* * *
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 
Hans,
I do not adhere to any denomination. I speak of this a lot.
In a denomination, someone else already decided for you what you are to believe.
In a non-denomination, as Fox News states, The Preacher reports, we decide. How do we decide? We search the scriptures daily to see if what we were taught from the pulpit is true, or false.
And, I searched the scriptures and found that Calvinism is false. Many have done the same as I have. That is my animosity against it. Every bit of it is false.
Your first paragraph is exactly what I mean, too. You are justifying the death of Servetus. It was the Catholics that wanted him to be killed. John Calvin was more than happy to oblige, seeing how Servetus disagreed with John Calvin, too. Heresy is the law that got him killed by John Calvin. John Calvin is responsible for the death of Servetus. Servetus is not responsible for his own death.
It is the behavior of John Calvin that is a curse to the Calvinists. His teachings is a permission giver for abuse.
If a woman is raped, what is the general response about the rape from a Calvinist?
Oh, I know this one! “God ordained it! God gets the glory. Good is gonna come out of this. You just don’t understand God, because you are dead in your sins and trespasses. If God wants you to understand he will give you faith.”
Wrong answer, buddy. Oh, I know, Romans 9, right? How much preaching is done on Romans 9? Tons, I’ll bet. Indoctrination. Permission giver for abuse.
Again, Christianity exists outside of Calvinism.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed,
I like what you say About looking to the Bible and not to confessions. About a dozen years ago I, in effect, renounced theology (I was something of a hyper Calvinist at the time). I decided I would try to take Scripture alone as foundational, without regard to some controlling theological system. I have been getting in trouble with preachers and other doctrinaire types ever since.
Funny thing is, without my old crutch of Calvinistic theology, or any other theology for that matter, I find that even the Bible, though necessary, is not sufficient. I have nowhere to turn except to Jesus. I guess casting off idols, including theological systems, will do that to a person.
One cannot be loyal to a theological system and to Jesus at the same time. Probably it would be good were I to grieve more for those who cannot see Jesus through the fog of their theological allegiances.
LikeLike
Gary,
Exactly!!
The Bible is called the Word of God, and last I remember, The Word of God is Jesus (John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13). It’s none other than the word of Jesus. His Word is the only thing that matters. His word trumps John Calvin to John MacArthur. I am a Christian, not a Calvinist.
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed–
One must be very careful when venting righteous anger. Probably 99 times out of 100 it is not righteous.
I am beholden to Reformed confessions only because I have searched and searched and searched and found them closest to what I read in Scriptures. It sounds like you only agree with yourself. Why would God’s truth be granted only to you?
Paul Washer is definitely screwed on too tight. I don’t like his style, but I have listened to interviews with the guy, and from everything I can tell, he is being genuine. This is just what he is like. You may not like it. Heck, I don’t like it. But on what basis do you impugn his integrity?
Look, I DO NOT give Calvin some sort of a free pass. Many bring up that by the standards of his age, he was more or less typical. I don’t care. If one is a servant of Christ, one’s behavior should reflect it in ways that directly oppose the “standards of the age.”
But you are consumed with hatred for a man whose ideas merely resurrect those of Clement, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Bradwardine, etc. Were they ALL tyrants? Were ALL the Puritans bad, bad men? Were ALL the profs of Old Princeton skinflints and scalawags?
Luther was an anti-Semite and callous toward peasants and constantly cursed a blue streak. I guess we need to write off Lutherans, too, according to you. Who cares that they don’t follow his teachings as authoritative, but the teachings of the Book of Concord? Let’s dismiss them.
So, I take it that you haven’t personally known any humble Calvinists; therefore, there couldn’t possibly be any. Is it not even slightly possible that you have met a bunch of bad representatives of my lot? You’d be surprised. We can be pretty doggone nice.
Islam, on the whole, is not a religion of peace. But study the Sufi’s some time. Or study the life of Hakeem Olajuwon…the Houston Rockets’ hall-of-fame center…I pray one day I can be a tenth of the representative of Christianity that he is of Islam.
LikeLike
Hans,
I do not limit this to myself, but many others have done the same as me. As a matter of fact, countless non-Calvinists have.
What I find is that you compare the Bible to the confession, rather than to compare the confession to the Bible.
It’s called “pre-conceived”. You have the knowledge of the confession before you have the knowledge of the Bible. Why not Bible alone without the confession? That is how we non-Calvinist protestants do it.
I don’t generally read any commentary whatsoever. It’s just me and God.
I don’t care what any confession has to say. That is just some dead guys opinion. I consult the living God, not a dead man.
If you don’t give John Calvin a free pass, then ditch anything and everything Calvin, and stop calling yourself by his name. But you won’t, will you?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Gary–
It’s not even possible to renounce theology. You have one. You’re just not admitting it to yourself. All that a theological system is, after all, is an interpretation of Scripture as a whole, taking it as one, unified message from God, rather than as a hodge-podge of inconsistent and contradictory messages.
But since you have given up all outside influences, and just interpret Scripture straightforwardly according to what it appears to say. Go ahead and interpret Ephesians 1:3-6 in that manner:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.”
Try to keep in mind that the Greek verb proorizo means “to predestine, to predetermine, to foreordain, to appoint beforehand” and simply cannot be construed to mean “to foreknow.”
Happy straightforward interpreting! Remember, no outside influences! Just the words on the page! No fair cheating!
🙂
LikeLike
Ed–
I have absolutely no problem ditching Calvin. I’ll be more than happy to call myself just Reformed. Many, if not most Calvinists, as a matter of fact, find the “Calvinist” moniker problematic. For Reformed thought differs from Calvin’s teaching on many particulars.
I have known many people who allow the confessions to predetermine their view of Scripture. I am not one of them. I am Reformed for one reason and one reason only: my straightforward reading of Scripture aligns with the core of their confessional teachings.
LikeLike
Ed–
I’m with you! I don’t trust commentaries. It’s just me and God. I’ve searched and searched my Bible, and I can’t find this Trinity crap. Jesus was clearly just a man. Colossians 1:15 says he was “the firstborn of all creation”.
See! He was just a creature! Clear as day. In Mark 10 Jesus is talking to the rich young ruler guy and says Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except God alone.
Well obviously he is inferring that he himself is NOT God, right?
I don’t known why more people don’t just sit down with their Bible and trust what they read. We need to rely more on the Holy Spirit to guide us rather than always consulting men. Men make mistakes.
LikeLike
Hans, I believe you want Ed to read those verses and either be stumped or adopt the idea of election and predestination. I can’t speak for Ed, but to me those verses are saying that the path that God has chosen for us, through grace and from the beginning of the world, is reconciliation through Jesus Christ. ‘Us’ means everyone, not a select group of people. He does not want anyone to be lost, but He has given us free will and any one of us may choose not to walk that path. Where in these verses does it say ‘not available to some people’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed,
It would seem that Hans is just one more example of somebody whose theology controls their understanding of Scripture, rather than the other way around. He cherry picks a proof text to support the concept of predestination-without-foreknowledge. What he leaves out are verses such as:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29 ESV)
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? (Romans 11:2 ESV)
And as to the Calvinist/Reformed doctrine of eternal security, what about that pesky word “if” in this verse:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ESV)
We are informed by Scripture that it is possible to be severed from Christ by falling away. Galatians 5:4. Jesus Himself warned that many will fall away. Matthew 24:10. And what about the warnings about the consequences of apostasy In Hebrews 6 and 10?
My approach? I attempt to read Scripture in a manner that is comprehensive (every piece of the puzzle, every verse, must be included), consistent (every puzzle piece must fit, i.e. every verse must be understood in a manner that is consistent with every other verse), and comprehensive (because the puzzle has same-shape pieces, the completed puzzle must assembled so as to form a picture–the overall reading of Scripture must make sense). This approach is severely compromised if one approaches the Bible with a theological system. In fact, the Bible then ends up being made to yield to theology, which simply should not be.
LikeLike
“Hans, I believe you want Ed to read those verses and either be stumped or adopt the idea of election and predestination. I can’t speak for Ed, but to me those verses are saying that the path that God has chosen for us, through grace and from the beginning of the world, is reconciliation through Jesus Christ. ‘Us’ means everyone, not a select group of people. He does not want anyone to be lost, but He has given us free will and any one of us may choose not to walk that path. Where in these verses does it say ‘not available to some people’?”
Thanks Marsha. You say it better than I do. Our first hint is context. Paul is writing to professing believers not unbelievers. I find it ironic that believers need to be told HOW they are saved. If they are believers, they know. Often we find that sanctification verses are presented as justification verses. What confusion that causes.
LikeLike
“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.”
”
Hans, Lets back up for a moment before this goes into the black hole. Your very first comment on this thread was about us “hating” Calvinists. You set the tone and definition for “hate” from the very start. I cannot buy into your definition and cannot allow you to frame it for me. You have started off with a wrong premise and expect those here who believe Calvism is false to defend ourselves as not hateful. That is like declaring: Have you stopped beating your wife.
I have been conversing with YRR/REformed/Neo Cals (pastors/seminary students and strident followers) for a very long time and am quite used to how it plays out. You are playing no different than what I typically experience. There is a belief in that system that those who disagree (vehemetly or not) “hate” Calvinists. No, I despise the ST not those who buy into it. I personally believe that most don’t really understand it or have not taken the time to take it to its logical conclusions no matter how many of the points they claim.
The passage you quote above is strange considering the context. Why are Calvinists automatically positioned as enemies? I spent some fun time with my Calvinist girlfriend just last week. Do I believe she is wrong? Yes. Does that make her my enemy? No. But she also does not come to the conclusion I am a hater because I believe in total free will and that a love relationship is never coerced and then stranegly called “grace”.
