* * *
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,
Calvinism is so complex with so many dialects that even the Calvinist fail to have a standard to what they believe. The same could be said for Arminianism.
My experience with Neo-Reformed and Stealth Calvinist is they are more focused on a Works, Law and Sin Centered Ministry rather than Christ Centered. Which means they are focused on Self instead of redemption through the shedding of Christ blood..
The Methodology used by some heavy-handed YRR (who force feeds TULIP on Non-Calvinist Congregations) is they are repetitively focusing 2 or 3 times every service on unworthiness embracing Works and Sin Centered message behind the pulpit staying within the narrow perimeters of TULIP instead of the Bible itself.
(trust me Reformed churches focusing on works and self will never lose sight of their unworthiness even if the preacher mentions it once a month)
TULIP is narrow in my view puts more focus on man’s inabilities (self or the law) and needs to be thrown in the garbage can because the Bible is sufficient enough to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am beginning to feel like I am in the Twilight Zone here.
Hans, you announced your presence by telling us you were a Calvinist and therefore we must hate you. You are the one personalizing a discussion.
I haven’t a clue what you want from Lydia. You keep saying you have your hand out and that she hasn’t been kind to you. Lydia is an able debater. Is she supposed to stop debating you – and you keep participating in the discussion of Calvinism – and reassure you that she doesn’t dislike you or something? That usually isn’t part of the debating process.
I have been here for several months now and have been in a number of discussions with Lydia. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. I have never once felt that Lydia, (or Julie Anne, Gary, Ed, Brenda, etc.) regarded me as anything less than a sister in Christ.
LikeLike
Well, Marsha, that stands to reason because you basically agree with them. I have had this exact same experience in debating Catholics. They’ll more or less skin you alive, hand you off to the next guy, who will pound you to a pulp, and then the two of them (or three or four, or however many it is that day) will go on and on about what great debaters each of them is, how insightful, how respectful of all, far and wide.
Out of thousands of hours debating, with only a modicum of accountability to any moderator, constant insults left and right, I only remember one Catholic having the integrity to say, “This is just not right.” In the meantime, I had apologized any number of times for my own mistakes and took my own side to task over and over again.
If Lydia is such an able debater, why is she frequently taken to task on other blogs when people have had enough of her insults and more or less say, “I’m out of here. I don’t have to take this abuse.” You see what you want to see.
Marsha, I didn’t announce that you must hate me…but that it was quite evident that you DID hate me…or, at the very least, you hate my God. Several of you have been forthright enough to admit, “You know what? Yes, we do hate your God. We hate your God, and we spit on your “version” of rhe Gospel!”
You guys do not, in any way, shape, or form, display an appropriate respect for those who visit here. At the moment, even Julie Anne has joined the fray. Why? Because I have respect for an historical exegete of the Word? Somehow my agreeing with Calvin is a distraction, but her agreeing with that well-known expositor of Scripture, Julie Anne herself, is NOT a distraction? I agree with Calvin because and only because Calvin agrees with Paul. You all are not at all serious about proper hermeneutics, not at all serious about iron sharpening iron. You all are not skilled in the languages, not educated on the history of Christian thought, not trained in philosophy or theology or archeology or sociology or literature…and yet you pontificate as if you should have the last word on every topic. There is no humility here.
I wish Lydia would come after me full force with the best arguments she has in her arsenal. Instead, she has been misinformed or, at best, poorly informed every step of the way, ostensibly getting her info from wikipedia, not responding at all when corrected….but merely repeating the same old, same old ad nauseum. She is a HORRIBLE debater. One of the worst I’ve seen in some time. She seems to think, with all the vast array of the internet at her fingertips, she doesn’t need to have first gotten a foundation, some technical training or background, to be skilled enough to make use of all that data. If she doesn’t learn how to interact with others, especially those who don’t agree with her, she will never improve.
Sorry for blowing up at everybody. I got absolutely no sleep last night. I’m a stay-at-home dad with several toddlers under my care, and they were getting into EVERYTHING this morning!!! They got on my very last nerve, and then I turned to…
Scratch that, silly me. We all know that it’s my Calvinism that made me so irritable. Every Calvinist I know is an ogre, just like me.
Hello…uh…my name is Hans…and I’m a…a…a Calvinist. It’s been 114 days now since I last touched either volume of my copy of the “Institutes.” I know, I know…I should just go ahead and burn them, but I just haven’t been able to make myself do it. The desire to read is still just so strong I can hardly stand it!
