* * *
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 
Gary, Bingo. The whole focus on staying focused on sin is a control tactic. Can’t have independent people out there with victory over sin being guided by the real Holy Spirit which the gurus cannot control. They would have NO followers!
LikeLike
Mark,
I can only speak for myself here, but I am not saying that all Calvinist churches are involved in heavy handed cult like activities. Still, I’m inclined to think some practices are more dangerous than others, even when pursued with innocent motives. I see we aren’t going to convinced you that there is anything wrong with preaching the gospel to ourselves every day, and I would be surprised if you are doing it in a way manner that is particularly dangerous.
I do, however, hope you will be able to accept that there may be cause to keep one’s eyes open, even yours. All it takes for a healthy church to become cult like is a change in leadership, or even a change in outlook by a leader who was previously mature and healthy.
For example, where confession of sin is concerned, I am mindful of the benefit of confessing our sins to one another (James something or other), but this doesn’t mean we go around confessing everything to just anybody. If you ever find yourself in a situation where a pastor or other church leader begins to push the confession of sins to other church members, please remember that you were warned here. The obvious danger is that others will use your confessions against you. The less obvious danger is that this could be a sure fire way of leading you into unrighteous self-condemnation. This, in turn, makes it easier to manipulate you.
Again, I’m not saying any of this applies specifically to you. But I can also tell you that I was involved in some pretty bad, even cult like, church situations that I did not see except with 20-20 hindsight.
LikeLike
I apologize if anyone has left me comments… I have not been following this thread closely. I find long, drawn out debates (especially over Calvinism) hard to follow, and at times, tedious. Sometimes they’re interesting, but sometimes tedious.
Anyway, regarding lydiasellerofpurple comment of JANUARY 10, 2014 @ 12:54 PM, and how some Calvinists believe people should dwell on their sins constantly.
I’m surprised Cals would be into this so much. One of the biggest criticisms I’ve seen Protestants (including Cal Prots) level at Roman Catholicism, in regards to the Mass, is that Catholics are (according to some Prots) too fixated on the cross, on the death of Christ, to the point you will see Christ on the cross in Rom. Cath. Churches.
I’ve read Protestants say Catholics should focus on Christ’s resurrection, the empty tomb, and that sort of thing.
You would think a group of people who otherwise see the benefits of focusing on Christ’s resurrection and Christ’s defeat of evil, Satan, and sin would not be guilty of the thing they criticize another group of doing themselves. It’s strange.
LikeLike
“The Calvinist rejects the gospel which produces a moral change in the believer. They claim to still be a rebellious sinner, and to only have been forgiven, but not washed, not cleansed, not sanctified. They are exactly as they were before, only their forensic category has changed. They were condemned, now they think they aren’t, but they are morally unchanged and proud of it.”
Yes. Yes! THank you!
And if anyone can tell me how this claim is any different from the Pharisee saying, ) thank God I am not like other men”, I will give you a genuine piece of wooden scrip from a rotten old mine company store down in West Virginia. You can spend the rest of your life pondering why it isn’t worth anything; just like “I am a rebellious sinner and always will be” is an even more rotten way to try to testify. I will leave the room, like my grandfather left the crooked mine company, and follow in the steps of Jesus Christ, and leave Kevin & Co to their pious whining about how they are “not like other men” either.
It didn’t work for the Pharisee in Jesus’ day, and it isn’t gonna work for the Pharis–, OOPS!! I mean Calvinist in ours.
LikeLike
“The whole focus on staying focused on sin is a control tactic. Can’t have independent people out there with victory over sin being guided by the real Holy Spirit which the gurus cannot control. They would have NO followers!”
Amen , Lydia.
LikeLike
Zooey111 – What?? thats about all i can say…..
LikeLike
HELLO PEOPLE. Is anyone reading my posts. You guys are like my father who bashes conservatives for being mean spirited and never helping the poor and then I say, “Dad, Im right in front of you, im a conservative who helps the poor.” But no matter how many times I tell him and show him, it doesn’t matter. He’s convinced that conservatives and mean and dont help the poor…..
same thing here.
LikeLike
“Zooey111 – What?? thats about all i can say…..”
Does the Atomic Church Of Me ring any bells?
LikeLike
Does the Atomic Church Of Me ring any bells? nope.
LikeLike
Gary,
Thank You for your discernment. Reading the Bible and Knowing Doctrines could substitute hind sight and I wouldn’t have been deceived.
If I understood the vast number of Doctrines that exist in Baptist Churches I would’ve been more prepared to walk away from my church much earlier during my former Pastor’s tenure.
If I understood the bible more thoroughly I would’ve been more prepared to walk away from my church much earlier during my former Pastor’s tenure.
When you are unaware that you are being deceived by a Pastor, is an humbling experience. My lack of Bible knowledge and being unaware of different Doctrines colliding the Baptist Church is my fault, not my former Pastors’.
Being located in a town with one church with the only access being via boat or plane is no excuse from being naive of the Doctrinal Strife going on in the SBC.
I can except that.
Do you think God loved Esau?
LikeLike
“When you are unaware that you are being deceived by a Pastor, is an humbling experience. My lack of Bible knowledge and being unaware of different Doctrines colliding the Baptist Church is my fault, not my former Pastors’.”
Bingo Mark! And I would add that I have often thought if I had been more discerning and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit, it could have saved a lot of grief. now, the red flags are easy to spot.
LikeLike
lydia,
Funny you mention the Holy Spirit. Finally after nearly 2 years of my Pastor’s tenure I finally submitted to the Holy Spirit to guide me trying to figure out my former Pastor’s “Methodology”.
Within a few days the “Methodology” was revealed to me then I disclosed it to the attonishment of some church leaders.
I wouldn’t asked for guidance from the Holy Spirit had we not gone through some shunning after we stopped attending.
LikeLike
Mark,
You ask if I think God loved Esau. Yes I think God did and still does love Esau. Primarily I think this because God is Love. I am mindful that God is quoted in terms of having hated Esau. The verses read:
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” (Malachi 1:2-4, ESV)
First, it is interesting that, in translation at least, God speaks in the perfect tense. He says I HAVE hated Esau. This comes across as being less final than if God had simply said he hated Esau.
Second, it appears that, Just as God, through Malachi, is speaking TO the descendants of Israel collectively, so also it appears that He is speaking OF the descendants of both Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) collectively. He is not saying he had hated the person, Esau. Rather, he is speaking of a tribe consisting of Esau’s descendents. (This, incidentally, is consistent with the view that Romans 9, which references the Malachi verses, relates to God’s dealings with people groups and not with issues of individual salvation.)
Third, it appears that the word hate, as used in the Bible, has shades of meaning–just like the word love in English. This is evidenced by Jesus’ saying that we are to hate fathers, mothers, wives and children. In both this instruction of Jesus and in the Malachi verses, hatred appears to do with who is more favored (as in more blessed) than whom.
But finally, it just comes back to the nature of God, who is Love. What does God/Love look like. God/Love looks like Jesus, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus said that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father. John 14:9. I like how it is put in Hebrews 1:3, where we are told that Jesus “is the radiance of the glory of God and hthe exact imprint of his nature.”
Sure the religious leaders took it on the chin from Jesus, but I dare say that what he hated was not them but what they were doing to others. Surely our loving Lord did not dress down the religious leaders by way of venting at them. Rather, I have to believe he was warning them, lest they bring further judgment on themselves. After all, He was about to die that they might live. This much we do know: As Jesus was hanging on the Cross, he forgave those who had made themselves His enemies.
No, I just cannot imagine Jesus hating Esau, or anybody else for that matter. And to know Jesus is to know God, His Father and Ours.
LikeLike
@Julie Anne, “In a sense, this wallowing in sin and obsessive focus of sin I would say is blasphemous because they are cheapening the work that Christ did. Either He died for sin or He did not.”
Yes absolutely. The Calvinists often accuse non-Calvinists of cheapening the sacrifice of Christ since we supposedly allow some of Jesus’ blood to be “wasted” by saying he died even for the people who end up not being saved. (Whatever, that’s such a dumb argument.) But doesn’t saying he died only for a special elect set of lottery winners, because he was fearful that nobody would accept his offer except pre-chosen lottery-winning robots, and yet even with all those precautions and taking away freewill to boot, he still isn’t even powerful enough to affect a real change in them, cheapen it in reality?
LikeLike
Yesterday, in an attempt to understand what is meant by the advocates of daily preaching the gospel to ourselves, I quoted from the website of Desiring God Church of Charlotte, North Carolina:
http://www.desiringgodchurch.org/web/2009/02/21/preach-the-gospel-to-yourself/
Towards the end, this web article refers to the “so-called unconditional love of God.”
