be me, but also others).
One reason why I really like Crippen’s approach is he tells it like it is. I wish I could find the post that analyzed an abuser/manipulators written words. I think the letter was to a pastor/counselor of some sorts seeking to exonerate himself but doing so by blaming others or pointing out THEIR shortcomings which he could now do because he said “sorry”. I think it would be instructive with the sort of red flags people need to be aware of because they have become somewhat the normal. .
In most situations, the real problem for victims comes from people on the periphery who seek to make sure everything is “fair” for the abuser/manipulatior (there are all sorts of abuse). The abuser/manipulator use this to their advantage until it does not work anymore over time then they move on. (If they have a postion of power/influence this works out differently. They don’t have to move on. They dictate the status of your soul)
This is probably the biggest impediment to victims being able to move on. Who wants to appear mean? Well at this stage in my life and dealing with so much spiritual abuse and deception in what passes as Christendom, frankly I don’t care if I look mean. At some point we have to realize that “I am sorry” is meaningless when behaviors do not really change.
We have become an apology driven culture and not a behavior changing culture in Christendom. And why should people change when they are taught they remain totally deprvaved, totally unable and Jesus hung on the cross so we could sin all we want because we cannot help it. But don’t worry about it because Jesus understands and forgives us “practicing” sin. No growing in Holiness needed.
LikeLike
Lydia, I think this is the article you refer to from Jeff Crippen’s blog:
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2014/09/05/badgering-badgers/
LikeLike
Thanks Gary! That is it. If there were more analyzing like this instead of censoring, aiding and abetting, more folks would recognize it a lot quicker. And simply say, go away. You know, I have come to the conclusion that the concept of “unity” and and a wrong understanding of forgiveness are the abuser/manipulators best friends. The last thing I can tolerate is unity with deceiving manipulators.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Yes, in a sense you are correct. Gary is not directly claiming that I am abusive. Technically, he is not even implying that I am abusive. What he is doing is implying that I have the type of personality of someone who would beat his wife.
My goodness! Well, then, THAT’S almost a compliment, now, isn’t it? I shouldn’t be offended by that, now, should I?
By the way, my wife is sitting here looking over my shoulder, reading all of this…and she is laughing her butt off that none of you seem to be aware of you guys’ “witch-hunt tendencies” (of seeing a demon behind every rock). She is flabbergasted that none of you have ever heard of loaded questions, nor the classic example of one (just look up “loaded questions” on wikipedia; “when did you stop beating your wife?” is the very first example given).
So, let’s rehearse this one last time: I never attacked Gary (in spite of Julie Anne’s inability to read what I wrote in context), and Gary most definitely did attack me.
Just because you all are friends and constitute the majority of the commentators on this thread, doesn’t mean that somehow you can dictate the truth.
LikeLike
Lydia–
So are you and Gary implying that everyone who prioritizes unity, that everyone who asks forgiveness, and that everyone who seeks allies IS AN ABUSER??
I cannot even begin to tell you how paranoid that is.
LikeLike
Hans,
I think my 6:40 am this mornings comment got lost in the mix.
LikeLike
Mark–
I basically can agree with what you said at 6:40, with two caveats:
1. I think you maybe selling cohabitators short. I think an awful lot of them would be fine, would, in fact, be better off than they are now with a gentle nudge toward nuptials. I am mostly talking about transforming ourselves back to a culture that honored and prioritized marriage. A culture that is indifferent toward (or actually advocates for) cohabitation is a destructive culture in terms of family structure. You’re letting everything be about the individual couples involved. I’m trying to get you to see the societal ramifications.
2. I really do not agree that marriage coercion is a serious problem in the Evangelical community, at least not in any of the circles in which I have run. I don’t know of a single instance, actually.
LikeLike
“So are you and Gary implying that everyone who prioritizes unity, that everyone who asks forgiveness, and that everyone who seeks allies IS AN ABUSER??”
Right, Hans. This response is one reason I gave up talking to certain groups on certain blogs…..many were pastors who actually respond this way more often than people think. It is a form of manipulation, deflecting and redirecting convos in order to control them. No thanks. It is like talking to my 13 year old except these were grown men with Christianese titles. I read enough of Driscoll from about 2003 to know your response above is very similar to how he communicated with those who disagreed with him….back before he had consolidated his power.
LikeLike
Hans,
Marriage Coercion is meddling.
I’ve witnessed a fair amount of Marriage Coercion, Some of those who got married are divorced. It is wiser to allow them to make up their own minds rather than stir them in the wrong direction.
We wouldn’t be seeing near as many cohabiting if they had true commitment on their mind. I think you are giving cohabiting way too much credit if you think a simple nudge will lead them to wanting to live righteously.
If I were to meddle I’d stir them away from Marriage siting if they didn’t love each other, they need re-evaluate their commitment to each other and eventually they will do the right thing, either splitting up or getting married.
Ask your wife.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Yes, Lydia, but I have no power here. I have never had power here. I cannot possibly be trying to reconsolidate power. I agree that some abusers act as you and Gary suggest…partly because they’re trying to appear to be normal. They wish to normalize their lost reputation.
But there are many other people who seek unity and fairness and forgiveness and and acceptance (i. e., “allies”) because they are…normal.
After all, couldn’t you and Gary be considered “allies”? Would that mean the two of you should be suspected as clandestine abusers?
LikeLike
Mark–
You wrote:
“We wouldn’t be seeing near as many cohabiting if they had true commitment on their mind.”