As to sources for Calvin, I won’t do your homework for you. I spent almost 8 years reading everything I could get my hands on from many different sources. I would advise sprinkling your research with many sources outside the Mongeristic spectrum. The victors often write what passes as official history so you really have to dig. You will find such things as what Calvin insisted upon before he would come back to Geneva the second time. You will find evidence of the pre meditated murder of Servetus in Calvin’s own hand in letters he wrote about him before he ever set foot in Geneva. You will find his horrible treatment of his protege Castillo. You will find bizarre punishments for falling asleep during his sermons and disagreeing with his theology.
I cannot for the life of me understand how people are not repulsed by the Institutes. It scares me that they are not. Do you realize he teaches that one can look saved, act saved all their lives and still be reprobate and not know it until they die? Do you realize his entire ST is based upon hierarchy of man and within the Trinity?
Christianity is about “relationships” and they are not “one way”.
I consider Calvinism to be a culture of death. Not life. Not the redeemed life of the resurrection. I fear for the folks who have bought into it thinking it is grace while making dates with Satan to meditate on their sin instead of seeking Holiness and “Life” and living out the kingdom now.
That is not hate. That is genuine concern.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Nope. Just showing Gary that he immediately goes to Romans 8, Scripture interpreting Scripture. In other words, he HAS a systematic theology. It may be one of his own design even…but if he outlined it and gave us the details, almost certainly we could pigeon hole him into some particular theology he shares with millions of other people. There is nothing new under the sun, and just because one SAYS he has rejected systematics, doesn’t mean one actually has. As a matter if fact, it is nearly impossible to accomplish. (Plus, your interpretations would be entirely inconsistent if you did.)
LikeLike
Just a question. Who do you think Jesus Christ is referring to in that passage when he refers to “enemies”? If you have already defined “hate” for us and declared we think you are an “enemy” then you get to trot out a passage to back up your definitions. I don’t play that game anymore.
Surely you do not think he is referring to Born Again believers living out the kingdom now. They would not be enemies and practicing the sort of things Jesus refers to in that passage. They would not be practicing them because they ARE redeemed. But in Calvinism they could.
Calvinists do not buy into that stance because of their ST. We cannot help but sin all the time because the fact we exist is sin. We are born guilty, Adams sin is imputed to us so our very existence is “sin”. And then we have the problem that our Holy Savior, Jesus, swam around in Mary’s sin goo for 9 mos because after all, she was guilty, too. That total depravity remains. What God pronounced as “good” in creation no longer has any good at all. All material world is evil only the spiritual can be good and it is basically unknowable except for the few who are given the “special knowledge” to understand for us. That is basically what it all boils down to. And that comes from a determinist filter when reading scripture. It starts with a wrong premise of Yahweh as a monster god who is angry and must be appeased. Much like the angry greek pagan gods of the ancient world.
Also you trotted out compatablism earlier. Just another made up “theological” word to live in state of cognitive dissonance and appeal to “mystery” that only a few select “special people” with “special knowledge” can understand. It is an attempt to merge free will with determinism which is an oxymoron. Like Jumbo Shrimp. . Most Calvinists tell me that it means we have the free will to sin when we are in our natural state of total depravity. And since our existence is “sin” this makes sense in that ST. And worse
Like I said, I believe Calvinism is a culture of death. I do not see a two way love relationship with our Savior in it at all.
And I understand you will tell me this is not Calvinism or what you believe. I think most Calvinists do not have a clue what it is or have taken their cognitive dissonance about God to its logical conclusions.
As one very astute guy wrote recently:
Which is why, John, it’s hard not to conclude that Calvinism is a sustained exercise in the defense against the obvious. By which I mean you’re constantly on the defense against the obvious conclusions of your claims. – See more at: http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=12190#sthash.NzsGdn4Z.dpuf
Lastly, I believe that Calvinism has never, until recently in history, gotten a real public airing and debate. That has mostly happened in the cloistered halls of theological Academia when it was legal to do so and one would not be banished or tortured for questioning it.. But the internet has changed that. Now, mere pew peasants can do their homework and have the freedom to come to their own conclusions. That, is a good thing..
LikeLike
Gary–
Your approach–to read Scripture comprehensively and consistently–is the very DEFINITION of a systematic theology. I’m glad to see you’re actually admitting that you have one. Once you do have one (and you do), you will, like all the rest of us, read problematic passages to line up with your newly established presuppositions. Paradigms come and paradigms go, but no one but no one is without one. You might as well try to quit breathing by holding your breath. It will not work, my friend.
🙂
LikeLike
“Nope. Just showing Gary that he immediately goes to Romans 8, Scripture interpreting Scripture. In other words, he HAS a systematic theology. It may be one of his own design even…but if he outlined it and gave us the details, almost certainly we could pigeon hole him into some particular theology he shares with millions of other people. There is nothing new under the sun, and just because one SAYS he has rejected systematics, doesn’t mean one actually has. As a matter if fact, it is nearly impossible to accomplish. (Plus, your interpretations would be entirely inconsistent if you did.)”
A love two way relationship with our Savior is not a “systematic theology”.
“Scripture interpreting Scripture. ”
This is cliched platitude I often hear from that movement. But if you take it and analyze it, it just does not take into account that the Bible is a collection of books that some men decided which ones would be in the collection. Inspired? I believe so. But there are also many genres of books and throughout history, many translations. When one misunderstands Romans, for example, as being about individual salvation using the Calvinist definition for election, then it is used to affirm other passages that are actually concerning sanctification (like the Ephesians passage quoted above) not salvation. But understood in that wrong context is where the problem lies. Calvinists often present sanctification passages as communicating Justification– which makes sense in their determinist god ST.
It all goes back to the determinist filterthrough which they read it..
LikeLike
Thank you, Lydia. I will give Hans two debating points, but since he has to redefine the the word theology, he loses 6 points for disingenuousness. We have been discussing Calvinism and Reformed theology in the sense that theology is a formal system, branch or course of study about divine things (see e.g. dictionary.com). Hans takes my use of the term theology completely out of context and applies his own private definition–kind of like the way theologians and other doctrinaire types twist Scripture to reach the conclusions they wish to support.
I don’t suppose it’s just Calvinists, but these doctrinaire types seem to know a lot more about (dishonest) rhetorical ploys than about Jesus Himself. Why does it have to be all about theology, or our own private interpretation of what is and is not theology, and so on. Why can’t it just be all about Jesus?
LikeLike
Lydia–
You seem to be denying compatibilism, the canon of Scripture, and total depravity. Catholics have a slightly different stance on total depravity, but otherwise, you are standing against the vast majority of Christians throughout history.
Also, self-delusion and hypocrisy don’t seem to be in your vocabulary. It is totally outside of your experience. How could someone possibly look and act the part…and not be a genuine Christian? Can you really be this out of touch with reality? I don’t think so. I think you misspoke. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I’m glad to hear you don’t hate ME. You just hate that which is most precious to me. That which has enriched my relationship with Jesus a thousand fold. You don’t know what comfort that gives me….
😉
Just kidding. I know how you feel. I have also done the research. Looked into every nook and cranny. I just came to a different conclusion. (Hint: it’s all because of how much smarter–not to mention better looking–than you I am. I have a world-class mind and have ever so difficult a time getting my head through any door.)
LikeLike
LOL, Hans.
Thanks for keeping the debate cool-headed, everyone!
LikeLike
“You seem to be denying compatibilism, the canon of Scripture, and total depravity. Catholics have a slightly different stance on total depravity, but otherwise, you are standing against the vast majority of Christians throughout history.”
You mean the ones whose writings were preserved? You know the funny thing about Pelagius is the only thing we know about his writings are when they are referred to by others who vehemetly disagreed with him and wanted him labeled a heretic. His writings were destroyed.
I don’t really care about majorities. History is full of evil “majorities”. The “majority” of Christians throughout history were stuck in a church state system where attendance was compelled. (That is the irony of Calvin. By what measure could he deem them elect since they were compelled by force? They HAD to attend church). And during some ancient eras the “majority” of Christians were not even allowed to read the bible for themselve if they were fortunate to be literate.
If you want to appeal to “church history” you gotta admit all the bad stuff, too, which will negate most of what is insisted upon when it comes to “orthodoxy”. And we have to negate the indwelling Holy Spirit which is availabe to all believers regardless of position. (See 1 John)
Compatablism is an oxy moron. It is suggesting we live in complete cognitive dissonance.
“Also, self-delusion and hypocrisy don’t seem to be in your vocabulary. It is totally outside of your experience. How could someone possibly look and act the part…and not be a genuine Christian? Can you really be this out of touch with reality? I don’t think so. I think you misspoke. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. ”
I was referring to what Calvin teaches in the Institutes about reprobation. Book III, chapter II, section 11.
“I’m glad to hear you don’t hate ME. You just hate that which is most precious to me. That which has enriched my relationship with Jesus a thousand fold. You don’t know what comfort that gives me….”
It gives you comfort that God randomly did NOT CHOOSE some before the foundation of the world– which means they were, by default, randomly chosen for hell? It gives you comfort that man has no real volition? It gives you comfort that God imputs Adam’s sin/guilt to us? Loving parents do not even do that to their children! Yet, that is the character of your determinist version of Yahweh. It gives you comfort that people have no ability to have a two way love relationship with their Savior? It has to be coerced.
That is some strange comfort. The fact you think we should find comfort in that picture of such an arbitrary angry god is astonishing to me. Again, it is a soul crushing culture of death once people really take it to its logical conclusions. And “reason is not a whore”. It is a gift from God.
LikeLike
Hans,
“People can read the Bible for themselves and make it say anything they feel like making it say”
This does not make it right and certainly isn’t anything new….remember Satan distorting God’s word in the garden and only a few words at that. But I have learned no matter what one says who disagrees with RT they are damned by this doctrine either by total depravity or self righteousness (if one can read and understand the word of God this is evil.) It is a lie to say that an individual cannot understand scripture without another man’s interpretation…….who then determines if they are right? another man? I have been told many times, ‘just pick one’ meaning a reformer and his ST(one who is dead or alive) to follow in order to understand the bible, then when you no longer believe that man, just pick another, then another until all have been exhausted, because their words (ST) do have leaks! (I always find it disturbing how lies are described.) Then what? No, each man can understand God’s word because He has given us a helper, the Holy Spirit who will teach us all things and bring to remembrance all that the Father has spoken! Praise God.