What? SO-CALLED? Is this what Calvinists believe?
Sad. And sick.
LikeLike
This was sent to me:
If anyone has any spoofing Arminianism, send them on. Laughter is the best medicine.
LikeLike
“Second, it appears that, Just as God, through Malachi, is speaking TO the descendants of Israel collectively, so also it appears that He is speaking OF the descendants of both Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) collectively. He is not saying he had hated the person, Esau. Rather, he is speaking of a tribe consisting of Esau’s descendents. (This, incidentally, is consistent with the view that Romans 9, which references the Malachi verses, relates to God’s dealings with people groups and not with issues of individual salvation.)”
Bingo. Note that Israel’s “election” as chosen people does not mean instant salvation. And even then, some non Israelites in the OT were saved by faith in Yahweh. Rahab is one early example who ended up in the genealogy of Jesus along with another non Jewish woman, Ruth. Yahweh is so awesome and interesting!
Calvinists take corporate/collective concepts in scripture and change them to mean individual salvation totally misunderstanding the message.
LikeLike
“Towards the end, this web article refers to the “so-called unconditional love of God.”
What? SO-CALLED? Is this what Calvinists believe?”
Gary, I have a theory about Piper. I have been reading/listening to him for about 13 years now. If folks would strip away the flowery verbosity (strip away all the redundant adjectives and adverbs), the arm waving crying passion and analyze the cold hard words that actually communicate meaning, they would not be so enamored. Ever try to read one of his books? One of his long ones such as Future Grace? Yikes! I think much of his attraction is his “spelling binding oratory”. Lots of folks like that sort of thing.
Now, one thing I have noticed about the YRR/NC movement is they rarely connect the dots with Jesus as God in the Flesh. Yes, they will admit it if asked but their teaching often subtly steers folks away from that truth.
LikeLike
JA, that is priceless. Truth is I only know one professed Arminian. Roger Olson. It seems most folks did not know they were Arminian until a Calvinist told them. :o)
LikeLike
“The Calvinists often accuse non-Calvinists of cheapening the sacrifice of Christ since we supposedly allow some of Jesus’ blood to be “wasted” by saying he died even for the people who end up not being saved. ”
I have heard that one a lot on YRR blogs over the years.
LikeLike
Gary,
Thanks for giving me your detailed interpretation of why you believe God loved Esau.
I couldn’t have said it any better. I already believed God loved Esau as well.
In my discussions with those who embrace 5 Point Doctrine they would argue in the contrary. In fact part of the basis for “Predestination and Judge Theology”, is some of the 5 Pointers believe God hated Esau.
Lack of Doctrine and Biblical knowledge is what made me vulnerable to Spiritual Abuse.
Abuse brought me to 1 Corintians 13:13. I find myself struggling with that verse and I need prayer so that I can use the strength of foregiveness that God gives us all, to embrace it.
Lack of Biblical knowledge may not always be the basis for abuse, especially when the abused are forcibly being held or manipulated against their will, for fear of damnation.
LikeLike
Mark,
You mention 1 Corinthians 13:13: So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (ESV). If we look at verse 3 we see that faith and hope are included within love: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, eendures all things. (ESV)
Since God is Love, and since love incorporates faith and hope, surely it is true that God Himself has faith and hope. Inasmuch as God’s very essence is Love, and given that God is infinite, so also must his love be infinite. Of necessity, therefore, God’s faith, hope and love must encompass every man, woman and child ever conceived or to be conceived. God has infinite faith in, and faithfulness towards you, me, and every other human. God’s hope for us is unending and without limit.
On the one hand, all this is absolutely astounding. On the other hand, how dare we think that the faith, hope and love directed at us by Father, Son and Holy Spirit could possibly be anything less than what I have here described.
LikeLike
Gary, Your comment has prompted another thought. Why would the Calvinist god demand something of us He does not do Himself. Love everyone?
LikeLike
Gary, I missed our morning coffee! 😉
You guys still talking about God loving everyone? If you can convince me that these verses are inaccurate, then you just might have a convert!
Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
Prov. 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”
Also, Due to Eli’s wicked sons and Eli not disciplining them, Gods says this:
1 Sam 3:14 “Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” Their sins were so great in Gods eyes that no atonement would ever be made for them. And that means, Christ’s atonement didn’t cover them, which means their were at least of few people that Jesus didn’t die for…but that a whole other topic….
LikeLike
Lydia,
My theory is that the perceptions we have of our earthly fathers get projected onto God. There may even be a transference so that we relate to God as a substitute earthly father. If our earthly fathers had/have expectations of us that they did/do not themselves live up to, it will just be natural to assume that God holds us to a standard He does not himself satisfy.
This stuff doesn’t apply to just Calvinists. However, it would be very interesting to know what kind of father John Calvin had. My guess is that he was very arbitrary, self centered, demanding, and utterly unable to relate to his family, including his son John, with empathy and compassion. Maybe John Piper’s father was the same. Maybe the preachers who preach hellfire and damnation tend to come by it honestly–they are merely projecting onto God the abuse they experienced at the hands (and under the straps) of their own earthly fathers.
LikeLike
Good evening Kevin,
At this point I have little hope you can be convinced of anything. Your intransigent heart, like Pharaoh’s, has been hardened. 🙂 I speak in jest, yet a certain hardness of your heart is evidenced by the impossible-to-satisfy nature of your demand, that I convince you of the inaccuracy of the inerrant word of God.
Still, if you are willing reformulate your condition so that it is reasonable, I might be willing see what I can do to answer your challenge. What if I (or we) can show you that your UNDERSTANDING of the verses you quote is misguided? Will we have a convert?
Whether or not you are willing to reformulate your impossible-to-meet condition, I would challenge you to consider this: Why is it you are so anxious to explain away God’s Love in favor of those passages which appear to you to describe a god who hates? Wouldn’t it make more sense–especially in view of what we know about God incarnate in the flesh of Jesus–to suppose that ascriptions to God of hatred must yield to the revelation of His Love? Please don’t feel you need to post a response. In fact I would rather you didn’t respond. Possessing the correct answer to these questions will define the nature of your relationship to our Lord, possibly for the rest of your life, and I suggest you could think more objectively, and hear the voice of the Spirit more clearly, if you aren’t burdened with the need to explain yourself to us.
LikeLike
Yes, Kevin, the Bible does say that God hates the wicked. The problem is Calvinists don’t know what “the wicked” even means. You guys think “the wicked” means everyone, and therefore, to you, God hates everyone. In reality, “the wicked” means those who constantly reject him time and time against and purposefully seek out those things that displease him. It doesn’t mean your average person, nor certainly does it mean someone trying to live right who messes up in a some very minor thing. There is a qualitative difference between “the wicked” and “the righteous man” or whom it is said “there is none on earth so righteous that they never sin.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
Now you made a statement earlier that you are “conservative” and try to convince your father that you care about “the poor” and he won’t buy it. Nor indeed should he, since to you both “conservative” and “poor” mean something different than reality. How do you care about “the poor”? How can you, while teaching total depravity and that freewill is a lie, while denying personal responsbility, where do you get off calling yourselves “conservative”? You know you are really a communist who only helps the wicked not the poor. In the book of Sirach which Calvinists tossed out, it is said in chapter 12:
“When thou wilt do good know to whom thou doest it; so shalt thou be thanked for thy benefits.
[2] Do good to the godly man, and thou shalt find a recompense; and if not from him, yet from the most High.
[3] There can no good come to him that is always occupied in evil, nor to him that giveth no alms.
[4] Give to the godly man, and help not the wicked.
[5] Do good unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for else thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him.
[6] For the most High hateth the wicked, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment.
[7] Give unto the good, and help not the wicked.”
You proclaim yourself “conservative” and claim you help “the poor” but are you not liberal and simply subsidizing the wicked that they might overmaster the righteous using your money? For this is the communism that Calvinism teaches.
LikeLike
“The problem is Calvinists don’t know what “the wicked” even means. You guys think “the wicked” means everyone, and therefore, to you, God hates everyone.”
Horrible stuff. This leads to thinking a victim/sinner must suffer their abuser/sinner. And why the abuser’s iniquities are the same as the victim’s. They are both broken vessels in need meditating on the cross each day, no difference.
This is wrong thinking. There is a very big difference between “we all have done wrong” VS wickedness.
Some Calvinists won’t tolerate wickedness & practice justice, but hold to an “all are wicked / everyone is the same” theology. Their theology contradicts their behavior. And this theology may also relax their guard & cause them blind spots, naivety, vulnerability unfortunately.