God, grant me the serenity….
LikeLike
Hans,
My son-in-law is a Neo-Reformed Calvinist our conversations are civilized. You must of over-looked my 8:24 comment to you.
I have purposed the same concerns to him about YRR’s embracing a Works, Doubt, Law and Sin Centered Methodology above a Christ Centered as I have to you.
Many Calvinist and Catholics are so over-focused on Works, Unworthiness (or Self) above what Christ did for us.
I would appreciate your response of what kind of Calvinist you are? There are several different versions, that you may not even know the answer to that question.
I say that because even the Academic Reformed Neo-Calvinist fail to embrace a standard or Methodology for Calvinist to follow. I have run across some Calvinist that embrace 3 or 4 Points of TULIP. Some embrace heavy-handed Methodologies and others don’t.
With toddlers you sound like you may be close to the same age as my son-in-law who has toddlers as well..
LikeLike
“If Lydia is such an able debater, why is she frequently taken to task on other blogs when people have had enough of her insults and more or less say, “I’m out of here. I don’t have to take this abuse.” You see what you want to see.”
Hans, I would really appreciate a link or reference concerning the “insults”.
LikeLike
I agree with Lydia that Calvinism misinterprets the Bible. There are other things I disagree with Lydia about, as I told you.
Hans, I don’t hate you. Why would I? You have the right to believe what you believe and to disagree with me. I can’t think of anyone I hate.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about hating ‘your God’ because there is only God and I don’t hate Him. I just think that Calvinists and the TULIP doctrines are incorrect.
You feel insulted but feel free to tell us we lack knowledge in numerous areas. Interestingly, one of them is sociology. I have a Ph.D. in sociology from Bryn Mawr College which was rated as one of the top five programs in the field when I got it. (They don’t currently have a doctoral program in sociology).
I am not an academic Bible scholar but I have studied the Bible and continue to do so as I am sure you do.
LikeLike
Hans,
If you could review my 10:36 a.m. statement I would appreciate it. Sounds like you have your hands full.
LikeLike
All:
Really, really embarrassed. I still have touches of post-concussive syndrome left over from an automobile accident (closed-head injury, my skull cracked the windshield). I know better than to get on the internet after I have had no sleep. I can get inordinately ticked off for absolutely no good reason. Of course, 15-month old triplets climbing the walls doesn’t help matters….
I grabbed a little sleep, but I better wait till tomorrow to answer anybody in depth. So sorry.
Mark–
I’m not sure it’ll help you to know my fairly idiosyncratic take on things. I don’t particularly care for the testosterone-driven YRR crowd. (I looked into Acts 29 at one point but came away disillusioned.) I’m “Old School” but pretty much Pietistic (New Light/New Side). I love most of Old Princeton, but not all of it. I’m more Westminster-Philadelphia than Westminster-California. I’m baptistic but sacramental…so I don’t really quite fit with the Reformed Baptists. I’m high church on top of it all. (I don’t mind the Regulative Principle but don’t really buy into it.) Mega churches bug me. I wouldn’t mind a very few of them to provide resources, but churches, by and large should be more like families than corporations.
I don’t know what to tell you about Neo-Calvinists being more law than gospel oriented. I’m sure a few are, but it is not a characteristic of Calvinism in general. Some Calvinists (Steve Brown, Tullian Tchividjian) are “free grace” guys…which may be what you’re talking about in terms of being “Christ” centered. More Calvinists side with John McArthur and Lordship Salvation. Personally, I think a balance needs to be found between the two camps.
At times we need to focus on works. They are produced in us by Christ himself through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, so they can hardly be considered opposed to a focus on Christ. As to our unworthiness, it’s something to be aware of but nothing to beat ourselves up about. I think the lyrics to one of the verses of “beneath the Cross of Jesus” get it about right:
“Upon that cross of Jesus mine eye at times can see
The very dying form of One Who suffered there for me;
And from my stricken heart with tears two wonders I confess;
The wonders of redeeming love and my unworthiness.”
The concept of our unworthiness is merely a trigger to get us to think on his grace. It is (or should be) wholly Christ focused. Unworthiness is thus a wonder, not a quagmire. (Not a Slough of Despond, to cite “Pilgrim’s Progress.”)