Eph, Rom and Gal are favorites of those who boast of being Calvinists or Reformed and yes, Lutherans also, particularly, Eph 1:3-6 for this scripture is most used in order to deceive people when teaching of their determinist god. But the TRUTH is God has ‘chosen’ ‘predestined’ His people (Christians) before the foundation of the world. Who are His people? Those who believe in Jesus Christ. John 3:15-16, so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
1Cor 9:16
For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
LikeLike
“Why can’t it just be all about Jesus?”
Because a very close look at the Human/ Divine Jesus Christ negates most of what Calvinism is about–Greek Pagan Philosophy.
Jesus Christ is the exact representation of God. (Hebrews 1:3)
And He looks nothing like the god of Calvin who randomly chose who would be elect before Adam even sinned. Keep in mind, we really do not need Jesus or the Cross/Resurrection if some were chosen (or not) before Adam sinned.
LikeLike
Gary–
I’ve heard of parallel universes. Now, I must posit parallet internet’s. For I know you would not have the temerity to accuse me of dishonesty…all the while being dishonest yourself.
🙂
My own dictionary.com definition of “theology” says it is a “particular form, system, branch, or course of study”…of divine things. It says nothing about its being “formal” though, of course, it can be.
Simply put, it is the general study of God and can be done in all manner of ways, formal or informal, public or private. Systematics is just that theology which is done systematically, placing all of a particular religion’s tenets into a coherent, consistent system and filtering out conflicting data. We all do this, if we are at all serious about doing competent biblical exegesis. It’s well established and not really up for debate. If you wish to completely buck consensus, then the burden of proof is on you. I’m not being disingenuous. I understand that some people say things like, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” But all that means is that they are not aware of their presuppositions, not that they don’t have any. Probably, a good eighty percent of what Scripture says is straightforward enough that virtually nobody disagrees about what it says. Very few would claim that there were only ten disciples, for example. On the other hand, the Bible is not at all clear whether or not infants are acceptable recipients of baptism. And yet almost every denomination takes a stance one way or the other.
The reason it can’t just be “all about Jesus,” as you put it, is that individuals and denominational churches and independent churches can have very, very different views as to who Jesus is and what he is like, depending on their particular confession…or statement of faith…or creed…or catechism…or theology. There are thousands of Jesus-es out there with contradictory personalities and teachings. Hypothetically, if the Calvinist Jesus is the true Jesus, then you are guilty of denying many of his truths…which then would not be “all about Jesus.” Similarly, if what you believe to be true is actually true, then I am the one denying important things about him. Theology matters.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I just wanted to make sure I didn’t neglect to note that (thus far, at any rate) you have reasonable, affable, fair, and kind.
I thank you very much!
LikeLike
Thank you, Hans. I have to admit when you first came, I wondered if you’d be a “fly by” that we sometimes get here. Thanks for proving me wrong. I appreciate good and respectful debate. This has been good. 🙂
LikeLike
I have worked with prisons and prisoners as part of my career and on a volunteer basis. I have sat with parents in prison auditoriums who beamed as their sons or daughters graduated from a prison rehabilitation program. Some told me it was the first time their child had ever completed something they started. These parents never gave up on their children. They talked with them, they prayed for them, they encouraged them. They never condoned the offense but they loved the offender. And I am expected to believe that God is a lesser parent? Never!
LikeLike
Lydia–
Yes, you are right. A majority vote does not establish truth. But the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into all truth. So, at some level, many of us must believe similar things or the Holy Spirit is not alive and active. We have been left to our own cognitive devices.
Have you ever heard of the Vincentian Canon? It says that “all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Obviously, this is an exaggeration because no tenet has been held with complete unanymity. But you personally are treading on thin ice. Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe that Jesus is the hypostatic union of two natures, human and divine, in one person? You simply cannot be labeled an orthodox Christian without submitting to consensus here and there.
Pelagius, by all accounts, was a very holy man. Donatists, by and large, were a rather righteous lot, as well. The Mormons I have met have been simply marvelous people who often put my life to shame. But they are all outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
LikeLike
Hans,
Julie Anne maybe will ding me here, but you disingenuously re-defined theology to mean something other than what was indicated by the original context. Notwithstanding I have now told you the sense in which I used the term theology, you persist in your re-definition. You are now being dishonest. I will agree with you on one thing. You are living in a different universe than the one I inhabit. Where you refuse to recognize the meaning of words according to their ordinary sense, I believe the name of that universe is Wonderland. Then again, I take your persistence in insisting on the use of carefully defined terms, contrary to the sense in which they were originally used, to be a confession that you cannot win your point on the merits.
As to knowing Jesus, I find that learning about Him is of limited use. We come to know Him as we obey Him in our day to day lives. Theology, by whatever (reasonable) definition, is not sufficient.
LikeLike
“But they are all outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.”
It won’t surprise me if the great majority of those who are assigned to the lot of the sheep, as opposed to that of the goats, are outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. From my experience, and from what I have studied, orthodox Christianity has very little to commend itself.
LikeLike
Marsha–
I do declare! You are a budding Calvinist!
I have said–almost word for word–what you just said in some of my discussions with Catholics. Calvinism is not about locking some out. Whoever wills may come. Calvinism is about a God of love who never gives up on his own. He protects us and preserves us, even from ourselves if necessary.
Have you ever gone on some self-improvement kick? A diet or an exercise program?Or an I-will-stop-cursing (or gossiping or telling white lies) campaign? Who is your worst enemy, your foremost obstacle to overcome? Does your next-door neighbor stop you? Does the government or law enforcement get involved? Does your spouse or significant other tempt you into quitting? Do your girlfriends razz you mercilessly?
Isn’t it true that the one most often standing in your way is YOU? In Reformed theology, God knows that. He doesn’t say of the one lost sheep, “That darned sheep ran away and rebelled against me and got himself stuck in a thicket or fell down an embankment or something. Serves him right. I’ll sit tight and wait. Maybe he’ll see the error of his ways and return on his own.” He goes and searches out the lost sheep and brings him back to the fold.
When you are IN Christ, you are his forever child–Arminian or Calvinist, it doesn’t matter–he will not forsake his own. Like in the beloved hymn, “How Firm a Foundation”:
The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose
I will not, I cannot, desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake!
LikeLike
Gary–
Let’s start from scratch. All I’m trying to tell you is that you hold your beliefs because you believe them to be both coherent and consistent with Scripture. That is exactly the same reason I hold to my beliefs. They so happen to mostly coincide with Reformed confessions, but NOT because I have derived them from those writings. I also have some major disagreements with the confessions, places where I think they got it just plain wrong.
LikeLike
Lydia–
You need to keep one thing in mind. If one submits to the authority of Holy Scripture, one cannot escape the conclusion that not everybody makes it to heaven. It would be nice for us as humans to be able to accept universalism. But it’s simply not there in the Bible.
I take no delight in anyone being sent to hell. I cringe at the thought of even Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin enduring the traditional “eternal conscious torment.” I just cannot go there. I end up crying. As a result, I flirt with Annihilationism. That, at least to my human heart, seems more worthy of a God of mercy and compassion.
God, pure and simple, could allow everyone into heaven, or he could make their conformity to his will inevitable. But, according to Scripture anyway, he doesn’t do either of these things. Therefore, some enter hell whom God could have kept out. In every system except universalism, God could be legitimately viewed as a monster. I prefer a system where a fair and loving God decides things rather than leaving it up to the contrivances of mankind. We have left so many without a single word of the Gospel. Some are poisoned against them Gospel by the harshness of sinful life or the hypocrisy of believers. Many are born into religions that keep them from the truths of Christ. I am totally unconvinced that a system that deemphasizes the sovereign will of the One who IS LOVE ITSELF in favor of a reliance on human abilities and preferences is at all wise. I would much rather NOT put the responsibility into the hands of humanity, which is only upon rare occasions loving or lovely.
LikeLike
“But the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into all truth. So, at some level, many of us must believe similar things or the Holy Spirit is not alive and active. We have been left to our own cognitive devices. ”
Hans, you have made it clear in comments that scripture is the “authority”. You read it with a determinist filter and I do not. So where do we go from there? You claim the Holy Spirit leads you to believe in deterministic god. I claim that as false and the Holy Spirit leads to understand God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty and has given man volition.
“Have you ever heard of the Vincentian Canon? It says that “all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Obviously, this is an exaggeration because no tenet has been held with complete unanymity. But you personally are treading on thin ice. Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe that Jesus is the hypostatic union of two natures, human and divine, in one person? You simply cannot be labeled an orthodox Christian without submitting to consensus here and there. ”
I don’t want a label as an “orthodox” Christian. I would have to ask whose orthodoxy at which time in history. All orthodoxy was once heterodoxy until those of inluence decided it wasn’t.
Christianity is relational.
“Pelagius, by all accounts, was a very holy man. Donatists, by and large, were a rather righteous lot, as well. The Mormons I have met have been simply marvelous people who often put my life to shame. But they are all outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
”
You are not the first Calvinist to tell me the Donatists were outside orthodoxy. (Pelagius aside because his writings were destroyed) Donatists were outside orthodoxy because they refused to take communion from corrupt priests? That was their horrible crime. They did not fall into line with the current “orthodoxy”. Like the AnaBaptists after then, much has been written about them that is simply spin to make them enemies of Augustine and the later Reformers.
Adding in the Mormons to those examples was supposed to mean what?
LikeLike
“one cannot escape the conclusion that not everybody makes it to heaven.”
Yes, and no. One cannot escape the conclusion that not everybody dies and goes to heaven. Yet, God’s judgments are just. His punishments fit the crime. No more, no less. What happens when even a Joseph Stalin’s sentence has been served? It seems Scripture doesn’t tell us everything. Annihilationism may not be the only alternative to eternal conscious torment on the one hand, and an everybody-dies-and-goes-to-heaven universalism on the other hand.