Other Calvinists hold to the “all are wicked” theology AND practice it. The thinking goes: Let’s all hold hands through suffering & never leave the cross. Let’s all take turns saying, “I am the worst sinner I know.” and “I can’t remember one good thing I’ve ever done, PTL for that.” This thinking actually attracts & protects abusers, IMO. Yikes! Hide the kids & wallets. That is some scary stuff. Is this what we really want to teach our kids, to strive to be the worst & be proud of it?
LikeLike
Gary, I followed your link, read that sentence, and the 2nd part of it says:”without realizing that His love can only flow to us as a result of Christ’s atoning death”.
You know what I thought? I thought, those guys seriously need to take a course in Remedial Trinitarianism.
Hello, all Cals & NeoCals: Christ IS, WAS, and ever WILL BE God. He’s not some random shmuck that God picked on. He’s God Himslef, and they have a seriously inadequate understanding of God if they don’t know any more than to cast Him as the Bad Guy (noting Black Hat).
In other news: Kevin, you must be acquainted with the Atomic Church of Me. Because everything you say here, every word you use to defend your theology is all just the Pharisee all over. You’re just wrapping their theology up in fresh language.
It doesn’t matter whether you claim to be “better” than your fellow man, or to be more miserably horrible than same fellows. Its still the same song: “Its all about ME!! ME, I tell you, ME.”
Closing this w/o referring to whited tombs, & the fall of the angels.
LikeLike
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48, ESV)
I suggest that, from the final sentence of this passage, we must conclude that God’s perfection includes His love for His enemies. Only by rejecting these words of Jesus can we embrace Kevin’s view of God’s hatred. Our understanding of God’s hatred, as referenced in Scripture, must be conformed to the revelation of His love. If Kevin is representative of the Calvinist position, as it appears he is, the Calvinists are guilty of an upside down hermeneutic which results in the rejection of the plainly revealed fact of God’s love.
LikeLike
zooey111,
You close your 12:08 AM comment “w/o referring to . . . the fall of angels. I may be taking this off topic a bit, and I’m not sure what the significance might be, but the so called fall of Adam was different than the fall of angels. When Adam sinned he had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life. It wasn’t so much that Adam fell as that he was precluded from entering upon eternal life. Angels, on the other hand, were eternal beings from their creation, albeit they do not bear God’s image as does wo/man.
It may be that this helps explain how wo/men can be saved, while fallen angels apparently cannot. It appears that those who possess eternal life and then turn from Father/God/Holy Spirit cannot be redeemed. “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV)
This is one verse that puts the lie to the doctrine of eternal security. If my analysis is correct, the evangelical emphasis on getting people to say the sinners’ prayer, without first calling for an extended period of vigorously counting the cost is so dangerous. Many, many who are lured into easy believeism fall amongst the rocks and perish, forever and forever, without hope of redemption–just as fallen angels appear to have no hope of redemption.
LikeLike
This is one of those few times where me being single into my 40s actually comes in handy for something.
Kevin quoted verses like the following to suggest that God doesn’t love all people,
I don’t know the Greek underlying our English translations, but I can say that where some Bible translations use the word “hate,” as in,
When I was younger, I found such verses totally confusing.
Now that I’m over 40 and still not married and not have any children,, and have noticed how much most churches have turned marriage and parenthood into a golden calf, it makes sense to me now.
There are some people in a marriage-centric and child-centric culture such as ours who never marry and who remain childless.
If you don’t marry and are not on good terms with your remaining family, or your family has died off, you end up alone and very lonely. That is why it’s important for Christians to come together as a spiritual family, to provide fellowship for people who do not have their own family.
Jesus, I think, saw that some cultures are in the habit of elevating their flesh and blood family above God and above their spiritual brothers and sisters.
When Jesus (as recorded in some translations) said to “hate your mother,” he didn’t mean hate her in the sense of beat her over the head with a stick and be disrespectful to her.
Jesus was trying to discourage his followers from idolizing their families of origin nor their spouse and discouraging them from ignoring the widows, orphans, the never married, the divorced, and other people around them, who tend to be marginalized by culture and the church.
So I’d be very careful about seeing certain words in a Bible version and taking them to mean only one thing, or to understand them how YOUR culture understands them.
BTW, other Bible versions translate Luke 14:26 differently from the version I quoted above.
Here is Luke 14.26 from the Living Bible version:
LikeLike
Lydia Purple said,
This may be a tad off topic, but.
I was reading a book about how to overcome the fear of people, by a Christian author who works as some kind of counselor. I am not sure if he is Calvinist or not, but he probably is.
The author truly has some odd ball, sad, and contradictory views in his book, such as, God wants Christians to love all people, but people do not need love. That was one.
I can’t wrap my head around that. Why would God command people to love people if nobody needs love???
LikeLike
Gary said,
This is also only tangentially related to the thread at hand, but, for those of you who read TWW (The Wartburg Watch) blog, there is a poster there named Seneca who claims to despise this sort of thing, but I don’t see what’s terribly wrong about wondering why preachers hold the views they do.
Obviously, someone or something shaped them in their childhood or later life to make them think, write, and preach as they do. I don’t always think people arrive at what views they hold about God and relationships via Bible study alone (not saying it’s impossible, but maybe rare).
I think for most of us or life experiences (and our time period and culture we were raised in) do to an extent color how we read and understand the Bible.
According to Seneca at TWW, that is “psychoanalyzing” people and is wrong.
I can see how in some situations, it could be wrong or misled to psychoanalyze someone you’ve never met, but not always. I think if you learn about someone’s past or private life, it can shed light on why they say what they do in public.
I explained over at TWW that was the case of preacher Mark Driscoll. It was obvious to everyone the dude must have had sexual hang ups in his past to publicly sermonize in graphic terms about sex in books, blogs, and sermons all the time, and he later admitted in one of his books on marriage, yes, that was true. He admitted his sexual marital problems led to him screaming from the pulpit about sex and women.
Sometimes people’s personal lives or childhoods do in fact impact how they teach the Bible as adults.
LikeLike
Gary said,
This is one verse that puts the lie to the doctrine of eternal security.
I from childhood have believed in Once Saved Always Saved, which is not quite the same thing as ES as taught by Calvinists.
You can’t do anything to earn or merit salvation initially, so it doesn’t jibe to teach a person can forfeit their salvation or have it yanked away by God should that person sin or whatever other criteria are laid out.
People need a Savior because they cannot save themselves before ~ or after ~ coming to Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin,
You may be in a church that balances love. The isolated church I attended didn’t have that luxury, from the Stealth 4 Pointer who then recommended the
Stealth Hyper 5 Pointer to take his place.
The verses you shared if interpreted correctly are really loving verses that were inspired by a Loving God.
You seem to be unaware (or isolated) that Leaders in the SBC are colliding with each other over Doctrine. The ugly manner how these debates are carried out lacks Love and ultimately causing Churches to split.
Many of these Pastors’ are more focused into indoctrinating congregations into their own Doctrine whether it be Arnimian or Calvinist and are spiritual abusing members who struggle with their Methodology.
This is causing a lack of joy and love toward each other and instead of loving one another church members have become adversaries with each other.
I haven’t heard a message on Love in the remote church I have no choice attending for 10 years.
As a result, I struggle loving certain individuals who treated me and my wife disrespectfully who (like me) didn’t know our former reckless doctrine. Those individuals realized I was right by me making a stand but (pridefully) they still find ways to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions even though they know they were wrong.
LikeLike
“I think if you learn about someone’s past or private life, it can shed light on why they say what they do in public.”
Good point. We never heard anything about Doug Phillips’ mother. We heard a lot about his father, however. Doug put the ideology of “father/husband as priest of the home” as paramount in his ministry, and made little mention of mothers and wives except for women to allow their wombs to reproduce like rabbits. Did he dislike his own mother?
LikeLike
Daisy,
You may well hold the correct view on ES/OSAS. Maybe Heb. 6 is trumped by “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” Still, it doesn’t say we can’t leave or forsake Him. In my view believers retain free will, even to the extent of following satan’s example, irrevocably. Very sobering. While I recommend against complacency, I hope you are the one with the correct view.
LikeLike
Regarding psychoanalysis, I recommend “Psychoanalytic Diagnosis” by Nancy McWilliams, if you can afford it. You may need to keep a dictionary handy.