Yes, Mark, but we would see far more of them have “true commitment on their mind” if we taught them the right way of doing things from the time they were little. Our indifference concerning cohabitation is tacit endorsement.
LikeLike
Hans, you seem to have a tendency to want to put people into us vs. them categories. At least twice, I have pointed out to you that you have misunderstood Gary or Lydia, a conclusion I have come to because I feel that after some months reading and commenting on this site, I know where long time participants are coming from. Your response is to suggest that I am siding with someone because we all agree or we are all friends.
I don’t know what you mean by friends. I don’t go for coffee with Gary and Lydia, I don’t privately email them, and I don’t know their last names. As for always agreeing, we certainly do not. For example, Lydia and I once had a spirited discussion in politics and disagreed on nearly every point. But there are no negative feelings because of it. I feel that we, the body of believers, are all brothers and sisters in Christ and of course that includes you as well as Gary, Lydia, Mark, Julie Anne, Daisy, etc. etc.
On another thread, I happened to see where two people were not communicating because something one said had been misinterpreted, pointed that out and it was all straightened out. Not here on this thread though.
In a way I suppose I am appealing to unity. However, I also agree with Lydia that appeals to unity can be misused to cover over sins or to avoiding confronting major conflicts that need addressing. It is always good to stop and consider such an appeal and the purpose behind it. It is one thing to appeal to unity when, say, two church members have gotten into a silly argument over what color to paint the Sunday School classrooms (real example) and another to appeal to unity to make a three year old enter a room with the man who molested her, order her to forgive him, and tell the parents not to call the police (another real example). So I think it is disingenuous to call people out for not always making unity the priority.
LikeLike
Hans,
I don’t dispute the fact they needed guidance at the time they were little. I’ve known several that are cohabiting and grew up Christian who did in fact receive guidance.
So they already know what they are doing, if the commitment was already there they would’ve been married.
Trust me, I want cohabiting couples to make the right choice to live righteously and my last sentence of my 11:41 am comment confirms it.
Nudging someone into matrimony with divorce being their final destiny borders Meddling. Meddling is talked about throughout scriptures and is comparable to murder. Divorce is by and large very devastating in most cases.
Maybe you didn’t fully read my 11:41 am comment, get your wife to read. Then think about it.
LikeLike
Marsha–
It doesn’t have to do with agreeing with one another but with taking up for one another. You’re simply wrong that Gary intended no harm. I would pretty much stake my life on it. Plenty of people would agree with me here. But, of course, none of them have joined this thread. My wife wonders why I bother with you guys at all. Her opinion of you all is not particularly favorable.
So, I’m not saying you are a bunch of “yes men” who never differ with one another, but comrades, who trust those whom they have spent time with on this blog. It is entirely evident that I am an outsider. I am not trying to hang onto that status, but so far, nobody but nobody has ever stood up for me when things got contentious. That can mean only one thing: there is an “us vs. them” mentality on this thread which I did not originate.
LikeLike
Hans, lucky for you I do not have the time to go through all of your comments to show that you are projecting. Alas, I must get going with chicken n dumplings for the birthday boy.
LikeLike
Mark–
Meddling is only mentioned in 1 Peter 4:15. (Check any modern translation, and you’ll see that most of the places the KJV used the word are no longer translated that way.) In 1 Peter it is matched with murder, thievery, and evil doing (things for which we ought not complain when we suffer as a result of them). Evidently, what is in view is persistent, obnoxious busybody-ness. This is easily applicable to those Christians who complain (or even boast) of being “persecuted” for Christ’s sake when the truth of the matter is that they deserve to be derided for their judgmentalism and abuse of others.
Getting involved in other people’s lives for appropriate reasons is not gainsaid in Scripture. Nudging people, by which I mean winsomely convincing them of the rightness of loving commitment, should not be decried by you or anyone else. I’m not talking about shaming anyone or twisting arms. Even those who have been brought up correctly may be influenced by the overall culture, which fully endorses living together. It is up to us to be a counter-culture, wouldn’t you agree?
In many cases, it might be well for cohabiting couples to split and seek an appropriate match, instead. But breaking off cohabitation may be traumatic, as well. I was devastated by a couple of long-term dating relationships which went sour, even though we never “shacked up.”
LikeLike
Hans,
I have to admit, I haven’t read the dialogue you had with others. I guess I didn’t want to get in the middle of cross hairs.
My focus has been Marriage Coercion and Divorce which I believe has been civilized. Though my 2 statements @11:41 am and 12:30 am are sound and I really don’t think you really so what I’m seeing.
My wife’s sister coerced her daughter into matrimony with someone that was seriously mental and violent and then wouldn’t allow the young girl to go on birth control for fear of gaining weight.
(he probably never considered the weight of a baby inside of a womb)
Now the young girl and her violent husband are divorced and have abandoned the child.
LikeLike
Hans,
I never suggested cohabiting didn’t have consequences.
The bible is loaded with scriptures on meddling. Both in the OT and NT.go on-line and enter “verses on meddling” or “what does the bible say about meddling”.
A few months ago our preacher did a sermon on meddling and referred to the OT.
LikeLike
mod note: personal attack, comment removed.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
And to nip in the bud any weird interpretations of “Freudian slip,” all I meant was that your true intentions/motivations seem to have been unintentionally revealed here.