Now, I’m not advocating anything one way or the other, but I do suggest that the fun can begin with these verses:
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (NASB reads “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”)
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people (Gk., YLT & NASB “to” all men),
Romans 3:22b-24 For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Note that, not only have all sinned, but also all are justified)
LikeLike
“You need to keep one thing in mind. If one submits to the authority of Holy Scripture, one cannot escape the conclusion that not everybody makes it to heaven. It would be nice for us as humans to be able to accept universalism. But it’s simply not there in the Bible.”
And here we are finally to the overarching false dichotomy of Calvinism. If one, as a believer, does not agree with their ST, then one HAS to be a Universalist .Either all are saved or only those randomly chosen by an arbitrary god before Adam even sinned. Those are the choices. And that is how they frame every single debate.
It is the false dichotomy of determinism. See, Univeralism, Calvinism, Islam and Atheism are all “deterministic”. In all but one, man has no real volition. And it is one reason why so many young people who are introduced to determinism who take it to its logical conclusions are choosing atheism. I see it all the time here at ground zero. In determinism, at least the athiest has volition.
And that is the part missing in Calvinism: Humans. Humans with volition/free will. That is never taken into consideration in their ST. Which is sort of amusing. Why should we interact with Hans since he has no real volition and is controlled by some entity.
Calvinists have a hard time with this one. To them it makes God into a wimpy grandpa who cannot control His creation and has no power. They present a god who is only interested in showing his glory.. They see God as some sort of glory mongering deity. Not as Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Plus, I’m increasingly convinced that the whole emphasis on getting saved so we can go to Heaven is a complete, irrelevant distraction. Maybe even an idolatrously dangerous one. Others may have better ideas, but to my way of thinking we are saved to be in relationship with Jesus, whether in the here and now, in a place called heaven, or in a place called the New Earth. Actually, so far as cosmic geography is concerned, our destiny is not heaven. It is the New Earth.
LikeLike
Lydia–
You are clearly concerned that in order to retain our humanity, we must retain complete freedom. I was of much the same opinion before accepting a compatibilistic way of thinking. There is no good reason to believe that God is limited by space or time or human volition. God’s sovereignty in no way subtracts from our liberty. You somehow believe God must conform to the laws of the cosmos he created, as if he were a mere creature. Calvinism is not at all deterministic, but I’m not going to be able to convince you of that.
Epistemologically, I’m not sure we share enough in common to have a viable conversation. One cannot nail jello to the wall. We have no shared authority to which either of us can appeal.
I love your name, by the way. It was one of the names on my wife’s and my short list when we were picking out a name for our daughter. I wish you every joy in life. I’m going to go out, now, and live my life just exactly however I feel like living it. For freedom, Christ has set us free….
By the way, what on earth is “glory mongering”? Is that kind of like the sun being accused of “heat and light mongering”?
LikeLike
Gary–
Isn’t heaven the setting for a direct, face-to-face encounter with our Lord? How could that be irrelevant? If someone were to date a girl long distance by letter or email, then wouldn’t buying an airplane ticket in order to spend time physically in one another’s presence be considered somehow an enhancement of their romantic relationship?
LikeLike
Hans, you keep telling Lydia that she believes things she doesn’t believe and didn’t say. It makes debate difficult.
And speaking of nailing jello to the wall, I have said nothing to lead you to think I am a budding Calvinist. I wrote about parents of people in prison who never give up on them no matter what they have done and continue to encourage them to turn their lives around. I think of God as a loving parent who wants all of us to be saved, like the shepherd who goes looking for the one missing sheep even though 99 are safe. That is not Calvinism and election.
LikeLike
Hans,
It sounds like you only have a long distance relationship with Jesus. If that is true, I am very sorry. It needn’t be so.
LikeLike
Gary–
If my relationship with Jesus is not physically face-to-face, then it’s long distance?
Was Paul’s relationship with Christ also long distance according to you?
“For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.”
LikeLike
Marsha–
I am sorry if I misunderstood either Lydia’s beliefs or yours. I know from reading other threads that Lydia is purposefully coy when it comes to details of her beliefs. I have little recourse but to guess.
You are likewise vague. I still don’t know whether you are Arminian or Universalistic. Universalists, taken out if context, can sound rather Calvinistic. For they posit the UNIVERSAL salvation of all people (just as Calvinists posit the UNIVERSAL salvation of all the elect).
Arminians metaphorically never give up on their children in the sense that they will always give them a second chance. But if those children run far away or tell them to get lost, the parents will respect their wishes and leave (or leave them alone). This is not what happens with the one lost sheep. He is sought and found and returned.
LikeLike
“You are clearly concerned that in order to retain our humanity, we must retain complete freedom.”
Nope. You have concluded wrongly. Marsha has it right about attributing things to me I have not said. But I am used to it when conversing with Calvinists. It is how they frame the debate so one is constantly trying to defend against wrong assumptions. I don’t think you guys even know you are doing it half the time. It is because of the indoctrination of humans not allowed into the salvation process.
It is what you know. (I was also seeking to be a Calvinist. I thought it was the answer, too)
LikeLike
Uh, Hans, you’re the one who liken your relationship with Jesus to dating a girl long distance by letter or email. And no, I don’t think that while Paul was alive (i.e. in the body) his relationship to Jesus was like dating a girl from a distance. That’s my whole point. Even while in the body we can have a relationship with Jesus that is more nearly face to face than what many, maybe most, Christians enjoy. How? Let me quote what I may adopt as my life verse:
“To love another person is to see the face of God.”
Though I suspect Lydia could help you out, I’ll let you figure out chapter and verse.
LikeLike
Hans,
One of the things that my former Stealth Reformed Pastor was he would emphasize a Law and Sin Centered Methodology rather than Christ Center.
He would constantly (2 or 3 times every service) emphasize the congregations unworthiness, then going so far to say that they could be doing everything right and still not be saved.
With minimal or no emphasize of redemption through Christ I really began to wonder if he doubted his own salvation. He proclaimed that he didn’t see enough persecution and suffering within the congregation to identify a church with anybody saved.
His Methodology included a heavy-handed exegetical chewing out every Sunday. At least the Catholics who practiced a Doubt, Law and Sin Center Ideology offered Hope of Redemption through Christ but didn’t teach assurance of salvation.
He was Stealth and Covert.and was practicing in my view sin throughout his 2 year tenure. When you combine his “Repent” of sins ideology focusing on sin something he knew that he knew all of us have done, has given me the impression that Neo-Reformed must struggle and doubt their own assurance of Salvation.
LikeLike
“I know from reading other threads that Lydia is purposefully coy when it comes to details of her beliefs. I have little recourse but to guess.”
I do not mean to be coy. I just do not have a soundbite label I can throw out. I most certainly believe in human responsiblity for what we believe and what we “do” as believers. That would the largest part of my definition of “freedom”.
I can tell you emphatically I am not a Universalist. I believe each person, who is capable, is responsible for what they do therefore actually choose their outcome. I believe we have a duty to care for others who cannot care for themselves. Duty not right word but I hope you get my drift.
I also do not believe God is distant but the One True God indwells us as true believers. I believe we have the ability to grow in Holiness with the help of our Advocate. I believe the resurrection makes it possible for us to live out a redeemed life. Not a perfect one but a redeemed one. I believe we are to reflect Jesus Christ back out to the world. And I think the biggest obstacle to that our theologies that want us bragging about our sin and see suffering as piousness. I see those theologies as basically encouraging us to make dates with Satan to go “deep with our sin and brokeness”. I believe such teaching is like spitting on Jesus Christ as he hung on the cross.
I believe we are to work in our tiny corner of the world to redeem it by reflecting Christ back out to it. It will never be perfect but I believe what we do here will carry over (or not) to the redeemed earth one day. What won’t carry over is the part that should grieve us. this is not sinless perfection because we cannot be as we are born into corrupted bodies into a corrupted world. But HE has overcome the world and given us the tools to navigate it and work toward redemption by reflecting Him.
I leave the dead guys to their own “other worldly” devices. More often than not, they teach me what NOT to believe.
LikeLike
“Plus, I’m increasingly convinced that the whole emphasis on getting saved so we can go to Heaven is a complete, irrelevant distraction. Maybe even an idolatrously dangerous one. Others may have better ideas, but to my way of thinking we are saved to be in relationship with Jesus, whether in the here and now, in a place called heaven, or in a place called the New Earth. Actually, so far as cosmic geography is concerned, our destiny is not heaven. It is the New Earth.”
Great comment, Gary. It is not about fire insurance. It is about relationship.
LikeLike
Gary–
It is ironic that you all would come down on me for assuming things about you, while all the while you are assuming things about me. Where did you get it into your head that Calvinists don’t value their close personal relationships with the Lord that are “more nearly face to face” than what many would-be believers enjoy? For the Reformed, everything but everything centers around our mystical Union with Christ.
I have read Les Mis unabridged from cover to cover. It is my favorite novel in the whole world. I even–or perhaps should say, especially–enjoyed the 50+ pages detailing the Battle of Waterloo, the history of the sewers of Paris, the intimate description of what goes on inside a cloistered convent, and all the idealistic political discussions.
Chapter and verse:
“If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”
LikeLike
Lydia–
It is in the nature of ecumenical dialogue to be “constantly trying to defend against wrong assumptions.” It certainly is nothing unique to dialoguing with Calvinists. You consistently and vehemently accuse me of determinism. I just as strenuously deny the charge. If you are correct, then I have a dogmatic blind spot. If, on the other hand, I am correct, then you have made a wrong assumption. From our own perspective, we will always assume the opposition has made a wrong assumption. But perhaps, when the judge of all the world returns, we will find out that our opposition correctly evaluated our position all along.