It’s actually not helpful to speak of three and four-point “Calvinists.” TULIP was originally a response to the Dutch Remonstrants, who had come up with their own five points. Thomists are basically 4-point tulip’ers, leaving off the “p.” Dispensationalists (most Baptists) are 4-point tulip’ers, leaving out the “l” (just as Amyraldianism had, before them). Classical Arminians leave off everything but the “t.” So these are really just various soteriologies matched up against the Calvinistic paradigm. Only 5-point tulip’ers should be considered Calvinists.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Bryn Mawr’s a great school! One of my sisters-in-law went there. She became a neonatal nurse.
I have great respect for the field of sociology. Do you feel it helps you in your study of Scripture?
LikeLike
Lydia–
I didn’t notate the sites in any way. I certainly should never have mentioned them. I’ll try and backtrack and find them if that would be helpful to you. I’m really very sorry.
LikeLike
Hans
Triplets? Triple the fun.
The way you described yourself as a 5 Pointer, it looked like you were suggesting that there may different versions within the 5 Point Calvinistic School who embrace different interpretations of TULIP which I believe is the catalyst of their Methodologies.
(including the described testosterone driven YRR)
I think you may be minimizing the size of the YRR including the aggressive heavy-handed New Calvinist/Reformed movements. They embrace their abusive Methodology of force feeding TULIP more than they embrace the Message of the Bible.
In my view we shouldn’t even be referencing TULIP (which is inspired by man), because we have the whole Bible, instead of isolating the Gospel. I have the impression even those that believe in TULIP don’t interpret TULIP the same way, which makes Calvinism more complicated even among the Calvinist..
My former Stealth Reformed Pastor split the first 2 churches he tenured.
LikeLike
Yes, I do feel sociology helps me in my study of scripture.
You know, some years ago I was home all the time because my first husband had a neurodegenerative disorder. It caused him to regress to a child-like state of self absorption. He wanted what he wanted when he wanted it. He had tantrums. He was jealous of my spending time with my mother or female friends, even just taking a phone call. So I didn’t get out much. My physical health began to suffer.
I spent time in medical support chat rooms and joined an email list for people who were dealing with the disease. I made some lifelong friends but not everyone was supportive. Because I was so isolated, I would be devastated for days when someone dismissed a comment I made. I took hours to write my own emails, hoping to say things just right.
Just saying that I know what it’s like to be home, not feel well, and be isolated from adult interaction except for the Internet.
LikeLike
Mark–
As far as I know, no studies have been done to even know how many Calvinists are YRR as opposed to Theonomist, Federal Vision, Old School, New School, Baptistic, and Liberal. Back around 15 to 20 years ago, I remember being told that Calvinism represented 1% of Evangelicalism (80% was Dispensational). Evangelicalism represents about 25% of the U.S., so you do the math. (Even if Calvinists have grown 400%, we’d still only be 1% of the population. Hardly worth the hysteria.)
Furthermore, New Calvinism isn’t monolithic in terms of beliefs. It’s mostly made up of Acts 29 macho types and Sovereign Grace charismatics. Acts 29 is mostly Baptists with a few PCA guys thrown in for good measure. They listen to preachers like Piper and Dever and Driscoll and Chandler and Mohler, etc., but these preachers are not necessarily YRR themselves, and many other (non-YRR) Calvinists listen to them, as well. Plus, there are also the pseudo-Reformed theologies in the mix, influencing a lot of these “young Turks.” Christian Reconstruction (Theonomy) is not accepted by mainstream Evangelical Calvinists. Neither is the Federal Vision movement. Neither is Mike Bickel and his International House of Prayer (IHOP) which claims to be Reformed but is quite clearly a cult. And so many young, untrained guys have been sucked up into such groups.
Though it has grown by leaps and bounds, Calvinism is still a tiny movement numerically. Julie Anne talks about the Reformed influence on the Homeschooling movement, but this is still primarily through textbooks and software and conferences. The huge majority of homeschoolers are Fundamentalists and Charismatics. They are uneducated, by and large, and often turn to others for materials. Doug Wilson’s influence is first and foremost through his network of classical private schools and only secondarily in homeschooling.