LikeLike
Mark–
I just did do a search. When it comes to modern translations, 1 Peter 4 is all there is. Those words translated as “to meddle” in the OT tend to mean “to contend or to strive” and NOT to be a busybody or to put one’s nose in other people’s affairs.
I’ll be more than glad to look at particular verses which you believe don’t fit this pattern.
LikeLike
Mark–
I hope you don’t still think that I endorse ACTUALLY coercing anybody into marriage. I am totally against firearms at weddings!
Convincing cohabiting couples to marry, who have children to care for and a fairly solid understanding of adult responsibility as part of their character, certainly shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing…even if they are no longer head-over-heels “in love.”
LikeLike
Hans,
All I can say is good luck in the nudging business. I can assure you most of the people you choose to confront, already know what adultery is.
Be careful who you nudge because if it ends in divorce it may be on your hands and you may regret it.
I know my sister in-law regrets what she did. As well as others who I know have practiced marriage coercion.
The Bible is loaded on different forms of meddling. If you are unable to pull up verses on-line I’ll be happy to do that for you.
LikeLike
Mark–
By the way, yes, you have been extremely civilized, and I very much appreciate it. I do not relish the contention. It is not my preference. But I don’t back down from a fight when it is brought my way.
It may be just “little old me” here on my side most of the time. But I will never meet any of you in this lifetime anyway. There is no intimidation factor. Ganging up on me may make me somewhat angry, but it will never weaken my resolve. They have no real advantage here except in their own minds. Let them say what they will. Their saying it doesn’t make it so.
Their methodology makes it clear they haven’t the slightest clue how to effectively deal with abuse. They seem to have little realization that those who are abused, very frequently turn right around and abuse others. They have no protections in place to guard against their own site becoming abusive.
Julie Anne seems to be of the opinion that venting emotions releases pent-up frustration. But Gestalt therapy and Primal therapy (primal scream) have been largely discredited. Venting is seldom cathartic. Instead, it enhances the anger by practicing it, kind of like one’s tennis ground strokes are improved through practice. One simply gets better at being angry….
LikeLike
Mark–
I can look up anything I wish to at any time. I am pretty well set with biblical reference materials.
I challenge you to find even one verse that means “to meddle” in the modern sense (other than 1 Peter 4). I’m betting you cannot do it.
LikeLike
Hans,
Kids complicate matters no doubt about that.
There is nothing we can do (accept offer our Love and Prayers) to change a couple’s mind, even with kids, if they don’t want to get married, it could make matters worse as you still want the thing to be civilized. And of course Child support becomes an issue.
Hans, we have a screwed-up society, We have a rebellious society. It seems good intentions make those go in the opposite direction..
Hans, just love your kids, don’t be shy to point out the dangers of uncommitted relationships and when they are adults hopefully they will make themselves less vulnerable to bad choices. And because of your guidance they are going to know without a doubt when they make a bad decision.
(I wouldn’t advise my kids to hide a bad decision by making another bad decision to cover up a previous bad decision)
Giving a nudge toward matrimony to cohabiting couples that already know they are living in sin, is a bad idea.
Cohabiting couples not getting married should be a Red Flag sign of non-commitment.
I believe we want our sons and daughters to be involve in a committed “Free Will” loving relationship. The more nudging (or force feeding) we do into adulthood will have more consequences..
I hope you share my 11:41 am. comment with your wife. (and this comment as well)
.
LikeLike
Speaking of Christians and female virginity, an eighth grade girl in Arkansas was asked to stop wearing her Virginity Rocks T-shirt to public school. She said it expressed her Christian beliefs. The school said shirts with sexual content are not allowed.
LikeLike
Marsha–
School administrations aren’t very bright, are they? My mother-in-law is going through chemotherapy, and my wife and I came across this story from March of this year, where a third-grade girl shaved her head in solidarity with her BFF who was going through chemo. The school sent her home for violation of the dress code and told her not to come back until her hair had grown out!
Well, the family took to Facebook, and the ruling was rescinded IN A HURRY:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/school-backs-down-from-ban-on-girl-who-shaved-head-in-solidarity/blogEntry?id=23063711
Numbskulls!!
🙂
LikeLike
Marsha–
It looked stupid after I looked at it, so just to make clear: the smiley face is for the third-grade girl, not for the idiotic school board!
LikeLike
“Yes, Lydia, but I have no power here. I have never had power here. I cannot possibly be trying to reconsolidate power. I agree that some abusers act as you and Gary suggest…partly because they’re trying to appear to be normal. They wish to normalize their lost reputation.”
Why would you view comments on someones elses blog as “power” positions or not? I don’t get that sort of thinking.
“But there are many other people who seek unity and fairness and forgiveness and and acceptance (i. e., “allies”) because they are…normal.”
True. And they are often used by manipulators to turn the tables. That is why past behavior if often an indicator of future behavior UNLESS the abuser/manipulator truly is repentent then they leave folks alone. Our Lord loves truth and transparancy in relationships. He does not like it when the evil one uses those concepts to manipulate people for control or to get power. That link to the letter above on Crippen’s blog clearly shows how abusers/manipulators operate. If one goes along, they can stay in that black hole of circular reasoning for decades.
“After all, couldn’t you and Gary be considered “allies”? Would that mean the two of you should be suspected as clandestine abusers?
”
I only know Gary through comments on this blog. I have never even had an email convo with him. When we agree, we agree. I have not seen anything major I disagree with him on so far from reading here. And that is rare! But even if we disagreed it would be irenic. In fact, from what I can glean from his comments we seem to be in similar places in our journey with Christ.