I assure you that, no matter how idiosyncratic your beliefs, someone (and more that likely, many people) have held them before you. There really is nothing new under the sun. Give me fifty of your most sacredly held beliefs, and I will have no problem giving you a generalized label for it. I understand perfectly not wishing to be placed into a box. I am a very, VERY idiosyncratic Calvinist. But I think it helps more than hurts to have a basis from which to begin when entering into dialogue. Don’t get angry with me for getting things wrong when you won’t give me any detail, when you won’t respectfully and patiently answer questions to clear up any confusion. From the blurb you just gave me, you could be almost anything…including Reformed. I didn’t disagree with a single word you had to say.
LikeLike
Hans,
Excuse me for repeating myself, you’re the one who likened your relationship with Jesus to dating a girl long distance by letter or email. I’m not assuming anything about you. In fact, I doing you the honor of taking what you say at face value.
Now, please, quit trying to twist your own words.
LikeLike
Mark–
It would seem to me that in order to focus in “redemption through Christ,” there must be something we are being redeemed FROM. In order to accurately describe the exorbitant grace of our loving Christ, we cannot skip over the gravity of our sin.
Consider this story from Luke 7:
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so Jesus went to his home and sat down to eat. 37 When a certain immoral woman from that city heard he was eating there, she brought a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume. 38 Then she knelt behind him at his feet, weeping. Her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them off with her hair. Then she kept kissing his feet and putting perfume on them.
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him. She’s a sinner!”
40 Then Jesus answered his thoughts. “Simon,” he said to the Pharisee, “I have something to say to you.”
“Go ahead, Teacher,” Simon replied.
41 Then Jesus told him this story: “A man loaned money to two people—500 pieces of silver to one and 50 pieces to the other. 42 But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?”
43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt.”
“That’s right,” Jesus said. 44 Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Look at this woman kneeling here. When I entered your home, you didn’t offer me water to wash the dust from my feet, but she has washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You didn’t greet me with a kiss, but from the time I first came in, she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You neglected the courtesy of olive oil to anoint my head, but she has anointed my feet with rare perfume.
47 “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love.” 48 Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49 The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?”
50 And Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Surely, you must admit, that here in the West, with our incredibly comfortable lives and a society tolerant of nearly every sinful aberration, the temptation towards complacency and “easy believism” is rampant. I have met devout believers from the Third World, and their willingness to “count the cost” puts ours to shame. They know they have been forgiven much, and so they love much.
The most well beloved hymn of all time, written by a stinking Calvinist (John Newton), extols the “amazing grace” of God “who saved a WRETCH like me.” I knew a hospital chaplain once, who didn’t think the patients would want to be compared to some kind of a low-life wretch, and so he changed the phrase to “who saved a SOUL like me.” Above everything else, we must preserve people’s self-esteem, right? We wouldnt want them convicted of sin or anything!
But don’t we want people’s lives TRANSFORMED by grace, rather than remaining comfortable in their sins?
It is very true that some Reformed preachers concentrate on the sinfulness of our bodies of flesh to the exclusion of the ever-growing righteousness of the new creature in Christ we have become. And yes, they often look too closely for conclusive “evidence” that we have been saved, not wanting anyone to be self-deluded. This is serious error. On the other hand, many “free grace” preachers don’t evaluate their parishioners nearly enough, and come close to giving a free pass to anyone who has ever “walked the aisle,” no matter how insincerely or superficially. As with everything in our lives of faith, there is a proper balance. It doesn’t sound as if this “stealth” guy got it at all right.
LikeLike
Gary–
No, I most emphatically did NOT liken my own connection with Christ to a long-distance romantic relationship! What I did was to CONTRAST a physically face-to-face relationship with one done cross country, even in this era of Skype. You do not have the freedom to apply an analogy any which way you please.
LikeLike
Twist, twist, twist. Spin, spin, spin.
But whatever. I will understand that you (Hans) want me to understand what you now want me to understand. Except that I’m then left NOT understanding how the words that you now want me to understand the way you want me to understand them are relevant to the point you were making in response to the point I had made.
It seems every time I get drawn into a conversation with a Calvinist (and now a Calvinist who says he’s a Calvinist but that he really isn’t a Calvinist), everything ends up getting extremely convoluted. I’m not even going to think about yielding to the temptation to ask what, exactly, is meant by “mystical union.” I do think it humorous, though, that Lydia has informed us in other places that, in her experience, appeals to mystery tend to be the last refuge of a confounded New Calvinist/YRR.
Yep, long distance relationship all of a sudden isn’t long distance relationship, but it’s a mystical union–which is all very mysterious.
Sheesh.
LikeLike
Hans,
In my view, most of the Reformed Preachers and Catholic Priest I’ve had dialogue and the Methodologies they embrace, their congregation will never lose sight of their unworthiness even if they mentioned it once a month rather than 2 or 3 times every service.
Again, the methodology of my Stealth Neo-Reformed Pastor and the words out of his gave me the impression that he doubted his own salvation, even though in his mind he thought he was doing everything right,
When he suggested (on a Wednesday night prayer study) that when we accidentally sinned we need to come clean with God. That’s when I countered and told him that 99% of our sins are of free will, a fact he couldn’t dispute, which I know frustrated him.
His Election Theology, in my view is clouded that we do in fact choose to sin and choose not to sin. Some Reformed Theologians will use the argument that we are slaves of sin, ignoring the fact that sin is a free choice.
I can’t speak for you, but most of us are guilty of sin which is why we need a redeemer in Christ who is Holy.
Now we can choose to over focus on our unholiness which is a works based theology thereby distracting us of worshiping Christ or praise Christ holiness because it is through his holiness we are saved. And if we are focus on Christ we less focused on being sinful.
Like Reformed, some Arminian Theologians would embrace a Law and Sin Centered Ministries over a Christ Centered because they too understand we are guilty of Sin. But true conversion in their view would be similar to the thief on the cross who was repentant right before he took his last breath, rather than being in the act of sin.
Which may explain that my former Neo-Reformed Pastor may have doubted his own salvation and may actually have been a doubt your salvation Arminian, even though he embraced TULIP..
LikeLike
Gary–
Look, I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve been nothing but straightforward with you this whole time. You accidentally misunderstood what I wrote and, for whatever reason, misapplied my analogy. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I ought to have been. If I wasn’t, then I am sorry. But I did clarify the miscommunication, so it all ought to be water under the bridge.
It is not uncommon for theological debate opponents to be suspicious of each other’s motives. I can assure you that it was not my intention to manipulate or twist or spin. I appealed not to mystery but to mysticism, a term referring to direct spiritual experience, not to the abstract or academic, not to the ritual or symbolic, and not even to the subjective or emotional.
“Union with Christ” is a standard theological phrase, pretty basic, but from here on out I will not assume you know the jargon.
I have been around the block a time or two, as well. I can tell you that it is extremely common for anti-Calvinists to bait us, to give us a hard time no matter how composed we remain. Should we ever slip up and issue a harsh word in return, we are immediately branded a stereotypically “angry” Calvinist. If we then take umbrage at being pigeonholed for a legitimate complaint, we are further labeled as “haughty.”
Can’t we take off the gloves? I’m a pretty nice guy. Ask my wife. Ask my toddlers. And I have known literally thousands of Calvinists. For the most part, we are a pretty tame, pretty laid back, pretty normal lot. Our “spawn of Satan” reputation has been very much exaggerated. We don’t have a chip on our shoulder towards all Arminians and Catholics and Pentecostals and Dispensationalists. Just Open Theists.
😉
Loosen up a bit. It’s all good. We might surprise you.
(You never know. We could probably even be friends!)
LikeLike
Hans, I’m not sure why your comment was held up in moderation. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
Julie Anne. what did you think of the email attachment I sent you months ago by
Brenda Nickel”s on Reformed Theology, you said you would check it out, I never heard back.
Maybe this will remind you – http://www.caryltv.com/articles/calvinism/9-calvinism/26-brenda-s-testimony-her-14-years-in-calvinism
LikeLike
Sorry I didn’t get back to you. I did read it and I always find it interesting to see people’s doctrinal journeys. I found myself nodding my head quite a bit while reading it.
LikeLike
Yeah, the workbook I sent you is long, but a good resource. I recommend it.
Click to access NotebookSep2013.pdf
LikeLike
So, Hans, you have a chip on your shoulder against open theists. You don’t define what you mean by open theism, but if I have adopted the view that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a God-authored metaphor for the nature of God’s omniscience, does that mean you have a chip on your shoulder against me?
LikeLike
Gary–
The “open theism” crack was totally tongue-in-cheek (thus the winking smiley face). I have a good friend who fancies himself an open theist. It doesn’t put a crimp in our relationship.
If you, in fact, embrace some form of open theism, limiting God’s omniscience, then I do have to treat you differently. Open theists are not orthodox Christians, having abandoned ecumenical consensus as to the nature of God.
You have to draw the line at some point. If someone believes Jesus was married and had three kids, then the conversation changes. Not significantly necessarily. It depends on what else the two parties have in common.
Relax. I bear no grudge against you. Believe whatever you like.
LikeLike
Hans,
I really have no position insofar as the current debates on open theism are concerned. I really have largely renounced the discipline of theology (please try to understand what I mean and not what I may appear to you to say). I do not see the issue as being essential, primarily because I have not identified it as one that our Lord has seen fit to make a point of or focus on in Scripture.
That said, however, I do believe that it is probable that, at the subatomic level, a certain inescapable uncertainty has been built into the creation, and that even God can address those uncertainties only in terms of probabilities.
If this means you will have to treat me differently, I will understand. To tell you the truth, and I do not intend to be disrespectful (this time), I am fairly well convinced that anybody who embraces ecumenical consensus as to the nature of God must, by definition, be a heretic–not an apostate, but a heretic. I rather deem it the height of presumption to think we have the nature of God figured out, or even that what we think we have figured out can in any way even remotely approach the reality.
LikeLike
Welcome to my world for the last 10 years. I honestly think this public airing of what passes for Reformed/Calvinism/Neo Calvinism/ YRR has been a good thing. I believe that many decent people have simply not taken the time to think it through to its logical conclusions and the constant appeal to mystery makes that somewhat harder for them to do as it is often crouched in terms that make it sinful to do so.