LikeLike
Gary, I have the same concerns with Hebrews (esp Hebrews 10) and the entire book of 1 John. I am really rethinking OSAS as correct also because Christ did not command the Apostles to go ‘save’ people but to make “disciples” which denotes much more than OSAS would entail as commonly understood. I agree that Justification and Sanctification are two different things entirely but we cannot have one without the other. Sanctification, in my view, is synergistic.
Also, there is no “work” of salvation but I also think that concept is misunderstood from scripture. We have to be involved in our repentance with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ does not “repent” for us. Jesus’ first sermon was “Repent and believe” denoting people had to “do” something. There is a “condition”. Repentance in it’s full meaning of the word which is a whole other topic!!!
Just some thoughts as OSAS has been sort of been drilled in some of our heads without really thinking it through.
LikeLike
Lydia, I think John 15 clarifies this OSAS question.
John 15:1-8 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. [2] Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. [3] Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. [5] I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. [6] If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. [7] If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. [8] Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.”
Justification is entering the vine. Sanctification is staying on the vine and bearing fruit. Am I wrong? And the branches that bring not forth fruit and are taken away, these are the ones who use justification as an excuse to just continue in sin sin sin, so God vomits them out of his mouth, as in Revelation 3:16.
LikeLike
Thanks David. I had not thought of that one.
LikeLike
Something I was just reading from a study course on Christology
“We have a problem here about the death of Christ. The two passages are Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6. Both of these passages say a similar phrase, but the conclusions are different. It looks like a contradiction, and it deals with the subject of Calvinism and Arminianism, concerning unlimited and limited atonement.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
Christ has paid that purchase price to get you out of the slave market. Now the Greek uses the word for many. That is clear in the text.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
Now Matthew 28 says a “ransom for the many,” but 1 Timothy 2:6 says a “ransom for all.”Which is it? Well, it is actually both. The answer is found in the preposition. Though the English preposition “for” is the same in both cases, it is not in Greek. In Matthew 20:28 the preposition used is anti, which in English today means “against.” That is not its original meaning. It originally meant “in the stead of.” It is a word of substitution. For instance, the Antichrist is not simply against Christ, although he is, but he is a substitution Christ. He is a counterfeit, who is in the stead of Christ. In Matthew 20:28, Christ died in the stead of the many—obviously the many who believe in Him. Did Christ’s death substitute for those who believe in Him? The answer is yes. Did He die for the elect? Absolutely!
Now in 1 Timothy 2:6, it says that He is a ransom for all. Here it is not anti, but the Greek preposition is huper. The word means “in the behalf of.” It is a word of sufficiency. Matthew 20:28 is anti, a word of substitution, and 1 Timothy 2:6 is huper, a word of sufficiency. What do we mean? Was Christ’s death in the behalf of all, whether they believe in Him or not? Absolutely! It was sufficient. Why? Because God was in Christ. God’s life would equal the sum total of all human life, which He Himself created. Sure it was sufficient, but it is only efficient—it only works for those who believe. The Bible indicates that He was ransom in the stead of the many who believe in Him. He is a ransom also on the behalf of all men. Okay.”
Click to access Christology%20The%20Doctrine%20of%20Jesus%20Christ.pdf
LikeLike
“As a result, I struggle loving certain individuals who treated me and my wife disrespectfully who (like me) didn’t know our former reckless doctrine. ”
Mark there are lots of wrong beliefs about things out there. Love and forgiveness are some of the big ones. Love/forgive does not mean you fellowship with these people or even trust them again. It does not mean you do not warn others. It does not mean you can never talk about negative truths that happened. You are wise to be wary of them. Think long and hard about what you think “loving” them means. I mean you can love others enough for them NOT to go through what you did, right?
It can often mean you walk away. You do not seek revenge. Especially since they are professing believers, you must stay away. People who do evil or deception in the name of Jesus are dangerous. Forgiveness is giving up any perceived right to reciprocate. It does not mean you don’t warn others. If that were the case both Paul and John were in sin for warning of specific folks in a letter for people to read for 2000 years!
For some reason so many believers out there think we are to be door mats with each other just because we claim the title “Christian”. Remember, turn the other cheek doormatism was for unbelievers. For professing believers, we have to confront in love but walk away if there is no acknowledgement of wrong doing. Matt 18 rarely works because the Holy Spirit is AWOL in most churches and the politics take over.
Go read the list at the end of 1 Corin 5. Read the list in Revelation 21. And the other one in Galatians 4. All of these are speaking to professing believers. Not unbelievers. Scary thought, huh?
LikeLike
trumpet, thanks for the information and the link!
LikeLike
FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED…
For all (1st Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
For every man (Heb. 2:9).
For the world (John 3:16).
For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
For many (Matthew 20:28).
For Israel (John 11:50-51).
For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
For “me” (Gal. 2:20).
One believer who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all men made this remarkable concession: “If Christ really did die for all men, then I don’t know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does.” How true! It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many passages, and he must force the Scriptures and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? … “What saith the Scriptures?” (Romans 4:3).
In child-like faith we must simply allow the Bible to say what it says. Those who promote this erroneous doctrine try to tell us that “world” does not really mean “world”‘ and “all” does not really mean “all” and “every man” does not really mean “every man” and “the whole world” does not really mean “the whole world.” We are told that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood, not as a child would understand them, but as a theologian would understand them. That is, we must re-interpret such verses in light of our system of theology.
The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows: The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29), and that the Saviour’s work of redemption (1st Timothy 2:6; 2nd Peter 2:1), and reconciliation (2nd Corinthians 5:19) and propitiation (1st John 2:2), that was for all men (1st Timothy 4:10); but the cross-work of Christ is efficient, effectual, and applicable only for those who believe (1st Timothy 4:10; John 3:16).
We could even say it in a simpler way: “Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL, but EFFICIENT only for those who believe.” The cross-work of Christ is not limited, but the application of that cross-work through the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only. The extreme Calvinist would say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for the “non-elect” (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God’s Son had a divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God’s design was salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began (2nd Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).
For unbelievers, God’s purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God’s only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, “The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me.” No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected the One who died for them and who is the Saviour of all men (1st Timothy 4:10). They are without excuse. This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this: “Christ died for our sins” (1st Corinthians 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good news for all men (compare Luke 2:10-11)? In preaching the gospel, what can we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, “My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your Substitute”?
One reformed writer said this: “But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died” [emphasis mine] (Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70).
As C.H. Mackintosh has said, “A disciple of the high school of doctrine [extreme Calvinist] will not hear of a world-wide gospel–of God’s love to the world–of glad tidings to every creature under heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect.” If the reformed preacher were really honest about it, he would need to preach his doctrine along these lines: “Christ may have died for your sins. If you are one of God’s elect, then He died for you, but if not, then you have no Saviour. I cannot tell you that Christ died on the cross for you because I don’t know this for sure. If you believe the gospel then this proves that you are one of God’s elect, and then it is proper to speak of Christ dying for you.” What an insult to the God “who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1st Timothy 2:4). The Apostle Paul was not so handicapped when he preached the gospel to the unsaved Corinthians. He clearly proclaimed that “Christ died for our sins [yours and mine!].”
If Paul could preach that message, so should we and so must we!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Calvinism/limited_atonement.htm
LikeLike
Scripture contradicts limited atonement in John 3:16,17; Romans 14:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19; Colossians 1:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 John 2:2. Everyone knows John 3:16,17: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Typically, Calvinists respond that in these verses “world” refers to all kinds of people and not everyone. However, that would make it possible to interpret all the places where the New Testament reports that the “world” is sinful and fallen as meaning only some people — all kinds — are sinful and fallen. The Calvinist interpretation of John 3:16,17, seems to fit Vernon Grounds’ description of the faulty exegesis used to defend limited atonement.
First John 2:2 is another passage we cannot reconcile with limited atonement: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This passage completely undermines the Calvinist interpretation of “world” in John 3:16,17 because it explicitly states that Christ died an atoning death not only for believers, but also for everyone. Here “world” must include nonbelievers because “ours” refers to believers. This verse makes it impossible to say that Christ’s death benefits everyone, only not in the same way. (Piper says Christ’s death benefits the nonelected by giving them temporal blessings only.) John says clearly and unequivocally that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was for the sins of everyone — including those who are not believers.
What about 2 Corinthians 5:18,19? “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” Calvinists sometimes argue that this passage supports limited atonement. After all, if God was in Christ not counting everyone’s sins against them, then everyone is saved. Therefore, they say, “everyone” must mean only the elect. But that’s not true. When Paul says that God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them, He means if they repent and believe. In other words, the Atonement did reconcile God with the world so He could forgive; it satisfied the demands of justice so reconciliation is possible from God’s side. But it remains for sinners to accept that by faith. Then full reconciliation takes place.