LikeLike
Hans says to Julie Anne, “You’re Freudian slip is showing.” Prior to this Hans had asked me “By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?” At the time I thought better of responding by suggesting that this was some sort of projective Freudian slip on Hans’ part. Well, Hans has now opened the door to just such a line of inquiry.
Unless having (rather pathetically) drawn his wife in as an ally counts, I have no evidence that Hans abuses her. However, I would suggest that Hans needs to be very, very careful not to dominate his wife in the same manner, and with the same tactics, he has unsuccessfully attempted to dominate the conversation here.
Now, Hans, you have a decision to make. You can either accept my warning in the spirit of a brother warning a brother, as iron sharpening iron, or you can again take umbrage. Just please, please, keep in mind that I am NOT NOT NOT accusing you of abusing your wife. Only you, or others who are actually acquainted with you, could make that determination.
LikeLike
so no one sees the tongue in cheekisness with the loaded question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
I could be mistaken but I saw no indication that hans was seriously asking the question. I thought it was placed quite satirically well in his comment.
…back to my popcorn..
LikeLike
Lydia,
If you are willing to say, I would be curious to know what you perceive to be differences in our points of view. I perceive that, when it comes to explaining observed differences between men and women, you lean more heavily than me (or is it “than I”?) in the direction of nurture. I tend to think that women are by nature more apt than men to reflect the glory of God. We men tend to think that it is in the exercise of power and authority that we most nearly reflect the glory of God (which is a lie). My contention is that God’s glory is more fully reflected in women’s greater observed capacity for loving and nurturing others, for imparting not just physical, but spiritual, life. I tend to think that such differences are largely inherent in our created natures. I contend that the order of creation is some evidence of this. Just as each previous step of creation was more glorious than all that preceded, so also Eve, having been created last, was more gloriously created than Adam.
Those who (pretend to) allow that woman is ontologically equal to man have it quite wrong. Woman is ontologically superior to man.
LikeLike
Matt,
You make a good point. Yet what was the point of the loaded question if not to establish plausible dependability for having said an extraordinarily offensive thing? Do I get a pass if I, for example, ask Hans when he quit sleeping with his mother? No, of course not. Not under any circumstances. To ask such a question, even in jest, would reveal a deep flaw in my character. Hans’ loaded question ought to be viewed as being equally objectionable. I contend that the only reason even Christians don’t see Hans’ loaded question as particularly objectionable is that they (I refuse to say “we” in this context) tend to not take spouse abuse particularly seriously. By their actions, if not by their words, too many Christians still see women as inferior beings who ought, by nature, to be subject to the domination, even the subjugation, of their husbands.
LikeLike
Matt
Thank you…whoever you are.
Perhaps it would help Gary if I explained a loaded question. It is a question which carries with it a presumption of guilt.
In the simpler form of the classic example–have you stopped beating your wife?–one cannot answer the question innocently. If you say, “Yes, I have,” then you have just admitted to beating your wife in the past. If you say, “No, I haven’t,” then you have just admitted to continuing to beat her. You cannot win for losing.
Perhaps it would help Gary if I repeated myself 10 more times:
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek.
Perhaps it would help Gary if he knew I didn’t “draw” my wife into anything. She insisted that I write those words, and I obliged. (Quite frankly, she thinks YOU’RE rather pathetic, Gary.)
You keep insisting that you are not accusing me of abusing my wife (and then keep inferring you suspect I may indeed be doing so…through your adept intellectual evaluation of my manipulative rhetoric). Exactly what type of manipulative method are you employing when you do that? You’re the expert on…oh, sorry, pardon the unintentional slip…you’re the expert when it comes to…no, no, that doesnt sound right either…you’re the expert concerning manipulation (in others, of course, in others, goes without saying).
Perhaps it would help Lydia to realize that I only know my wife through comments on this blog. I have never even had an email conversation with her. I can explain our toddler triplets only with the greatest of difficulty. I think I’ll go with the following: it’s an unfathomable mystery.
You caught me. That last statement was stated tongue-in-cheek. But honestly, Lydia, how much acquaintance must one have to draw someone in as an ally? Haven’t I just, in some sense, drawn Matt in as an ally (who I didn’t know existed before a few minutes ago)?
You and Gary are a couple of the silliest silly-billies it has ever been my fortune to meet. You’re good for a laugh or two…or three or four…or five or six…or more.
Have a glorious day!!
🙂
LikeLike
Hans,
I just read through some of your comments from yesterday. This blog is not about you, nor is it your place to come here and psychoanalyze people who challenge you or disagree with you. When that happens, it draws others into getting personal because people want to challenge you more or defend themselves and then we’ve lost track of the original topic.
I already removed one of your comments. If you challenge me on this or say something personal to me or anyone else, you will be put in the SSB doghouse so I can moderate each comment to make sure it doesn’t cross any lines.
LikeLike
Gary–
The problem with your retort, Gary, is that this PARTICULAR loaded question is the best known loaded question there is. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t choose wife beating as the object of its presumptuous inquiry. It can ONLY be taken tongue-in-cheek except by those who are ignorant of its status as THE example of a loaded question.
LikeLike
“If you are willing to say, I would be curious to know what you perceive to be differences in our points of view.”
To tell you the truth, I am not really sure based upon what I have read here over the last year. You often bring an approach to things I had not considered.