Because, IMO, there is one overarching principle in the determinist construct ( not even the cognitive dissonance of “compatablism” explains away the determinism…just makes it more convoluted) is that it cannot actually be “practiced” in every day life. How does one “practice” what God has already decided and is controlling 24/7? But they still discipline their kids, work toward PhDs, make future plans, etc. I find it confusing and rather sad.
Let us go back to Hans first comment on this thread to see why the thread veered off the way it did and now he is playing down his Calvinism:
Hans wrote:
He came here and framed the entire thread discussing his doctrine as not only hating him but “his” God. He equates “love one another” with not disagreeing with Calvinism. This is checking your brains at the door doctrinal
I cannot even begin to count the convos I have had with Calvinists that went this route. Shampoo, Rinse, Repeat.
LikeLike
Q–
I’m a little confused by your comments. Brenda Nickel spent 14 years as a Dispensationalist; she was clearly never Reformed. As far as I can tell, she always and ever rejected Limited Atonement, making her, as she herself stated, a four-pointer. But having fewer than five points is kind of like being a “little bit pregnant.” It’s totally inconsistent logically. After all, classical Arminians, like the Wesleys and the Remonstrants were one or even two pointers (accepting total depravity and, sometimes, perseverance of the saints).
She ends up, of course, rejecting Dispensationalism, as well. I was uncertain whether she still embraced any of the letters of the TULIP. Still, she praised Middletown Bible Church, a staunchly Dispensationalist establishment (I guess for their thorough trashing of Reformed thought, even though it was something she never held).
She was set free from the evils of Calvinism, by changing her stance on Ephesians 2:8-9. But Calvinists, by and large, do not interpret that verse as saying that “faith is a gift.” John McArthur does, but he is on the periphery of Calvinism, endorsing some aspects of Dispensationalism. Most Reformed exegetes go with the overall modern consensus on this verse: that the “this” in “this not of yourselves” refers back to the entire preceding phrase (for by grace have you been saved through faith). Since the pronoun “this” (touto) is neuter in gender, it cannot rightly refer back to either “grace” (charis) or “faith” (pistis) because they are both feminine. So the most likely antecedent is the whole concept of “salvation by grace through faith.” Faith, as the instrumental means though which grace produces salvation, would still need to be seen as a gift, as a logical inference. Not every theological concept has definitive “proof texts” but can be derived instead by good and necessary inference from a conglomeration of texts.
LikeLike
Lydia,
But here’s the rub. While I certainly do not hate Hans, it may (or may not) be a true statement that I hate his god. I am careful to use the word “may” because I do not know Hans well enough to know Who he thinks God is. However, I have a very dim view of the god I understand to be John Calvin’s god.
According to my notes, Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said: ”I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”
I can only hope that I have misunderstood John Calvin. Otherwise, I must say that I could not put it better than did Thomas Jefferson.
LikeLike
I had no idea Thomas Jefferson said that, Gary.
LikeLike
Lydia–
There is a distinct difference between disagreement and derision. You insist on calling Calvinism deterministic rather than compatibilistic. Why? Compatibilism posits an antinomy between sovereignty and free will. So, you could just as easily accuse us of endorsing libertarian free will, and yet you choose not to. Why is that?
The concept of the Trinity is an antinomy between God being One and God being Three. Do you accuse Trinitarians of being Tritheists or Unitarians? They, of course, insist that they are neither. Are you a Trinitarian? If so, you embrace mystery. Do you acknowledge the Chalcedonian Definition of christology (the hypostatic union of two natures in one person)? If so, you embrace mystery.
By the by, I cannot even BEGIN to count the convos with anti-Calvinists that have gone the route YOU are taking. Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat.
Let’s break out of the gerbil treadmill and try something new, something honest.
Here I am, reaching out my hand towards yours.
Will you take it?
LikeLike
No one here hates Calvinists. No one hates you, Hans.
We are discussing theology. I am not a Calvinist. My study of Scripture does not support that set of beliefs and my belief in a loving God who wants everyone to be saved is incompatible with Calvinism.
To the extent that you differ from Calvin’s teachings, that’s fine, but that doesn’t change what he taught.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
It’s taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1823, about three years before his death (on the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence). Jefferson was quite eccentric when it came to religion. He was a thoroughgoing Deist who didn’t care for much of Scripture. He cut out those portions of the Bible he didn’t like–literally, with a scissors–retaining mostly the words of Jesus.
His thought is in line with his contemporary Hegel and the rest of German Idealism, seeing the God of the Old Testament (with the constant bloodshed and mayhem) as inferior to the much more civil and loving God of the New Testament. In German Idealism, this was, in part, fueled by antisemitism. I don’t know of Jefferson’s views on the Jews. He does say in the letter that Calvin’s God is reminiscent of the God of Judaism.
He also accuses all “modern Christians” of being tritheists. He, as a Deist, emphatically rejected the Trinity as superstitious (too much “appeal to mystery,” I’m guessing!)
Strangely, he appears to make a sophomoric mistake, in observing that Christians do not acknowledge the general revelation of the existence of God to all mankind without exception:
“Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knolege of the existence of a god!”
This is, of course, simply untrue. I have no idea how he could have been ignorant of the fact. At any rate, the rest of you can rest easy. Jefferson thought that you were atheists, too!
LikeLike
Hans,
You can attempt to discredit the truth of what Jefferson said by discrediting the man, but what I quoted him as saying needs to be tested on it’s own merit. If my understanding of John Calvin’s god is correct, Jefferson’s assessment stands. Now I have been taken to task for attacking people’s credibility. You would do well to heed the same caution.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Thank you for your kind words.
I also hate the notion of a deterministic God. But that is not what Calvinism is. I don’t happen to believe that most anti-Calvinists would hate Reformed thought once they understood it.
If you believe in an omnipotent, loving God, who wants everyone saved in a definitive sense…well, then, everyone but everyone would be saved. Who do you know who is so rebellious that a face-to-face “come-to-Jesus” encounter with the Son of God himself wouldn’t sway them into the fold? God wouldn’t need to coerce anyone; he could very easily convince them.
You have not said whether you are a Universalist or not. If you are not, then it is just as loving for God to pick and choose who comes as to leave it up to the wiles of mankind. Many people never hear the Gospel. Many people hear it, but hear it all garbled and inaccurate and wrong. Many people are poisoned to it before they ever hear it. Many people, having heard it correctly, are tempted from it by the desires or the stresses of life.
I never understood why it was so offensive to some women to take on their husband’s last name. I can understand objecting to the custom, which may indeed originate in the idea that wives were the possessions of their husbands. But why object to taking on a particular name belonging to one you profess to love with every fiber of your being? I would take my wife’s last name in a heartbeat. I would have no problem hyphenating it with mine if she liked. (I would actually have preferred to take on an entirely new name all our own, but she wanted to go the traditional route. She didn’t mind my name, wanted it even.) My point is that, though most of us frown on total submission to another human being as oppressive, how could total submission to an all wise, all loving entity be something to fear? Will not the loving Creator of the entire universe be fair…even if it is in ways we simply cannot understand, given our current limitations? We love, love, love, love, love, love him, don’t we? He’s on our side. If anyone is going to have sovereignty, please, let it be him!!
LikeLike
Hans, I did keep my maiden name. I graduated summa cum laude and wanted my professors to know who I was when I applied to graduate schools and gave them as a reference.
I did know a man who took his wife’s last name. His was Hoare. He didn’t like the way people pronounced it.
LikeLike
I do in fact love my husband with every fiber of my being. We consider each other to be a gift from God that restored the years that the locust has eaten.
LikeLike
Gary–
What you are saying would be true if Jefferson had indeed made an argument. Then we could evaluate his statements on their merit alone. But he merely makes negative assertions.
Clearly, you meant to trade on Jefferson’s credibility as a statesman extaordinaire. But statesmen often have no expertise in religion. Ad hominem counter arguments are not fallacious when the authority of the original argument is based on the authority of an expert witness. Expert witnesses are discredited every day in courts of law precisely because it is their expertise which lends credibility to their observations. If Heiko Oberman, a recognized authority on the history and thought of the Reformation, were to state that none of the major Reformers were, in fact, significantly influenced by philosophical Nominalism, then that would carry weight. But if you or I were to assert the exact same thing, without reference to Oberman, nobody would bother to listen to us. We would have to back up our arguments.
Besides, much of this letter may have been written tongue-in-cheek. Jefferson was responding to a jocular salutation from Adams, expressing the wish that Jefferson might “continue in life and health until he became a Calvinist.” The two founders had a complicated personal history. Though bitter political rivals during their times in office, they became close confidants in retirement. This letter is but one in a lengthy, ongoing correspondence between the two. These could be heart warming as well as cantankerous, and I’m guessing old Tom is pulling Johnny’s leg here.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Cool!
LikeLike
Hans,
Well, fine. But be assured that your attempts to discredit Jefferson have not persuaded me. Especially since Jefferson perfectly describes the god John Piper teaches, and I have read enough of Piper to be acquainted with, and to know that I detest, his god.
You may ask, just what God do I approve. I give my allegiance to the God of Whom Jesus is the perfect representation, a God, therefore, Whose yoke is easy and Who is gentle and lowly in heart.
LikeLike
Just in case anybody cared. It is as I had thought, Jefferson was a staunch advocate of Jewish civic liberties, including religious freedoms…but maintained a dim view of their God and their beliefs.
He described the Ancient Israelite priesthood as “a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family of god of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.”
And their God he depicted as “a being of terrif[ying] character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.”
I think we can safely say that the man was by no means antisemitic. In fact, modern Jews still point to him as one of their first, fierce defenders on this continent. He was, however, pretty strongly opposed to the tenets of Judaism…but then again, he had little respect for any revealed religion.
LikeLike
Gary–
Is there something specific in John Piper’s teaching that you detest? Or is it just his Calvinism in general?