Colossians 1:19,20 says, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” It is impossible to interpret “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven” as referring only to the elect. This passage refutes limited atonement. So does 1 Timothy 2:5,6: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” The only way a believer in limited atonement can escape the force of this passage is to interpret the Greek translated “all people” as somehow meaning “all kinds of people,” but that is not an interpretation allowed by the common use of the phrase in Greek literature outside the New Testament (or elsewhere in it).
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201203/201203_044_limited_atonement.cfm
LikeLike
Gary W said, “If my analysis is correct, the evangelical emphasis on getting people to say the sinners’ prayer, without first calling for an extended period of vigorously counting the cost is so dangerous. ”
Yes. This is a big problem, IMO. And Calvinism swings way over to the other extreme in order to correct. It may be observation of fruit/results from the “easy sinners prayer, check box off mentality” that swings many over to Calvinism. It was this, not intellectualism, that swung me over to that side for awhile. But it really is trading one extreme for another.
LikeLike
Davidbrainerd2,
Thank you your Jan12, 12:26PM comment on the vine & branches John 15. Found it very helpful.
If you have more, please share.
LikeLike
“You can’t do anything to earn or merit salvation initially, so it doesn’t jibe to teach a person can forfeit their salvation or have it yanked away by God should that person sin or whatever other criteria are laid out.
People need a Savior because they cannot save themselves before ~ or after ~ coming to Jesus.”
The thing is, I am starting to see Jesus more than crucifixion & resurrection unto salvation.
I see the life, death, resurrection of Jesus:
God’s miracle birth in physical here on earth,
His walk with folks of that time,
His loving teaching for how we should live our lives,
His death & resurrection
ALL are precious gifts to wo/mankind (like your “wo/man”, Gary W).
We need a Savior because we need to know how to live & get it right, it is so important here & now. What a travesty if we don’t understand how to live. How we live here & now IS how we live in eternity – there is no disconnect. Yes, one can have a lightbulb moment on their deathbed, but not if they turned the switch off thru life & plan to turn it on again seconds before they die. That’s means they think Jesus has no value for their life, they have ultimately rejected Jesus for their life, but want Jesus in death.
Jesus is much more than an immunity idol. And it would be sad if kids saw their parents this way as well & rejected their parents’ wisdom, right? Ironically, we are seeing this type of parent/child relationship in the news. Parents shielding teens from consequences/jail time/punishment/etc. That is not loving their kids or the ones their kids have hurt. We have moved so far from understanding what love is. Is the church’s teaching on only one aspect of Jesus (salvation) partially to blame?
If we understand how to live right & good then we love & obey God, we love ourselves, we love others. People need a Savior to follow each day on earth. It’s hard to articulate, not a prosperity or best life now either. It’s about knowing how valuable God’s character & integrity are, valuing our own character & integrity as God loves us, & making sure love for those (God & ourselves) direct our actions, etc.
The Bible says, choose you this day who you will follow. Jesus says, follow me.
Saving is one part, but not the who part. For you can’t be saved unless you follow Jesus, IMO.
LikeLike
Put another way, modern Christianity is only concerned with making worshipers of Jesus, but not disciples. Jesus said “All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them all things I have commanded you…” And the modern church says, basically, “There is no need to be a disciple. There is nothing to learn from Jesus. He didn’t command anything. Just worship him as the divine whipping boy, and that’s it.”
LikeLike
Lydia,
Your response is in line, to how I have dealt with those that have disrespected my wife and I. Bitterness sometimes prevails and that is the challenge I’m praying God will help me over-come.
There are times when we don’t feel the load and then there are other times is feels extremely heavy. .
LikeLike
“Jesus said “All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them all things I have commanded you…” ”
Is modern Christianity’s focus wrong compared to what Jesus taught above?
Salvation
Emphasis on very little: basically the saving, not on teaching. Immunity idol.
Election
Even worse, the emphasis on election, predestination, done deal before birth. Really, there’s nothing here to put any emphasis on. There is no actual doing in this religion for anyone. It’s a done deal before time, before existence.
LikeLike
It seems there’s an over-emphasis on Jesus as an immunity idol or get out of jail free card. That makes me sad.
These teachings of subordination of the son, Jesus as God’s vessel of wrath, election/predestination/fate, all are wicked/depraved, etc. seem to limit or skew the whole of Jesus. An agenda / packages vs. the treasures & riches of Jesus’ teachings for our lives.
I want to hold Jesus up to the light and examine from all sides & angles. To know Jesus.
LikeLike
Its like the liberal side in politics emphasizing the safety-net over real economic opportunity. Lets break everyone and take more of their money in taxes to establish a safety net. Is that a good idea? So modern Christianity tends to break the moral message of Christianity in favor of the safety net of faith alone, once saved always saved, etc. and not focus on where we should be headed. Its nice to have a safety net if you lose your job, but you ought to try to get a career and make something of yourself rather than sit in the safety net forever. Its nice to have assurance of salvation, but you ought to try to be a good disciple of Jesus rather than sit in the safety net forever.
LikeLike
David, I know a guy who calls it the bubble wrap world. Our government wants to wrap us all in bubble wrap. The church, too. It is a great way to control folks by insisting you are “protecting” them.
LikeLike
Gary said,
“You may well hold the correct view on ES/OSAS. Maybe Heb. 6 is trumped by “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” Still, it doesn’t say we can’t leave or forsake Him. In my view believers retain free will, even to the extent of following satan’s example, irrevocably. Very sobering. While I recommend against complacency, I hope you are the one with the correct view.”
—————-
I don’t know if someone who is once a believer can choose to reject Christ of their own accord, and God honors that choice. I’m undecided on that.
I’m more talking about people who accept Christ but who keep sinning.
People who sin after accepting Christ are told they have lost their salvation and need to repent and be made right with God etc.
Despite the fact there is some verse in the Bible that nullifies that – that you can’t be “re saved” or whatever.
The Bible teaches a saved person will still sin after being a Christian (while at the same time teaching one can or should expect to see “good fruit” too, but it still says Christians will still occasionally sin), but people who reject OSAS don’t recognize that.
I don’t see where in the Bible is says sinning will cause one to lose one’s salvation.
LikeLike
I scrolled down and skimmed over several posts and see that Kevin is still on here.
Kevin, you have no way of knowing you are one of the elect. Even Calvinists agree on that one. There is no way of knowing who is elect. Even according to Calvinists I have spoken with and whose material I have read online.
By your own theology, you could be one of the un-elect who will be spending an eternity in Hell, despite your professed belief in Christ as savior.
I have no idea why anyone would want to belong to a system of theology, or defend one tooth and nail, that does not claim assurance for salvation, and claims ignorance of how to be saved, and/or that deems it impossible for one to be saved, even if one wants to be so and cries out to Jesus for rescue.
Jesus said belief in him as savior is all that is necessary to be saved, and that once you do that, you will not lose your salvation based on what you do or don’t do. Calvinists dispute all that.
LikeLike
Slight off topic tangent.
@ David brain nerd said,
I’m not a Calvinist, and I happen to be a social conservative, but I am not fully on board anymore with other social conservatives and right wingers fighting in the cutlure wars as a I once was.
I’m in my early 40s now and recall hearing since I was nine or ten years old Christians and Republicans huff and puff and go into angry fits in newspaper editorials and TV shows and radio shows about the evils of culture (casual sex, homosexuality, abortion, etc).
Do you know what all the lecturing and yelling and pontificating against societal ills has gotten American culture over the last 30 years? Nothing. It did not role back the tide of abortions, or the legalization of homosexual marriage, or the rising numbers of divorces.
The Apostle Paul dealt with churches in very smarmy, sin filled cultures, but Paul nowhere taught the Christians in such locations to fight culture wars.
Paul told the Christians to be godly in their own lives, and that they should judge those within the church, and that it was up to God to judge those OUTSIDE of the church (the culture). He said that their duty in the meantime was to help each other (other Christians) and to share the Gospel with Non Christians.
Paul didn’t say anything about Christians picketing temples of prostitution and screaming at male patrons of such that they were sinning.
His approach probably would have suggested approaching individual temple prostitutes while they were off duty, meeting their needs (giving them free food, paying their rent for them), getting to know them as people, and then maybe sharing the gospel with them. That is how one would fight prostitution, not screaming in the public square about how awful it is, I would imagine.
I am not totally against Christians or Republicans vocalizing their views in public, but doing so has not made America better, either.