“Those who (pretend to) allow that woman is ontologically equal to man have it quite wrong. Woman is ontologically superior to man.”
No, disagree with this but with a twist. And it gets complicated for blog talk. I do not think women are ontologically superior to men. The twist I refer to comes from Gen 3. This is my opinion of course.
First of all, the ancient narrative tells us Eve was deceived and ADMITTED IT. Secondly, the narrative tells us that Eve would “turn” to Adam and he would rule over here. And finally the narrative has God saying:
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crushyour head,
and you will strike his heel.”
I do believe in evil. And I believe that evil especially hates women because that is how Messiah came. There is a whole lot more to this I won’t go into here but it has to do with the humanness of Jesus Christ, how the evil one wants us all to hate ourselves and each other so he finds a perfect way to make us believe in imputed guilt, total inability, patriarchy, etc. (Yes, I think those concepts are evil in the long run).
So in a way that could be described as “nurture”. It is part of the evil that permeated the world because of wrong choices. (Eve even continued to make wrong choices that we often hear communicated as commands).
Since Adam blamed God and Eve for his choice (She admitted to being deceived) I see something else playing out. The evil one was not so concerned about Adam but very concerned about a woman who would bear Messiah. But we see this played out immediately with horrible evils. Lamech is one of the poster boys.
Of course, Jesus Christ gained victory over all this. We really have no more excuses as much we might like to blame God for all of it. It is really us who are to reflect Christ back to the culture…..and don’t. We tend to make up a Jesus for power or profit.
LikeLike
Please, no more discussion about wife beating.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Can you send me the offending comment so that I know what crosses the line?
Can you explain to me why others, who have clearly (and often!) psychoanalyzed me, and who, I am quite sure, did so first, are not being likewise reprimanded?
All I ask for is a level playing field….
LikeLike
“Perhaps it would help Gary if he knew I didn’t “draw” my wife into anything. She insisted that I write those words, and I obliged. (Quite frankly, she thinks YOU’RE rather pathetic, Gary.)”
Why is this necessary or even pertinent?
“But honestly, Lydia, how much acquaintance must one have to draw someone in as an ally? Haven’t I just, in some sense, drawn Matt in as an ally (who I didn’t know existed before a few minutes ago)?”
Why is it necessary to have “allies” on a “blog”?
Poland is not being invaded. It is a blog. I do not understand your focus on “allies”. Large numbers in agreement do not automatically mean “right” so why would that bother you? Early on, Hitler filled the Sportsplatz with adoring fans. I never equate the amount of people agreeing with me as confirming the “rightness” of my thinking. That is incredibily dangerous and one reason why some of us here because we once bought into a variation of that in some church or movement.
But since that is important to you, I am happy for you about “Matt”. :o) I am just curious why that is so important?
There are many Reformed only blogs where you would be a star commenter and find many “allies” since that is what you seem to be looking for. I would recommend going back and reading forward from your first comment here about us being “haters”. That set the tone for the rest of the convo which has been a vertibable roller coaster in contrasting emotions.
Personally, I would like to back out now as it seems to have gone into the black hole long ago and I see no profit for either of us in continuing.
“ou and Gary are a couple of the silliest silly-billies it has ever been my fortune to meet. You’re good for a laugh or two…or three or four…or five or six…or more.
”
At least there was entertainment value for you. (wink)
LikeLike
No, Hans, I don’t feel like searching for your comments or responding to moderating questions. Your bantering back and forth with me is keeping me from doing tasks that are more important to me.
You are my guest here. Play by my rules: just stick to posting comments pertaining to theology/spiritual matters and you’ll be fine.
LikeLike
Lydia–
I have absolutely no clue where you’re coming from. You and Gary made a big deal about the suspicious behavior of “seeking allies.” I have merely defended myself against your charges.
LikeLike
Lydia has said that she is bowing out of the conversation with Hans. Gary, can you do the same, no matter what is posted?
I believe that we have all made our objections to TULIP very clear. I won’t be posting here on this thread unless there is a spiritual issue that gets brought up about which I feel that I might have some insight to contribute.
LikeLike
Hans, having invaded another thread, says to Julie Anne, “Being in your “dog house,” by the way, is a place of extreme honor. I would almost start to question my integrity if I were not in it.”
One is tempted to quote Proverbs 26:11 (“Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.” ESV). However, I think maybe the best, or at least most charitable, way of looking at Hans is as a needy puppy, always nipping at peoples’ heels in a desperate, if pathetic, bid for attention and recognition.
Still, Hans is an adult human. To the best of my memory, it is only Calvinists who crash this blog, arrogantly, unyieldingly, and, yes, sometimes abusively, promoting their theology–not Jesus, but their theology. Why should we not view these misguided souls’ behavior as the fruit by which we judge their doctrine?
The only thing that holds me back, if only tentatively, is that I am aware of reformed ministers whose behavior is the polar opposite of the behavior of the Calvinists who come here arrogantly and abusively teachin’ and a preachin,’ contending for the doctrine that has become their (false) hope and god.
LikeLike
What A W Pink is quoted on a current thread as saying about children could easily have come from the mouth of Satan. Still, Pink is quite convincing. He almost persuades me to subscribe to the notion of total depravity–the total depravity of A W Pink. Funny thing is, according to his own doctrine, Pink would have to agree with such an assessment of himself.