Homeschooling is often a serious problem. I know kids who are functionally illiterate as a result of being “educated” by functionally illiterate parents. (Of course, then, I know others who have been educated far beyond their peers by gifted parents.) It is just a shame how dysfunctional most of the public schools are. (Lydia speaks of the horrors of “indoctrination” at a denominational school like SBTS, where the students know exactly what they’re getting into before they go. Most of them come specifically TO BE indoctrinated!! It’s what they want. Religious kids do not go to public school to be indoctrinated, but it’s what they get, nevertheless.)
LikeLike
Mark–
By the way, you’re assuming that your straightforward reading of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit….but that Calvin’s interpretation was “man-centered.”
You can get rid of the memory or John Calvin and his teachings and yet never eradicate Calvinism. It’s right there in Scripture. You want to get rid of it, you’re going to have to rewrite whole sections of Scripture.
I have know people who have become Calvinists without knowing anything about John Calvin or Calvinism. They read Scripture. When they are finally instructed in Calvinism, they’ll say, “But that’s what I already believe. That’s what Scripture teaches!”
Without TULIP, without the Institutes, without the Westminster Confession of Faith…was their interpretation also “man-centered”?
LikeLike
Marsha–
Thanks for understanding. Realize, however, that in some ways you are on the outside looking in, so there are aspects you may never be able to understand. Any kind of mental illness, in this country, is looked upon almost like leprosy was once viewed. Never mind that neurological deficits are ubiquitous. They’re as prevalent as the common cold, but most people are in denial. I have never known anyone I thought was in perfect emotional/psychological health. (I worked in the Mental Health field for something like 15 years.)
Perhaps you remember Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern’s short-term running mate back in 1972. It was revealed that he had had shock therapy for depression, and he was removed from the ticket. (He was fine. He served anorher 15 years in the Senate, and then was a college professor for nearly 20 years!)
But people run scared. They get as far away as they can. They boldly discriminate in hiring and firing. And because these things can be difficult to demonstrate or even diagnose, the government also discriminates in terms of vocational rehabilitation, unemployment, disability, and the like. In terms of post-concussive syndrome, it used to be that many neurologists would dismiss it as psychosomatic because nothing definitive showed up on an MRI. It might be somewhat different now, with all the well-publicized problems professional athletes are having with concussions, I don’t know.
My problems were bad for about six months: wild mood swings, vertigo, dizzyness, tinnitus, and an inability to concentrate. Anything that goes longer than nine months is usually permanent. I still have mild tinnitus, difficulty in focusing for long stretches at a time, and a modicum of emotional instability when I get exceedingly tired. In spite of these limitations, I finished off a Master’s degree, including a 200+ page thesis. I don’t have any residual cognitive difficulties, other than that research activities take longer than they used to.
(You, of course, went through some situationally-induced depression. That’s not looked upon with quite as much opprobrium. Bipolar runs in my family. My father actually went through shock treatments. A couple of my sisters went through episodes of severe depression, as well as anorexia/bulemia.)
LikeLike
Hans,
I know it’s been days since you said this, but…
You said:
“Every single denomination I have ever come across has a statement of faith.”
The following is all we need in regards to the statement of faith:
I reject the Nicene Creed. I reject the Apostles creed, which states:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
I do not believe in the holy catholic church, even tho it is not capitalized. In other words, I do not believe in the holy “universal” church. I do not believe in a universal church.
——————————-
I believe in God the Father
I believe in Jesus Christ
I believe in the Holy Spirit
I believe in the crucifixion
I believe in the resurrection
I believe he’s coming back again.
LikeLike
Ed–
You reject the Roman Catholic Church and then endorse a creed which they would have no problem agreeing with. What’s with that?
And not only them. Your creed could be accepted by all of the following:
The Mormons
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The United Pentecostals (T.D. Jakes’ denomination)
Westboro Baptist Church (good old Fred Phelps)
World Church of the Creator (antisemitic, racist, neo-Nazi)
Lakewood Church (Joel Osteen’s church)
And many, many more like these. Are you really OK with Modalism and Arianism and Mariolatry and the Prosperity Gospel, as well as vocal antisemitism and flagrant racism and viscious homophobia and unbridled misogyny and clandestine polygamy?
Well, then, you’re not my kind of a Christian…if you are a Christian at all.
LikeLike
Julie Anne and Lydia–
Concerning your comments that the “gospel is the gospel” and any kind of systematization is extraneous, distracting, and distorting….
Distorting what? How can anything be distorted which is not first defined?