LikeLike
Ryan asked above,
Well, missdaisyflower, I completely disagree with your position on the culture wars. True nothing has been accomplished in the last 30 years. But why? Because of the Calvinists. Its really that simple. When you are fighting both sides, both the non-Christans and a highly influence set of so-called Christians, of course you’re going to lose. The culture wars are very important. But to win them, we first have to destroy Calvinism, because Calvinism is what made our culture “totally depraved” to begin with.
LikeLike
“Paul didn’t say anything about Christians picketing temples of prostitution and screaming at male patrons of such that they were sinning.”
Who ever said the culture wars should involve any form of screaming on street corners? That’s only done by Calvinists. They have used that as a way to undermine the culture wars. The way to win the culture wars is to pass laws, not to screetch in the streets. The problem is our elected officials simply refuse to listen because America is braindead, thanks to Calvinism.
LikeLike
“I’m more talking about people who accept Christ but who keep sinning.”
I think of it more as following Jesus vs accepting Christ. I think Satan fully accepts the fact that Christ died, rose again & saves. I believe that’s why Satan works so darn hard & doesn’t take vacation. I think Satan wants us to view Jesus exactly like he does. I think Satan is fine with us accepting Christ & then keep on keeping on.
Also, a distinction needs to be made about sinning. Jesus didn’t save us & then we become perfect from there on out. Neither does Jesus save us & we keep on keeping on IF there are sin habits. The point is, it’s not an either/or.
In reality, some don’t sin as a habit, even before they decided to follow Jesus. Those are the ones with the “boring” testimonies, right? This total depravity belief that all are completely 100% depraved before salvation has really deep tentacles.
It’s understanding Jesus teaches us how to obey, live & follow Him. That is what is missing.
LikeLike
Where does the Bible ever talk about a testimony? (Aside from the testimony of the apostles to the miracles they saw, I mean.) Your story of how you became a Christian or got saved, or whatever terminology you want, is not a “testimony.” That’s a word and concept that needs to totally drop out of use. The whole point of the thing is to make people feel uncomfortable for not having been big sinners in their past, and thereby to glorify sin before the youth. It is of the devil.
LikeLike
HUG,
Over on the current thread at http://tinyurl.com/kxb5k4g you say: “Both Calvin and Mohammed were heavily into Predestination, elevating God’s Omnipotent Will (i.e. POWER) over all else. I would expect similar side effects. Especially when you get followers More Calvinist than Calvin and/or More Islamic than Mohammed.”
I would also note that the calvinistic patriarchists and complementarians are similar to Islam in their misogynistic views and treatment of women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question for those still reading. I’ve been watching lots of Tweets in Twitterville talking about how Ken Ham presented the gospel 4 times during the Ham vs Nye Creation debate last night. I saw this tweet:
https://twitter.com/haddonjames/status/431053372360122368
https://twitter.com/haddonjames/status/431088818943324160
He says they are without excuse before a Holy God. How does this work with Calvinism if they believe God elects and people don’t choose? Isn’t he saying they have to choose? This guy says he’s Reformed on his profile.
LikeLike
JA,
They really do start with the idea that everything God does is derived from His supposed passion for his own glory. This, in turn, might cause them to think God is motivated to manufacture evidence to justify Himself before men and angels. It is as if they see no problem with a God who would set up the APPEARANCE of giving men a choice, a choice they really do not possess. God can then make Himself look good by pointing to this supposed choice as the justification for imposing eternal consequences, eternal consequences which were in actuality predestined from before the beginning of time. Of course, few if any Calvinists would admit any of this, even to themselves. Yet it is the only logical outworking of their theology, a theology which makes God look very much like the devil.
Or so I posit.
LikeLike
JA, This whole thing just makes me very nervous. What on earth are they doing claiming the Gospel is spread by debating Young Earth doctrine? They are doing the same thing in comp/pat doctrine. They are making this a salvic issue and it is NOT a salvic issue.
It makes me furious when groups make a B issue salvic.
LikeLike
“He says they are without excuse before a Holy God. How does this work with Calvinism if they believe God elects and people don’t choose? Isn’t he saying they have to choose? This guy says he’s Reformed on his profile.”
Here is my opinion: If you watch these people closely over time they do not PRACTICE what they claim to believe or even what some of them are teaching others. And for good reason. Calvinism is not applicable to every day life. It is something to believe in theory but not something to practice in life. It is a dead doctrine. There is no LIFE in it.
That is why he can say that with a straight face and be a Calvinist. It is cognitive dissonance pure and simple. Man has no volition but at the same time no excuse. God chose you before the foundation of the world so you have no input. Still you have no excuse. Makes sense, right?
LikeLike
Back in the day, wasn’t there a debate/split in Calvinism when some of them, taking it to the logical conclusion, believed it was wrong to preach the Gospel to the lost? Can’t remember the name of the -ism — maybe you can help me out!
LikeLike
They don’t think they’re preaching the gospel to the lost, they believe that they are obliged to preach the gospel to the “elect”. Supposedly, they believe they are elect and are “regenerated” from birth, or from baptism, before the gospel was ever preached to them. But they must still “hear” it preached so that they can then “choose” to be “saved” proving they are “regenerated”. Part of the “gospel” they must hear MUST include obedience to the Law, so that then by their obeying the Law, they can then be justified as “proof positive” they are part of the “elect”.
LikeLike
It’s the hyper-calvinists who think it’s a waste of time to preach to the lost. It could lead them to a “false conversion” while they are still unregenerated and not of the “elect”.
LikeLike
“Calvinism believes gospel preaching and evangelism is designed to manifest the faith of the elect. It believes no one can respond to the gospel unless one has been unconditionally elected to receive the Irresistible Grace which brings regeneration and the gifted faith. Without these they say it is impossible for any sinner to believe. Only gifted faith, not personal faith, given through irresistible grace allows true faith to be placed in Christ. The Calvinist defends salvation as being ‘all of God.’ God is totally holy and man is totally depraved. Therefore no human effort or ‘work’ can be involved in the elect’s salvation. This is why they claim that the totally depraved sinner must be elected to receive the work of the cross directly from God for regeneration and later exercise gifted faith when the gospel is presented.
At the point of ‘believing’ the gospel, the elect receive the Law keeping righteousness of Christ that He procured while living on earth. This Law Keeping Righteousness pg. 151 is the last requirement to complete salvation. Hence, the salvation of the elect is wholly of God monergistically, meaning salvation is all God’s work from start to finish. Sinful man has no part whatsoever in his salvation. He is completely swept up in the mysterious purposes of God. God foreordained who would be saved and performs everything necessary to bring that salvation about. Man is an inactive recipient of his salvation, exercising no personal responsibility to believe. Therefore the preaching of the gospel is said to be only for the purpose of revealing the elect.
See Diagram of Reformed Salvation pg. 270 and Diagram of Biblical Salvation pg. 268.”
http://www.advanceministries.org/articles/articlepages/BasicReformedTheology.pdf page 145
LikeLike
“It’s the hyper-calvinists who think it’s a waste of time to preach to the lost. It could lead them to a “false conversion” while they are still unregenerated and not of the “elect”.
And they do not grow large churches which is why you don’t hear about them as much. But they are more honest about the determinism they believe. Another aspect of this is something called “covenant families”. That if you are born into family with that belief then you are a covenant believer.
The evangelical Neo Cals are into growing big followings. They get around the determinism by not focusing on it. They focus on Sovereignty and Grace. We are not supposed to connect the dots that those “not chosen” before the foundation of the world and before Adam sinned are therefore by default sent to everlasting hell. If pressed, they maintain that those not chosen are in their “natural state” and responsible for going to hell. God is not responsible for not choosing them.
It is all very strange. But the I think the success of it is most don’t think it through. They ignore the cognitive dissonance and appeal to mystery. They stay stuck on Sovereignty and Grace and totally ignore volition, free will, responsibility and accountability. And totally ignore the fact that this determinism makes God into a evil monster.
Not a God whose real Glory is His LOVE— not His power.
LikeLike
Here’s another good resource from which the pdf I posted is often quoted:
http://middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm
LikeLike
Another outstanding resource by the same author as the previous pdf I posted (Brenda Nickel)
Basic Reformed Theology Explained and Exposed
Click to access NotebookSep2013.pdf
LikeLike
This article came up in my newsfeed: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfund
ie/why-calvinism-makes-me-want-to-gouge-my-eyes-out/
LikeLike
Hey. I’m a Calvinist.
Clearly, everyone here hates me and hates my God. I think I’ll go elsewhere, where believers don’t just say they love one another, but actually manage to do it once in a while.
May Christ’s love abide with you, nonetheless.