LikeLike
Lydia:
You forgot the Muslims who beat everyone in low divorce rates. :o)
Was this supposed to be literal, or was it just a slip of the fingertips on the keyboard? Did you forget the word “to” (as in beat everyone into …)? It’s not much different within the Evangelical Christian group that I left where women were told to endure physical abuse to avoid divorce. It was their duty to suffer and submit. Not only is it required under patriarchy, but it makes you more holy and full of spiritual power according to Gothard.
LikeLike
Hans,
On the other thread concerning the luxury cruise which focuses on the persecution of faithful Christians, I noted the words of Calvin, Pink, and Voddie Baucham. I did so to demonstrate that those sinners redeemed by grace through faith don’t have a track record that’s really any better than any other Christian sect’s history. They are all full of sinners and Pharisees in recovery, just like me. You’d asked for examples from 50 to 100 years ago concerning abuse within the Reformed Faith, I presume because you believe that the Reformed have a better track record. I gave you a few that I find quite valid — not because I hate Calvinists or Calvin or anyone else.
Were you aware that I consider myself a Calvinist — Five Point and all? This, of course, is qualified by my agreement with TULIP as a position statement made against the Articles of Remonstrance to defend the concept of God’s Sovereignty.
However, I believe that when the principles are taken out of the context of affirming God as sovereign to make statements about evangelism or as a means of benchmarking other Christians within the pale of orthodoxy as inferior or unenlightened, they become little more than what James Sire calls “theistic existentialism.” (Rather than being a God-centered issue, it becomes one where man becomes central.) In their original context, the statements are reasonable, as Jacob Arminius and his lot reduced God to a “cosmic bellhop” (a term I’ve heard RC Sproul, Sr. use). And I know that well because I’ve read and listened to quite a lot of Sproul (and Gersener, his mentor).
What most people fail to understand, however, is the misconception that Calvinism is limited only to TULIP. By and in large, Calvinism is synonymous with Covenant Theology, and it is that which I do not follow. I don’t feel beholden to that system and find many aspects of it to be unbiblical. My core soteriology is strongly Lutheran, but that said, Luther made many horrible statements — most notably in his anti-semitism. Though those who follow Covenant Theology deem Luther an antinomian in the way that he qualified and discerned how the Old Testament Law applies to the New Creation in Christ, concerning TULIP, Luther and Calvin disagreed on little to nothing. Lutheran theology is much like Calvinism in some respects, but it is very different in many aspects.
The big problem that I see today is the lack of liberty extended to other Believers within the pale of orthodoxy who reject TULIP or those who do not worship Calvin, Pink, Bavnick, Kuyper — and more recently, Schaeffer, Mohler, Piper, MacArthur or perhaps Rushdoony and Bahnsen. Anyone who rejects them in any way is called an antinomian — and it’s meant as a pejorative that knocks others down a peg and becomes its own form of gnosticism.
LikeLike
Cindy–
I am not here on this blog to argue the superiority of Calvinism. You are correct. Each denomination is constituted of sinful human beings, and each has had its ups and downs historically.
I’m sure Julie Anne sees me as a thorn in the side. That’s not really my intention either. It became clear to me early on, on this blog that many here have been hurt by Reformed churches (including Julie Anne herself). It is quite acceptable to implicate Calvinism on other threads…but quite unacceptable to defend Calvinism there. Julie Anne is a delightful host in so many ways, but she is wilfully blind on this one issue. She does indeed like particular individuals who align themselves with Calvinism, but she personally dislikes Calvinism to such a degree that she is willing to maintain us Calvinists as permanent second-class citizens on the blog. I simply believe that her blog would be vastly improved by developing a level playing field for all involved. To date, she is not interested. She clearly wants this place’s purpose to remain, for the time being at any rate, partly anti-church-abuse and partly anti-Calvinist. (I have yet to see her castigate a fellow anti-Calvinist or to send any of them here to this thread to make their theologically-charged negative remarks…unless, of course, they are in the process of responding to a Calvinist.)
You are correct that many who call themselves Calvinistic are judgmental in inappropriate ways. We are all saved by genuine belief in the actual, historical Christ, through his atoning death and justifying resurrection. We are not saved by means of adherence to a whole list of theological minutia.
But theological tenets are incredibly significant nonetheless. It is not a good thing to be either Antinomian or Legalistic. It is not a good thing to be either Pelagian or Deterministic. It is not a good thing to be either Unitarian or Tritheistic. It is not a good thing to be either Universalistic or presumptuously predestinarian (i.e., functionally elitist).
LikeLike
Lydia–
Finney was not a Calvinist in any sense of the term, not even by the most technical of technicalities. He was Pelagian…180° opposite from Calvinism. Yes, he was credentialed as a Presbyterian. But Presbyterianism does not a Calvinist make. (Cumberland Presbyterians are quite Arminian!) Abraham Lincoln himself is said to have been vaguely Presbyterian.
Southern Calvinists were embarrassingly pro-slavery. Northern Calvinists, however, were NOT. Charles Hodge (professor of theology at Old Princeton) stated the following concerning slavery:
“Slavery is a heinous crime; it degrades human beings into things; it forbids marriages; it destroys domestic relations; it separates parents and children, husbands and wives; it legalizes what God forbids, and forbids what God enjoins; it keeps its victims in ignorance even of the gospel; it denies labor its wages, subject the persons, the virtue, and the happiness of many to the caprice of one; it involves the violation of all social rights and duties, and therefore is the greatest of social crimes. It is as much as any man’s character for sense, honesty or religion is worth, to insist that a distinction must here be made; that we must discriminate between slavery and its separable adjuncts; between the relationship itself and the abuse of it; between the possession of power and the unjust exercise of it. Let any man in some portions of our country, in England, in Scotland, or Ireland, attempt to make such distinctions, and see with what an outburst of indignation he will be overwhelmed. It is just so in the present case.”