Would you really completely negate the collective wisdom of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, Cranmer, and on and on?
The only groups which take stances such as yours are either [1.] anti-intellectual (e.g., fundamentalist Baptists… who take Luther’s quote literally that “reason is the Devil’s whore,” not bothering to send ministerial candidates to seminary) or [2.] reliant first and foremost on the Holy Spirit for interpretation (Pentecostal groups who prioritize new prophetic revelation over Holy Writ) or [3.] dismissive of Scripture altogether (liberal groups who fashion their tenets according to contemporary ethical and political standards and make the Bible comply).
So, which of the three is either of you?
LikeLike
Hans,
I guess that the Newsboys are not your kind of Christians either, especially since they believe in choice.
But all is needed is to believe. Unfortunately, you don’t believe that. So, you must think that you must DO something.
But there is nothing to add to believe. So, what is it, then Hans, Believe Plus What?
You said:
“Are you really OK with Modalism and Arianism and Mariolatry and the Prosperity Gospel, as well as vocal antisemitism and flagrant racism and viscious homophobia and unbridled misogyny and clandestine polygamy”
My response:
I believe in ONE BEING playing the role of ONE GOD, and that ONE BEING is Jesus Christ. If that is what you call Modelism, so be it. Arianism hates Jews, so scratch that one from my list. And what does the Mario Brothers have to do with anything?
And, I guess that you don’t believe in BLESSINGS with THINGS? Prosperity. Nothing wrong with BLESSINGS. Nothing wrong with THINGS. Job was rich, was he not? And, after God took it all away, he got twice as much as he had before. Are you jealous? Do you think that we should walk around like Mother Theresa, wearing the same ole worn out clothes for decades, faking piety?
Mark 10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
And as far as Pentecostals, yes, the gifts are for today, and the gifts will not cease until “that which is perfect returns”. Jesus hasn’t come back yet. When he does, there will be no need for speaking in tongues, or prophesying, or miracles!
What I am trying to get at, is that Abraham believed. That is all he had to do.
His actions were based on his belief. He believed, so he lived out his life knowing that what God said was true. He had no doubts. All he did was believe.
But people like your religion want to add to believe. Believe Plus Deluxe Package.
Just believe God.
And live your life like Abraham. Not John Calvin. Not Ole John MacArthur had a farm, Not Dr., who wears no stethoscope around his neck James White, etc.
Abraham.
Ed
LikeLike
How come the Calvinists are the ones to LIMIT choice?
Hans came up with 3 choices. Why is there ONLY three?
That’s like the Calvinists ONLY having three choices in religious protestant discussions 1. Pelicans 2. Artesians 3. Calvinists.
Why only 3?
And why is it only from the Calvinsts the following phrases: 1. Straw man argument 2. ad hominem.
You can always tell that you are debating a Calvinist when he uses those two phrases.
Why 3, Hans?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
When I was a Calvinist I was constantly frustrated that being a Christian didn’t seem to make much difference in my life in terms of character, in terms of becoming more Christ-like. Whether it had to do with my Calvism in particular I am reluctant to say, but I absolutely had to die to my devotion to theology and turn to the Person of Jesus before He began to work transformation in my life.
It became apparent that what was essential was not right thinking, but the recognition of and repentance from sin, the giving and acceptance of forgiveness, and, alas, the rendering of restitution.
Not that I have arrived, of course, but, once again, one of the things that absolutely had to happen before He began to work sanctification and transformation in my life was that I had to renounce my sin of devotion to theology. It is not that I have become anti-intellectual, far from it. It is just that I have had to shift my attention from that truth which turns out to be but straw to the One Who IS Truth.
LikeLike
In my previous comment I mentioned the need for (again, alas) the rendering of restitution. Apologizing is not enough. Aplogizing may actually magnify the harm caused by the one apologizing. Making restitution restores the person we have injured. It also writes on our own hearts the sinfulness of the bad thing we have done–which in turn helps us to identify with, and actually experience, the pain the other person feels. It makes us less likely to commit the same sin again.