Ciao.
LikeLike
Oh, Hans, give us a try. I think you’ll see love here.
hugs (side hugs),
Julie Anne
PS Welcome 🙂
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I see a lot of passion here, but not a lot of compassion. At least not for those who are seen as the opposition. One side wears white hats and can do no wrong. The other side wears black hats and can do no right.
One side exposes all the scandals ever perpetrated. The other side perpetrates all those scandals. One side is humble and loving and kind. The other side is self-centered and power hungry and mean spirited.
Those who are truly in Christ ought to be known not just for their love of one another…but for their love of their enemies.
So far, I don’t think I like you very much. But I will love you no matter what.
Vi ses.
LikeLike
Hi Hans – well, jumping into a Calvinism debate thread is probably not the best way to get to know me. I intentionally created this designated Calvin debate post to keep these debates off the regular articles. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a lot of love displayed in a debate forum. Try other threads instead – – if you like.
LikeLike
Hans,
What does love look like? What does compassion look like? What does being humble look like? Who is the enemy of you that you should love? What does not liking a person look like?
________________________________
LikeLike
I liked Hans immediately. He spelled my name right. 🙂
LikeLike
Ed Chapman?
I’ll be honest. I can’t give definitive answers to your questions. I’m taking a break from ecumenical discussions with Roman Catholics. Julie Anne is correct that debate forums are not the best places to find kindness and respect displayed. I have lost my temper myself on more than one occasion. But places like this are a crucible to show us what is really within us. And it’s often not very pretty. Most of us are not very loving when all is said and done. Christ cannot be happy with us.
I can tell you this: if you characterize all Calvinists as arrogant blowhards or all Catholics as ritualistic legalists or all Charismatics as emotional irrationalists…then YOU are the one is being bigoted and mean and inaccurate. Some of the tenderest, gentlest, humblest humans I have ever known are Reformed. The very core of Calvinist theology, properly understood, is humility. If you meet a proud Calvinist, they have not understood their own ideology. Some Catholics have a vibrant personal relationship with our Lord. Some Charismatics are meticulous academicians.
I don’t know Julie Anne well enough truly to like or dislike her. It just doesn’t appear she has any checks and balances on this site. It is merely people venting their spleens. I have been on the receiving end of clergy abusing their power. It’s a horrible, horrible feeling. But I have also seen rebellious factions split churches apart for no good reason, just a minor personality conflict blown all out of proportion or just some troublemaker who enjoys the chaos he or she can cause. I have seen denominations swoop in and remove a pastor on the say-so of a group of dissidents who were exacting revenge for some imagined slight.
I’m glad you’re here to shine a light on clergy excesses and scandals. These things must never be swept under the carpet. If they’re guilty, I hope you nail the pastors! But my sympathies, to some extent, lie with leadership. The stress and constant criticism. Their families living in a goldfish bowl, subject to ceaseless scrutiny.
You seem to be amazed that pastors will often close ranks and blindly defend one of their own. It’s a function of what they have been through themselves. If you yourself have been unfairly accused over and over again, more than likely you’re going to tend towards standing up for others in an apparently similar situation.
Julie Anne appears to believe clergy abuse is partly (or even mainly) a function of theology. I have seen it often happen: someone is abused in the Catholic church and, as a result, becomes Protestant. Someone is abused in a Reformed church and becomes Arminian, as a result. I know a woman who recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after going through a messy relational situation with a Reformed pastor. Truth doesn’t turn around 180° on its axis because we go through a personal crisis.
More likely, inadequate ecclesiology (not enough oversight and accountibility) and the mega-church/multiple campus phenomenon (which is conducive to cults of personality) has much more to do with some of these situations than any ramifications inherent to a particular theology.
Julie Anne–
How would you respond emotionally if you read a link posted on my blog (if I had a blog) about how Arminianism makes me want to gouge my eyes out?
Of course, it was such a poorly written article that I couldn’t take too much offense, but still….is this an example of the “love” I’m supposed to detect?
My guess is that you really are a nice woman. A seriously ANGRY nice woman, but a nice woman just the same. The Bible says we are to be good to those who treat us badly. So much easier said than done! (And tell Ed Chapman that “No, I don’t know what that looks like in practice…especially when we also need to protect ourselves and our loved ones from those who choose to abuse the powerless and the vulnerable.”)
LikeLike
Hans said:
I do allow my blog to be a place where people can “vent their spleens,” and for the most part, it seems to be justified. Keep in mind that I was sued by my former pastor for speaking out publicly against him. It would be hypocritical for me to have a blog and prevent people from talking and using the same freedom of expression that I used. I certainly do not agree with all of my readers, but when they come here, they are free to share.
I would be defensive. Can you please point out an article I’ve done resembling something like that? Make sure you are referring to my post, not my reader’s comments.
BTW, have you seen the current blog post: https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/08/31/ssb-sunday-gathering-august-31-2014/
We’ve been doing this for close to a couple of months now. This might give you a better idea of another side of the blog. To judge my blog based on this thread in which you are currently commenting is really unfortunate. The whole reason I put this post up is so that it would free up regular articles from this kind of debating (because I didn’t like it), but others really wanted to discuss further. Look at the dates on the comments here, by the way, I think it had been quiet here for quite some time until you resurrected it. I think you need to get a more accurate picture of what’s really going on here. Thanks!
I don’t agree with that. I have seen both Calvinist and Arminian churches with no spiritual abuse. I have covered more stories of abuse connected with Calvinism and that might be because the Homeschool Movement had a lot of Reformed influence. I’ve covered other abuse stories as well, i.e., Calvary Chapel abuse and they are definitely Arminian.
I agree with you.
LikeLike
“The Bible says we are to be good to those who treat us badly. ”
Actually Hans that is a very pedantic understanding. I would prefer you give us chapter and verse so we can see the context of what you are referring to. I am not convinced Jesus hung on the Cross and was resurrected so pastors could get by with spiritually abusing people. Me thinks you are taking a vague platitude and contextualizing it to fit your agenda. Jesus had harsh words for the “religious” leaders of His own tribe who got much wrong and were putting heavy burdens on people. There are “religious” leaders today in our tribe who get much wrong and put heavy burdens on people. Some things do not change much.
Christians do not make a “practice” of treating others badly or seeking power over others. Unless they are the tyrant Calvin in Geneva. Then it is ok :o)
LikeLike
Why is the opposite of Calvinism always deemed to be Arminianism? It isn’t. Arminianism is Calvin lite…fewer tulip petals. The opposite would be more like Open Theism.
LikeLike
Hans,
You had said: “I can tell you this: if you characterize all Calvinists as arrogant blowhards or all Catholics as ritualistic legalists or all Charismatics as emotional irrationalists…then YOU are the one is being bigoted and mean and inaccurate.”
Yep, that describes what I see. It isn’t about how I characterize, it’s what I visualize, and then I can characterize.
Martin Luther King Jr. said that he hopes that there comes a day when we can judge character, rather than color. Well, there ya have it with character!
Unfortunately, the word bigot is so misused, such as how you used it. If you really think that doctrine does not shape a person’s personality, or thinking, or mental/psychological/psychiatric permission givers to abuse, then you should take another look. It certainly does. Permission givers. Remember that phrase.
You said: “The very core of Calvinist theology, properly understood, is humility”
My response:
Uh, huh, right. And how many politicians are trying to convince us that Islam is a peaceful religion, too? How many Muslims are trying to convince us that Jihad is internal struggle? I’m not buying the humility thing in regards to Calvinists. Paul Washer is a great actor pretending to be humble, tho. But then again, most preachers are great actors.
Rebellious factions? Which side is rebelling, and against whom? Rebellion is a sin, equated to witchcraft. I suppose that anyone who disagrees with a pastor is rebelling? So the pastor takes vengeance on anyone who disagrees with said pastor with unbiblical “church discipline”?
You said: “You seem to be amazed that pastors will often close ranks and blindly defend one of their own.”
My response: Every allegation should be investigated, swiftly…AFTER 911 is called, AFTER “one of their own” is arrested, and charges filed. They can defend “one of their own” while he awaits in a jail cell, awaiting adjudication, etc. But the problem is indeed a sweeping under the carpet, because many love to handle things “in-house” and not get the “evil godless government” involved, because this is a religious matter sin. And the victim had better forgive swiftly, because the perp is sorry that he got caught.
There is many reasons for righteous anger, Hans. Sorry that you see it differently.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Lydia
I’ve always wondered that myself. It’s either a pelican, or an artisian. Oh, and the Catholics call the Holy Spirit a pair of cletes. What does football/baseball shoes have to do with it?