So yes, being Southern and surrounded since birth by the peculiar institution of slavery often made one into an advocate of slavery. Sometimes, as was the case with Stonewall Jackson, an elder in his Presbyterian church, relationships with slaves were quite fraternal, loving, and fair. Often, of course, they were not.
Being a Calvinist, on the other hand, did NOT make one into an advocate of slavery. Many were quite Abolitionist in their sentiments.
So far, Lydia, I haven’t heard any historical charges from you, necessarily relating Reformed thought and oppression of any sort. Care to try again?
LikeLike
It may appear like that to you, Hans, but I think it’s important that you know that I have Reformed friends. Additionally, some with whom I closely network are Reformed (Jeff Crippen and Barb Roberts are two). My pet peeve is bullies who abuse.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
That is also MY pet peeve. It is beyond all debate that you allow negative, derisive comments concerning Calvinism without blinking an eye. I have even demonstrated this to you…without getting a response. Being a hypocrite is not the worst sin in the world, but it is a sin nevertheless.You are a hypocrite who decries abuse and allows abuse almost within the same sentence.
So, is your next step to sue me?
😉
I still like you as a person (believe it or not)! Thus is NOT personal. This is a matter of conviction….
LikeLike
Lydia–
I mentioned John Newton’s name before. The former captain of a slave ship, upon his conversion he became a staunch Abolitionist, eventually greatly influencing William Wilberforce. (Albert Finney played Newton in the movie, “Amazing Grace.” Perhaps that’s where you got the notion that “Finney” was “technically” a “Calvinist”! 😉 )
Though Wilberforce, as an evangelical Anglican, didn’t particularly care for the Calvinist label, like Charles Simeon (born in the exact same year), he undoubtedly was one in terms of his basic beliefs.
LikeLike
Brenda R.–
I can only assume from your replies that your experiences of abuse have come at the hands of those labeled, “Reformed.”
A young child, bitten by a Cocker Spaniel (the number one biting breed, as I recall) may be deathly afraid of a wonderful Newfie or Lab that would never bite her in a hundred years. One of my own little tykes screamed bloody murder upon coming face to face with a completely docile Great Dane. Its sheer size terrified him!
Recently, I myself was ill treated by the leadership of a YRR church. I didn’t blame Calvinism; I blamed THEM. Pastors are people, too. And some of them are just not very good people. Shortly before the aforementioned mistreatment, I and my family were dealt with in a much worse manner by a Charismatic Anglican rector. We were also sorely abused, perhaps even criminally, by the Anglo-Catholic junior warden at the same church. I have been treated less than kindly by pastors (and other leaders) from all kinds of denominations: Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical Free, Nazarenes, Charismatics, and Catholics. The only two Eastern Orthodox priests I have gotten to know well are absolute sweethearts, but I can point to several online who are total jerks.
Please, please quit stereotyping. Not all Calvinists are abusive. In fact, most are not. A huge majority of the time, a pastor is not good or bad based on his or her theology. This is especially true for denominations that have stood the test of time.
LikeLike
Cindy–
Two things.
1. Gothard.What an absolute crackpot! Why again did anybody ever listen to that guy? I still don’t understand.
2. What group encouraged you to endure abuse? (I’d like to smack them around!)
…figuratively, of course. It’s hard not to wish abuse on those who ignore abuse.
LikeLike
Hans – – like water on a duck’s back . . . .
LikeLike
Hans admits “I have been treated less than kindly by pastors (and other leaders) from all kinds of denominations: Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical Free, Nazarenes, Charismatics, and Catholics.”
With such a lengthy list of supposed offenders, I’m thinking the problem is Hans, who makes neither God nor even man, but himself, the measure of all things. But poor Hans. What he could profitably receive as brotherly admonition will be felt as persecution, as an attack. Or so I fear.
LikeLike
“Was this supposed to be literal, or was it just a slip of the fingertips on the keyboard? Did you forget the word “to” (as in beat everyone into …)? It’s not much different within the Evangelical Christian group that I left where women were told to endure physical abuse to avoid divorce. It was their duty to suffer and submit. Not only is it required under patriarchy, but it makes you more holy and full of spiritual power according to Gothard.”
From memory, the discussion brought in India as an example of low divorce rates. If we were going down the road of equating low divorce rate with supposedly healthy marriages, why not cite Muslims as having a very low divorce rate?
As I used to warn my clients: Be careful what you “measure”. :o)
LikeLike
Hans, It is not worth the effort to engage as the point is often missed as it was with Finney and we go into the black hole of “Arminian/Calvin” which to me is simply determinism-lite/determinism.
I live at ground zero so I have been sucked into so many of these types of convos that go no where. I have never been a member of a Reformed church. I studied Calvinism and the Reformation back in early 00’s because I thought it might be the answer to the cheap grace of seeker evangelicalism and al;l the spiritual abuse I saw there. I found they have more in common than not when it comes to excusing horrible behaviors by their leaders and star struck followers. The Calvinists tend toward total depravity (inability) as the excuse, the seekers use cheap grace as theirs.