Mere apologies actually tend to be self focused. That is, they are not intended to undo the harm caused so much as they are designed to absolve the offender from the consequences of their sin. An apology may be called for, but apologies without restitution tend to be narcissistic in nature. Whether I was made aware of it here or on another blog I do not recall, but here is a very good article on the self-centered, self-absolving, narcissistic nature of most apologies:
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/05/narcissistic-apologies/
It is not always easy to determine what restitution is called for. Within reason, the injured person gets to say. It is clear,however, that restitution must never be rendered in a manner that imposes a burden on the one to whom restitution is due. It cannot even be accompanied by an expectation that relationship will be restored. If the injured person willing accepts the restoration of relationship, well and good, but the offender may never demand or even expect it.
LikeLike
“When I was a Calvinist I was constantly frustrated that being a Christian didn’t seem to make much difference in my life in terms of character, in terms of becoming more Christ-like. Whether it had to do with my Calvism in particular I am reluctant to say, but I absolutely had to die to my devotion to theology and turn to the Person of Jesus before He began to work transformation in my life.”
Same here, Gary. It just never made sense to me when I was in it. I wanted to understand what the early church believed and did quite a bit of research but am not really scholarly enough to put it together. There was a Gnostic tension even before Augustine. Augustine was simply so prolific in his writings and his confession so compelling (in Latin as from what I can ascertain he could not read Greek) that it spread like wildfire.
A few years ago, I came across this video. I know nothing about this guy and am not endorsing him or his ministry. I simply looked at the research he presents about the historical beginnings of the early church and the tensions with Gnosticism. I had come across many of the same things.
http://tinyurl.com/nqubl4n
I came to my conclusion when I was really wrestling with the whole free will/total depravity (total inability) dichotomy: What entity would love for us to believe we cannot help but sin and that is it ok? I believe the evil one wants us to believe this about ourselves even count it as Christianity. (There is also the whole issue of what is sin as the Gnostics believed our very existence is sin….This was introduced to Christianity as “imputed guilt” and is under Augustine’s umbrella of “original sin”)
Even the reason for the Cross has been perverted because of Gnosticism. We have an angry god that must be appeased with the blood sacrifice of his son (who ends up being a lesser god in that construct). Instead of a Sacrificial God who wants relationship with us and even modeled for us how to be “human”.
The arguments end up being a false dichotomy of sinless perfection or total depravity. Both wrong roads when the right road is growing in Holiness. What is lost is the human beings responsibility for their beliefs, actions, behaviors, deeds. In the Gnostic construct (Augustine/Calvin most of Protestantism), The responsibility for our behavior and beliefs falls on God, And not His created beings. I believe the evil one loves it that so many actually believe this. I believe the evil one wants us to believe we are incapable of not doing wrong to others and that is ok with God. He hung on the cross so we could remain sinners.
(they believe this in terms of irresistible grace, total depravity, etc)
When we take human choice and responsibility out of the equation, we get Gnosticism in whatever form it takes. And we end up not looking all that different from unbelievers except we have an excuse and “believe correct doctrine” so we get a pass.
Do we miss a clue that after Augustine, church history is pretty much an evil bloody mess in the Name of Christ? Even Augustine wanted to wipe out the Donatists because they had a problem taking communion from corrupt priests! Augustine argued the priests had correct doctrine and that is what mattered! (Where have we heard that before?)
LikeLike
Lydia,
Yeah, here’s a clue: Our Lord shed His blood that others might be saved. With maybe some happy individual exceptions, the post-Augustinian “church” has a history of shedding others’ blood that it might be served. Sometimes the shedding of blood has not been literal, yet to hate is still to murder.
LikeLike
Gary–
Earlier you said:
“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.”
This is certainly nastier than anything I have said, and probably nastier than anything your monstrous stealth guy ever uttered. Since an apology is not nearly enough, I will be requiring reparation from you. And since, as you say, to hate is to murder, the restitution demanded will be significant indeed.
😉
LikeLike
Lydia–
Do you really get all your theological info from youtube and wikipedia?
Well, here’s some info on Mr. Jesse Morrell, that giant of the theological world:
http://www.puregospeltruth.com/the-heretical-theology-of-jesse-morrell-of-open-air-outreach.html
And here’s a link that will demonstrate that some of the exact same ECF’s whom Morrell cited, can be called on to testify for a more Augustinian take on things:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
You actually claim to be not that terribly scholarly yourself and then deign to criticize the scholarly work of John Piper, whose academic work you have probably not even read. Most of his published writings are on the popular level.
How would you know if there is substance to works you haven’t even read?