Seriously, tho, I guess no one has told the Calvinists that Protestant Christianity exists outside of those realms.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Funny, Ed!
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Haha! I almost forgot that you were raised Catholic. Oh, wow…just saw on Fox News that there was a 50 car pileup near you in Kennewick due to a dust storm.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Weird thing, Ed, i was just on the other side of the dust storm (literally 2 blocks away). I pointed it out to my kid, but it didn’t look bad at all. I’ve seen some scary ones. I was surprised to see my FB newsfeed blow up with picture of the accidents. It must have been a lot worse in the middle of it.
LikeLike
The issue isn’t whether Hans is a follower of John Calvin, but whether he is a follower of Jesus, Son of God. The same is true for all of us. If we follow other men, we really can’t claim to be following Jesus. With Jesus it is all or nothing. A husband who pursues other women abandons and renounces his wife. A Christian who follows John Calvin, or some pastor, or some celebrity Christian author, or such like, has renounced Jesus.
LikeLike
Gary W and Hans.
The foundation of this thread originated from Spiritual Abuse.
Spiritual Abuse originates because the Messengers of the Doctrine they embrace are more focused on their Methodology above the Message.
Hans, maybe you haven’t witnessed the Stealth Neo-Calvinist purposely indoctrinating a Congregation who never heared of TULIP. When members of the Congregation questioned his harsh Methodology behind the pulpit rather than disclose his TULIP Reformed Doctrine from the beginning, he retaliated and split the church then he resigned and left town, cleaning out the treasury.
LikeLike
Lydia–
The biblical citation would be Luke 6:27-28.
“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.”
I don’t believe it means we are to be doormats and let people abuse us. I don’t think it means we allow tyrants to have free sway. But we are to love them. To treat them as we would want to be treated. We should be especially diligent to present the exact truth about them, unenhanced by our animosity. We need to learn to forgive even the frankly unforgivable. Even when it is necessary to confront and to expose wickedness, it should be done with integrity and love.
By the way, be so good as to give me chapter and verse of the history text or biography upon which you are relying to call Calvin a tyrant. Quite honestly, I don’t happen to think he was a very nice guy. But a tyrant? That’s pretty extreme. Can you back it up? (And what was your purpose for bringing up his name? Calvin is not authoritative for “Calvinists,” the Reformed confessions are. We don’t slavishly follow Calvin. Were you also planning to remind us how abysmally John Wesley treated his wife? Why is any of this relevant? Sometimes extremely flawed individuals have some very good ideas in spite of personal shortcomings.)
Actually, when if comes to debates concerning human freedom of will vs. God’s sovereignty, both Arminianism and Calvinism (along with Catholic Thomism) are centrist positions. All three of them are what is termed compatibilistic (in essence, human freedom and divine control are considered compatible: they paradoxically fit with one another). Classical Arminianism (the Arminianism of Arminius himself and of John Wesley) embraces just the first of the five petals: total depravity. Most modern Arminians reject this and might be better labeled as semi-Pelagian. If I remember correctly, Arminius and the rest of the Remonstrants did not take a definitive position on petal #5: the perseverance of the saints.
I believe that Open Theism tends to endorse libertarian freedom which would place them opposite of theological determinists, such as some hyper-Calvinists (e.g., the traditionalists within the Primitive Baptist Church, who declare evangelism a waste of time because God has that taken care of already…those meant to come will come without our interference).
LikeLike
Hans,
Not only was John Calvin a tyrant, he was a serial murder, starting with Miguel Servetus.
LikeLike
Hans,
Obviously Lydia will address you, however, it won’t be the first time that she meticulously laid out the facts. She is very knowledgeable in what she speaks. But I am wondering why Calvinsts attempt, in debate anyway, to distance themselves from John Calvin, the man. You state ” Calvin is not authoritative for “Calvinists”” That’s like saying that Christ is not authoritative for Christians. We follow Christ, and that would mean that Calvinists follow Calvin.
So, are you saying that you are not a Calvinist? The Reformed Confessions, huh? So, you are going to let dead people decide what you are to believe? Were you present at that confession? Did you have any input? Were you invited? Did they serve crumpets and tea? How were the hotels? Did you get to do some site seeing while you were there?
Do you see my point? We have the Bible, you have John Calvin…oh, I mean you have a “confession”? Thank goodness Christianity exists outside of confessions, or councils that neither one of us was in attendance for. I do not allow dead people to decide what I am to believe.
And, I am not surprised that Calvinists will disagree that Calvin was not a tyrant. How is it that we see it, but they defend it?
Catholics had people killed that wouldn’t buy into their beliefs. I think that they called it the Crusades.
Calvin had people killed that disagreed with him. I think that they called that the law against heresy. But heresy is just like beauty. It’s in the eye of the beholder. What is heresy to one is not heresy to another. Some of us believe that what Calvin taught was indeed heresy. But Calvin wouldn’t. Do you see? I’m just giving a little psychological test before Lydia responds.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Mark–
Sadly, I have heard of stealth Calvinists indoctrinating congregations. What I am privy to has taken place mostly in the Southern Baptist Convention, where traditional dispensationalists are running scared, not understanding the changes taking place within the denomination. Most of the old guard at Dallas have been replaced with progressive dispensationalists, who have moved approximately halfway toward covenant (Reformed) views on dispensations. Most SBC systematic theology departments have been taken over by Reformed Baptists, and Louisville has gone Calvinist almost across the board. As a result, it is estimated that one fourth of all congregations in the SBC are now Reformed…and upwards of one half of the graduating seminarians. It’s a no-win situation for anybody. There are not enough ministerial positions for all the new grads if they insist on considering only like-minded churches (or if the churches will consider only like-minded pastors).
It doesn’t help that many newly-minted Reformed guys think it their mission in life to convert others to their glorious new persuasion. Often, it is well intentioned. They merely want to grace others with truths that have profoundly changed their own outlook on things. Some of them are unaware of the war zone that awaits them. There is ferocious infighting in the SBC which is helping no one. The anti-Calvinistic hysteria is most usually unwarranted. (Again, I am sorry for the idiot who split your church.) I myself currently attend a non-Reformed SBC church which, nonetheless, has absolutely no problem with my Calvinism.
LikeLike
Hans, your last comment was quite fascinating. Where do you find those stats?
I do not like the idea of new graduates thinking they get to come in and convert others to their persuasion. But I guess it keeps survivor blogs in business 😦
LikeLike
Ed–
If Calvin WERE a tyrant, it would be no skin off my teeth. I have nothing invested in his innocence. I find him domineering and inflexible. I think the Genevan form of government was a mistake, but frankly, superior to many nearby governments. It was an early attempt at a republican form of government rather than monarchical, and as we all know, first experiments must often be trashed. The consistory itself was at times fairly tyrannical, at least by modern standards. I wouldn’t have wanted to live there. But what on earth is the basis for your animosity? A few were killed who tried to undermine Calvin politically, who stirred up unrest. Everybody in Europe wanted to kill Servetus…and he himself was apparently looking to get martyred.
Tell me your denomination, and I will find skeletons in your closet. But to what end? I don’t worship John Calvin. He could be a total jerk. So what! Do you have a point behind all this? Am I supposed to care? Everyone thinks the Dalai Lama is a great guy. Does that mean I should convert to Lamaistic Buddhism?
Goodness gracious!
And what do you mean by “we have the Bible”? Every single denomination I have ever come across has a statement of faith. The no-creed-but-Christ Southern Baptist Convention has a fairly elaborate statement called the “Baptist Faith and Message.” Pragmatically, everyone has found that you simply cannot do without a confession of some sort. People can read the Bible for themselves and make it say anything they feel like making it say.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I do not like it either. Not one little bit. Congregations should be allowed a pastor of their own persuasion. I have seen liberal denominations swoop in and replace a conservative pastor in a conservative church because a half dozen remaining liberals wanted the facilities for themselves. The conservatives then leave, the liberals find they cannot pay the bills, and the church folds.
I got my stats from a number of different SBC pastors, so they are anecdotal. I don’t know if they might be inflated or whatnot. I have seen first hand the animosity between the various groups. Likewise, I witnessed the hostile takeover of the SBC by the conservative wing, beginning in the early 1970’s and not completed until the early 1990’s, and the extreme bitterness of the so-called “moderates” as a result of some of the nasty tactics used. I have also witnessed recently the dogfight in the Episcopal Church, where liberals are vindictively suing and pillaging conservative parishes that won’t fall in line with their whole same-sex everything agenda.
LikeLike