He’s big on Jonathan Edwards, and Edwards is a bit too simplistic for my blood when it comes to the bondage of the will. Usually, our choice of action is indeed governed by whichever option conforms to our stronger desire. But there’s so much more to it than that. At any rate, I find Edwards’ thought, while brilliant, ends up as too deterministic. Have you read any of Edwards’ lighter works? His delight in the beauties of nature or his devoted concern for his children may allow you to see him in a different light than “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.”
I must admit that I am a bit taken aback, even a bit mystified, by people who declare their hatred for somebody else’s god. I don’t like some of the self-centered gods of Greek mythology. I don’t care for some of the reprehensible, bloodthirsty, promiscuous, drunken gods and goddesses of the ancient Canaanites. The Hindu goddess, Kali, is ruthless and viscious. But the gods of most of this world’s major religions are fairly noble.
I cannot imagine myself stating that I HATE Billy Graham’s God or that I HATE Pope Francis’ God or that I HATE Jack Hayford’s God or that I HATE John Wimber’s God or that I HATE Charles Ryrie’s God. Where does such animosity come from?
Granted, each of these men’s theologies is significantly in error. The Catholic gospel, such as it is, probably does lead many astray. But the Catholic God, in and of himself, is nigh unto identical to my God.
I assume, Gary, that you are Protestant in orientation. And you seem to give a high degree of authority to Scripture. We SHOULD have a lot in common. Why don’t we?
John Piper is a really nice guy. My wife has met him. I had the pleasure of eating Thanksgiving dinner with his in-laws 15 or 20 years ago. His wife’s dad was a country doctor, in and about a small town south of Atlanta. She was one of ten kids. Such a neat family: down to earth and fun loving and godly. Would that my kids grow up half so fine!
Why do folks get so all fired anti-Calvinistic? My guess is that people have too anthropomorphic a view of God. When we say that God is responsible for all things, many take him, therefore, as the Author of Evil. We most decidedly maintain that he is not. He has everything in hand. He has everything under control. He is a wise and beneficent Governor, not some micro-managing, overbearing, tyrannical Despot. He has no need to be that way to accomplish his purposes. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t, in some sense, behind everything, orchestrating every detail of time and space. But it is not done like any person would do it. It is not done by coersion. God is not a control freak. He is working things out for our good. He is caring for us, protecting us, leading us, preparing the way for us, strengthening us, rescuing us, teaching us, and knocking down obstacles for us. His love is thorough. His love is proactive. His love is assertive. His love jealously guards us.
Anyone, and I mean anyone at all, who wants to come…may come. Nobody is locked out. That’s the wrong way to look at it. God is NOT unfair. Some, of their own free will, choose not to come, choose to run away, choose to live their lives as they please, choose to spit at God’s free offer of love and acceptance.
The way in which God accomplishes his purposes may not (indeed, will not) make sense to us. Why should it? He is God. He created the entire Cosmos. Why should we expect for him to do everything like a man would do it? No man CAN do it, so how would we even begin to guess how one would go about it?
At any rate, I think you’re looking at everything from the wrong standpoint.
(But remember: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him!)
😉
LikeLike
I don’t like Piper’s permanence view of marriage and the way in which he thinks it’s okay for women to endure abuse “for a season.” I can think of others, but this will suffice for now.
LikeLike
“You insist on calling Calvinism deterministic rather than compatibilistic.”
Because compatiblism is cognitive dissonance on steroids. And it ends up requiring a God with 2 wills….one that is secret. Which it seems only the philosopher kings understand for the rest of us.
For the sake of those reading, here is a short description taken from wiki:
“Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.”
So who decides if freedom is present or not? How would we know? Is there some special earthly authority who deems it so?
“Why? Compatibilism posits an antinomy between sovereignty and free will. So, you could just as easily accuse us of endorsing libertarian free will, and yet you choose not to. Why is that?”
This is nothing but trying to sell a paradox. And I do get that some of your comments are a “fishing expedition”. I know the game. Not playing
“The concept of the Trinity is an antinomy between God being One and God being Three. Do you accuse Trinitarians of being Tritheists or Unitarians? They, of course, insist that they are neither. Are you a Trinitarian? If so, you embrace mystery. Do you acknowledge the Chalcedonian Definition of christology (the hypostatic union of two natures in one person)? If so, you embrace mystery.”
I do not see a paradox at all. I believe it would behoove Christians to learn the Shema. Why on earth would I accuse Trinitarians of being Tritheists or Unitarians? Where on earth did that come from? I am confused as to where you are going with this.
What I think is that there is so much contrived pseudo intellectualism with bizarre terminology to try and explain away man’s volition that they miss the bigger meanings and the whole point. And I am not getting sucked into a debate on the Trinity with you. This is always where it goes. I think ESS is heresy. So I suppose I am now a modalist. That is usually where these convos lead.
“ere I am, reaching out my hand towards yours.”
What I am seeing are the same old fishing expeditions using the big fancy terms so popular in the Reformed world.
I am not going there because it is all man’s ST and has nothing to do with a relationship with Jesus Christ.
It took me several years to understand that when Calvinists talk about “Total Depravity” what they really mean is “Total INABILITY”. When they talk about Sovereignty of God what they really mean is man has no volition except what is allowed with compatiblism. And how does that work in practical terms. I have had some Cals tell me that man has total free will to sin. (this is so God does not look like the author of evil. How convenient)
What happens is we end up with a god that looks more like an angry Greek Pagan gods that must be appeased with blood. Not a loving sacrificial God
And this god has 2 wills, one is decretal and the other is prescriptive. What a confusing scary god. I think this god did well with illiterate peasants who were not allowed to question the priest but those days are over. Now we have google. :o)
LikeLike
Piper excommunicated his own son, Abraham. I have met him, too. I have family that went to work with him and study under him and they came back so utterly changed for the worse we did not recognize them. None of us knew the “true Gospel”. That included some precious people who spent their lives ministering in the inner cities.
Piper has probably done more damage to people’s souls than most of the charlatans who are more obvious. He isn’t. He comes off as a sort of nerdy benign pastor with lots of passion, but he most certainly is not. If you strip away all the flowery adjectives and really analyze what he is saying, there is no there, there. No real substance.
I could spend hours listing his hypocrisy and inconsistencies. He merged his Bob Jonesesque childhood with Calvinism. His video announcing himself to be a sort of 21st Century Calvin apostle was ridiculous. I cannot believe more people do not see through him. He also teaches that women should take abuse for a season. We could spend all day on his patriarchal teachings. You know, I have to be careful when a man asks for driving instructions so I do not appear to be “teaching” him.
Piper is a tiny man and I feel uses comp doctrine to make up for it.
LikeLike
“The way in which God accomplishes his purposes may not (indeed, will not) make sense to us. Why should it? ”
Because He has made it clear. That is why. Romans 1 gives us a clue:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
His “purpose” is clear from Gen 1-2. He wants to dwell with us.
LikeLike
Lydia–
The only “game” that I am playing is trying really, really hard to have a civil conversation. You’re not making that particularly easy. But hey…that’s fine.
What does ESS have to do with anything? Nobody cares about ESS one way or the other except for silly complementarians and egalitarians misusing Scripture to further their respective, misguided gender-role politics. I ceaselessly submit myself to the needs and desires of my wife and children. That’s what love is all about: competing with one another to see who can submit more. It is not this constant guarding of one’s own rights. A man’s God-given right to lead. A woman’s God-given right to equality. A plague on both your houses!
Without allowing for paradox, we can speak of one God (Unitarianism) or three gods (tritheism) but not both at once (Trinitarianism). Without paradox, we can speak of Jesus as purely human (Ebionitism/Arianism) or as purely divine (Docetism/Monarchianism) but not both at once (Chalcedonianism). Catholics and Protestants mean different things by it, but both also posit a paradox in terms of the good works we perform as Christians: they are done totally by grace and totally through human cooperation. As the nefarious Jonathan Edwards put it, “God does all, and we do all.” Talk about cognitive dissonance! (By the by, have ever tried to work out human volition using just determinism…or just libertarian free will? Talk about cognitive dissonance!)
Total depravity is the total inability to seek and to find and to obey God…on our own. Nevertheless, all of us are totally free to do anything we darn please. That’s how much freedom is compatible with compatibilism. Sorry to disabuse you of your deterministic nonsense. If you wish to seek and to find and to obey God, you totally can. You will be assisted in the journey. If you do not wish assistance–because you can do it all on your own, thank you very much–you will never make it. Most people, quite frankly, do not wish to lift a finger to move towards God, and do not desire the ability to do so.
What’s all this garbage about “fishing expeditions”? I asked you honest questions. Answer them or don’t answer them as you see fit. No one’s trying to trap you or play “gotcha” or hornswoggle you (is that a word?) or elicit information you don’t want to give. My goodness but you’re paranoid!
My hand remains extended, waiting….
LikeLike
Lydia–
If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to not play fast and loose with facts. You need to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Piper excommunicated his son Abraham for good reason, to which his son completely agrees. He also restored him to fellowship four years later after his son repented of his wanton lifestyle. Where is the big news here anyway? A preacher’s kid who went through a period of rebellion? Wow, never, ever heard of that! A preacher’s kid who same back to the faith? Can we say Franklin Graham? Tullian Tchividjian?
LikeLike
“The only “game” that I am playing is trying really, really hard to have a civil conversation. You’re not making that particularly easy. But hey…that’s fine.”
So you are a completely changed man from your first comment here? I would prefer to wrap this one up. No point.
So what was Abraham’s horrible rebellion? Is he now making bank off daddy’s name like Barnabas?
LikeLike
I think most preachers kids go through a very normal rebellion. Most are not excommunicated;
LikeLike
I think most preachers kids go through a very normal rebellion. Most are not excommunicated.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I’d just like to say I take you VERY seriously. You are intelligent, we’ll informed and extremely insightful. You combine rational understanding with an intuitive, empathic, knowledge of the nature of both wo/man and God. You project a humanness, even a God-heartedness, that is so often absent from what goes by the name of theology.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Ah, I get it. You are both Lydia and Gary W.