As for me, I believe us humans are totally responsible and accountable for not only what we believe but what we do as believers. You mentioned Pelagius at some point….. about all we know about Pelgaius is what his detractors wrote about him because most of his writings were destroyed. But from what I have read concerning his “heresy”, I agree with him. Which puts me in the heretical category. I just think blaming God for our own evil deeds is blasphemous which is where I believe both the cheap grace and total depravity (inability) camps end up albeit taking different routes.
LikeLike
Lydia–
I have no clue how to answer what you just wrote. Somewhere along the way, you left reality far, far behind….
LikeLike
Gary–
I said absolutely nothing about persecution…or attacks. I merely said I have been treated “less than kindly.” You do like to exaggerate, don’t you?
I could probably say the same sort of thing about lawyers, administrative assistants, bankers, cashiers, teachers, grocers, pet groomers, and graduate students. I–and you, for that matter– have been treated “less than kindly” by people from all walks of life. I understand that for you, financial counselors are the embodiment of all evil…because one once messed up your entire investment portfolio. Well, that’s narrow of you, Gary. Not all financial counselors are worthless and greedy…no matter how badly one of them acted toward you.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
All you ever had to do was take my complaint the least bit seriously. On the thread you just threw me off of for talking Calvinism, Lydia savagely disparaged Pink (a well-known Calvinist writer).
Exactly HOW is Calvinism never supposed to come up on thread after thread after thread attacking Driscoll, Piper, Sproul, Chandler etc.?
I’m starting to not like you. You are making no attempt whatsoever to be reasonable. Kind of like a bully….
LikeLike
Hans,
Please stop trying to engage me at how I moderate. You have your mind made up about how I moderate and nothing I say will change your mind. So either deal with it or move along. I am a full-time student and don’t have time for this. Just follow the rules and you will be fine: keep doctrinal debates to this thread, not on current threads.
Thanks!
LikeLike
It seems to me that anybody who would persistently, even unrelentingly, attempt to tell somebody else how to run their blog must have an entitlement mentality–an entitlement mentality that is reminiscent of the pronounced egocentrism of early childhood.
Whatever the root causes of entitlement mentality might be, I wonder if there isn’t something about the TULIP pentagram that attracts people who act as though they are entitled to be the boss other people. I’m thinking that one who suffers from such a mentality would be attracted to a doctrine that declares them to be the very capital “E” Elect of God. Also, if and to the extent a particular person’s entitlement mentality is rooted in an unresolved sense of shame, however deeply repressed, they would be attracted to the doctrine of total depravity of all humans (not just oneself) like iron filings to a powerful magnet. It is not too difficult to draw similar conclusions with regard to TULIP’s L, I and P (e.g., “The Atonement is limited, I am special, and so on).
I am not saying that all Calvinists are characterologically challenged. Far from it. I would hope and expect that the great majority of Calvinists have simply accepted what they have been taught, or what they have read, or some such. Still, I am increasingly convinced that there is something about Calvinism that attracts people who exhibit even relatively benign levels of characterological similarities to John Calvin, the tyrannical preacher of Geneva and murderer of Miguel Servetus.
LikeLike
“Still, I am increasingly convinced that there is something about Calvinism that attracts people who exhibit even relatively benign levels of characterological similarities to John Calvin, the tyrannical preacher of Geneva and murderer of Miguel Servetus.”
Living at ground zero, I have to agree with you. I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting one. Either you fully agree with them or you get the black hole argumentation, gaslighting and entitlement treatment. If you are one who is not familiar with the tactics, it is soul crushing and spend years trying to figure out what is going on. But for those of us who are familiar, It is mentally exhausting and why more and more people are simply “electing” to leave churches here.
And I feel perfectly within my rights to announce I find AW Pink chillingly scary. The man blasphemes my Savior and turns Him into a monster of epic proportions that sends babies to hell and arbitrarily chooses who will have eternal life and who won’t BEFORE Adam even sinned or they were born. I find that a reprehenisible lie about a glorious loving God who wants us for relationship.
Here is some information on Pinks conversion:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+AW+Pink
So how could a guy who had that conversion experience promote such a monster arbitrary pagan god who sends babies to hell? Could it be the god who converted him had the same attributes of the demons he was conjuring as a Theosophist?
LikeLike
Lydia,
Wade Burleson ends the article to which you link by exclaiming, “May God give us more Pink’s in this 21st Century.” Inasmuch as Pink’s god is said by Pink to be possessed of what is in fact a vile–dare I say satanic?–hatred of the most innocent of the innocent, I say no thanks.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
My mind made up? I guess I also have “my mind made up” that the sun comes up every morning. Your hands-off style of dealing with anti-Calvinists is legendary by now. One need look no further than the last few comments on this thread. If you’re a full-time student, why not leave me alone, too? I still don’t see how I can possibly be MORE objectionable than Lydia and Gary and Ed.
But it is what it is. I will take your advice and just “deal with it.” You once advised me to deal with blog “trolls” by ignoring them, just like everyone else does.
So be it.
Gary–
Playing “armchair psychologist” is one of the oldest techniques employed by blog trolls. Auf wiedersehen, Herr Doktor!
Lydia–
In terms of matching “venom for venom,” you and A.W. Pink make quite the cute couple. Best wishes on your approaching nuptials.
P.S., I won’t be attending the ceremony. My gift to you is my absence from your life.
Bon voyage, bon vivant!
LikeLike
Good-bye Hans/Eric
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Cute. Really cute.
Mockery??
LikeLike