Brilliant!!
LikeLike
Lydia–
I think it was a fairly “normal” teenage rebellion: drinking to excess, sleeping around, claiming to be an unbeliever.
You must come from a church that doesn’t practice any real church discipline. Pretty common, sure. Doesn’t make it right. Certainly isn’t biblical. But why bother with that old rag?
I haven’t changed a whit. I have tried to play nice. You haven’t tried squat. Still as hateful as always. Full of piss and vinegar. Probably die with a scowl on your face.
But hey…that’s your choice. I had fun playing. No hard feelings.
Love ya anyhow! ❤
LikeLike
“I’d just like to say I take you VERY seriously. You are intelligent, we’ll informed and extremely insightful. You combine rational understanding with an intuitive, empathic, knowledge of the nature of both wo/man and God. You project a humanness, even a God-heartedness, that is so often absent from what goes by the name of theology”
Flattery will get you everywhere! (wink)
Seriously, to be a bit pedantic, I just want us all to know Jesus Christ personally.
I don’t want folks to get caught up, as I did, and waste precious years following some gurus who have defined Jesus for us. And if they did, they need to know others have, too.
It is a HARD ROAD back to Jesus Christ after so much indoctrination as I well know.. And a lonely road. And not all of us get there the same route. That is why places like this exist. To know we are not alone. To question. To discuss. To debate.
Some folks have a real problem with that. And the gurus despise it.
JD Hall claimed I was really Peter Lumpkins, so it fits that Hans would think I am you. Seems to go with that territory sometimes. :o)
LikeLike
“I think it was a fairly “normal” teenage rebellion: drinking to excess, sleeping around, claiming to be an unbeliever.
You must come from a church that doesn’t practice any real church discipline. Pretty common, sure. Doesn’t make it right. Certainly isn’t biblical. But why bother with that old rag?
I haven’t changed a whit. I have tried to play nice. You haven’t tried squat. Still as hateful as always. Full of piss and vinegar. Probably die with a scowl on your face.
But hey…that’s your choice. I had fun playing. No hard feelings.
Love ya anyhow! <3"
See Hans, I knew from experience this is what "holding your hand out" really meant. Been down this road too many times. Perhaps experience will teach you not to write what you really think after offering to "hold your hand out". Now, will you come back and tell me you were jesting? That is part of the typical response, too.
As to Abraham's rebellion, I would have gone to hear him preform in some of those bars because he was my son. I would have cheered on his talent. Now, I am taking that from what was written about his rebellion which all sounded like typical teenage rebellion especially for a pastors son (covenant child?)
I would not have to condone ALL behavior while maintaining a relationship. "Church discipline" is a slippery slope not well defined except for perhaps 1 Corin 5 where they were bragging about it. Many years ago when I was young I asked my mom how she would handle it if one of her children told her they were homosexual. She said, I think I would love you more because you would need it.
I am sure the rebellion was very embarrassing for Piper who made a living telling others how to think and live and expects to be obeyed and believed as an "elder"
. Perhaps that is the biggest part of the problem?
LikeLike
Lydia–
Piper is enough of a New Testament scholar that N.T. Wright takes him seriously and engages him in debate. He has an earned doctorate from the University of Munich, not some silly D. Min. He spent 6 years as a seminary prof before his pastorate at Bethlehem. Just saying.
If you think he has nothing substantial to say, you simply are no academic. No shame in that. But you certainly shouldn’t be pronouncing judgment on others.
I agree with you all that his complementarianism is a bit rough around the edges and displays tell-tale signs of a remnant patriarchalism. I’ll let him know next time I see him….
LikeLike
I agree with Lydia. I would have gone to see him perform too.
Look, the young man announced that he was not a Christian. He left the church. It was his choice. It was nasty, mean, and unnecessary to excommunicate him. He was already gone.
I have never attended a church where ‘church discipline’ was ever a thing. Just once was there a shocking event involving adultery. The two people involved never attended again and eventually married. The church members were very sad; we did our best to be supportive of the innocent spouses. No one was excommunicated; there were no thundering sermons. We knew the Ten Commandments.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Hans tells you ” I have tried to play nice. You haven’t tried squat. Still as hateful as always. Full of piss and vinegar. Probably die with a scowl on your face.”
Methinks you have utterly defeated Hans. He is golden-tongued Saruman speaking from his tower in parlay with the victorious representatives of the free people of the West. He cannot fully restrain his venom. I do not suppose it would be productive (and maybe it wouldn’t even be right) to speculate as to to which dark lord Hans is but an unwitting vassal.
Sincerely,
Gary, er I mean Lydia, uh no, I mean . . . Oh drat! it is SO difficult keeping one’s aliases straight.
LikeLike
“Piper is enough of a New Testament scholar that N.T. Wright takes him seriously and engages him in debate. He has an earned doctorate from the University of Munich, not some silly D. Min. He spent 6 years as a seminary prof before his pastorate at Bethlehem. Just saying.”
What you are saying does not follow. NT Wright takes James White seriously enough to appear on Unbelievable Radio with him. What on earth is the point? Wright has appeared in venues with atheists, too.
It could be more about celebrity than scholarship when it comes to some debates. Who is popular and who is not. Piper is all the rage so why not debate him? Piper wrote a book on how wrong I am –so why not debate him?
NT Wright seems to be one who always looks for agreement first. Not sure I agree with that but that is who he is. He is not my guru just someone I found through Piper who seemed to be saying some similar things I had come to believe myself. I find his historical scholarship fascinating and something sorely missing in most of Christendom. He seems to be able to wear the pastor/scholar quite well. That does not mean he should not be questioned! He invites it unlike other gurus.
I have this gut feeling the shoe will drop any moment on any guru. If you have been following the trajectory of some over time, you will see many of them change. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad. Piper has become quite odd and eccentric even from his earlier days before he became a household name in Christendom with his shock jockness. (Don’t waste your cancer? He had a very easily treatable cancer!). . Someone needs to take away his twitter account. His “retirement” vid from Geneva was even bizarre to some in the Reformed world! They were expecting him to announce he was going to darkest Africa to be a sort of David Livingstone missionary. Instead, he announces he will be the 21st Century -John Calvin- jet setting -global apostle. Expensive way to announce it, too, standing in front of giant Reformers statues in Geneva.
Yes, he was at Bethel, right? Where he proclaimed Boyd, who was also there, a heretic? Perhaps I have the timing/place wrong? I cannot remember how that played out.
Piper may have many degrees but I see very little scholarship but lots of shock jock emotionalism. (A seminary degree from SBTS these days is pure indoctrination. Not education)
Piper is mostly flowery verbosity with arm waving passion, crying, etc. And if you take away all his adjectives/adverbs and bizarre made up concepts such as “Christian Hedonism”, there is not a whole lot of there, there. Are you familiar with “scream of the damned”? The guy loves to shock jock and play on people’s emotions instead of encouraging actual thinking.
LikeLike
Please, let’s stick to the topics and not people.
LikeLike
Lydia–
I didn’t “fess up” to my true feelings after putting on a mask to get by your defenses. I have been hard hitting with you from the word go. Nevertheless, I have done my best to be civil about it this whole way. My outstretched hand was genuine and heartfelt. You have done nothing but slap it away.
You need to get a grip. You’re not a particularly nice person. If you were somebody else and received a comment from “Lydia,” you probably wouldn’t bother to answer back.
Look how you jumped on my supposed “confession” with an immediate “gotcha.” I told you earlier EXACTLY how this goes. You are so absolutely predictable! You’re like a child pushing buttons to see which one I’ll react to. Aha, see! Told ya you’d flinch.
Are you THAT disingenuous? THAT manipulative? Do people actually listen to you?
I am not the one playing a game here. You are. I have given you chance after chance to settle down and be civil, and you haven’t wanted to do it. You’re so busy trying to get me to be your next poster child for how gross and disgusting Calvinists always are that you’ve been unwilling to treat me like a flesh and blood human being with the slightest bit of sensitivity. If I’m not impervious to mistreatment, well, then….you’ve got me just where you wanted me.
I went to the other thread that Julie Anne suggested where I might more easily “feel the love.” There was Lydia, big as life, being derisive towards Calvinism. Don’t you ever give it a break? Is that really so much to ask?
Calvinism, as far as I am concerned (echoing Charles Spurgeon) is the very Gospel itself. It is the most precious, most beautiful thing on this earth to me. How patient am I supposed to be with people who trample it under foot like so much pig slop?
I’ll be THIS patient:
Here’s my hand again. Slap as hard as you like….
LikeLike
Gary, One hates to say it but experience counts: I will be playing nice when I start agreeing or admitting I am wrong about the gurus or the doctrine. then I am accepted.
Most of the debate in that world is basically a circular black hole variation of ad hominem. Try it on some pastors blogs. Oh boy. you would never know their blog personalities from the pulpits!
When agreement or admitting one is wrong does not happen, the invectives become the norm. If more folks would try disagreeing early on in some churches, they would find this out sooner rather than years later down the road and save themselves lots of heartache.
But many have been weaned on the churchy totalitarian niceness of platitudes and “unity” at the expense of truth. We are told debate/thinking is wrong and questioning is sinful. We want to be liked and accepted and have “Christian” community so we go along. At our own peril.
LikeLike
“Calvinism, as far as I am concerned (echoing Charles Spurgeon) is the very Gospel itself.”
I know. I find that particularly sad and it never ceases to astonish me that so many people do not see the cognitive dissonance in that quote from Spurgeon. How would anyone understand or know God if Calvin had not systematized Him for us?
LikeLike
The gospel is the gospel. If God wanted Calvin to be part of His story, I suspect He would have found a way to put him in the narrative of His holy word. To me, focusing on someone unrelated to the gospel is a distraction, and cheapens/distorts the message.
LikeLike