LikeLike
Gary:
You wrote:
“When I was a Calvinist I was constantly frustrated that being a Christian didn’t seem to make much difference in my life in terms of character, in terms of becoming more Christ-like. Whether it had to do with my Calvinism in particular I am reluctant to say, but I absolutely had to die to my devotion to theology and turn to the Person of Jesus before He began to work transformation in my life.”
But, Gary, for many of us, myself included, our experience is the exact opposite. Our spiritual lives came alive when we became Calvinists. Our devotion, our righteousness, our passion for Christ skyrocketed. Methinks you did not have a proper grasp on Reformed theology.
LikeLike
Ed–
I could only come up with three. You got another option in mind? Please, share it.
And then kindly tell me which applies to you.
LikeLike
Ed–
Just believe, you say.
Believe what?
Just believe.
In order to what?
LikeLike
Hans, Years back I read Kevin Giles and he pointed out how Bruce Ware at SBTS edited a quote by Athanasius to try and prove he affirmed ESS. I simply did not believe it so I did my own homework. Yes, Ware DID edit the quote to prove his position was supported by Athanasius. To say I was shoked a prof at SBTS did that is to put it mildly. Now I know better.
I don’t believe anything until I check it for myself. You can try to convince me of how stupid I am but I already know that– which is why I test everything. I think that is wisdom.
I have already said I was not endorsing Morrel. Only that I had done much of the same research and agreed with that particular video. But yet, I am to take seriously a site that calls itself “apuritansmind”. No thanks, they were known to burn women and Quakers!
LikeLike
“How would you know if there is substance to works you haven’t even read?”
What in particular have I not read? I have read most of Piper, for example, so not sure exactly what you are referring to. I was big into Calvinism at one time and devoured quite a bit. I was real big into the old dead guys…including Puritans. A scary lot who if you read enough of them and their history, you realize it is being repeated with the demeanor of those in the Neo Cal resurgence!. Thank goodness most of the Puritan descendants left Puritanism. (many became Universalists!~) If they had not, there would have been no Founding Fathers who had read Locke.
LikeLike
“there would have been no Founding Fathers who had read Locke.”
And people like Hans would be oppressing us, not entertaining us.
LikeLike
Hans,
The difference between my statement at which you have taken umbrage and your nasty invective, for which you choose to blame your children and your concussion, is that what I said is true. I make no apologies and offer no restitution.
LikeLike
Gary–
That’s quite alright. By now, I expect most people to have no comprehension of nor tolerance for neurological difficulties. It is an acceptable bigotry.
Calvinists are a tiny minority of the population, and, evidently, the objects of another acceptable bigotry.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Every side of the debate is guilty of doctoring quotes from the ECF’s, so I commend your supposed diligence in checking contexts. Since you had no idea who Morell was and didn’t bother to check my quotes for accuracy, I don’t happen to believe you ever check anything.
You clearly haven’t read Piper’s recent book-length response to N.T. Wright, “The Future of Justification,” or you would know the difference between his scholarly and popular works.
You’re just a pretender, aren’t you?
LikeLike
Heh, heh.
Hans most definitely fits the profile. Entertaining indeed.
LikeLike
Gary, I live at ground zero so I know the black hole well.
LikeLike
“You’re just a pretender, aren’t you?”
Obviously. And worse, a female.
LikeLike
Interesting read: http://sharperiron.org/article/why-im-not-calvinist-or-arminian-part-1
LikeLike
Gary–
Who says that what you say is true? You?
I’m guessing I could do that easily enough. Here I go:
“Everything I said about you is true, Gary.”
So, now, I don’t owe you an apology. Is that how things work in your mind?
Explain to me again how narcissism works. A narcissist is someone who thinks more of his or her own version of the truth than the other person’s suffering. Something like that?
Kind of like when someone belittles someone else’s neurological deficits? Or someone else’s (Piper’s) prostate cancer? (Matt Chandler, by the way, recovered from brain cancer. Lydia, no doubt, thinks that’s about as serious as a migraine headache. Just a walk in the park, huh, Lydia?)
You guys are callous and narrow and incredibly hypocritical. And that’s the God’s truth.
LikeLike
I’m not liking the tone I’m seeing here. Can you all just bring it down some, please? It’s not good debate etiquette to get personal.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Just because you like to tell whoppers gives you no excuse to accuse me of misogyny. Misrepresenting oneself is not a female trait. Have you been painted into a corner?
LikeLike
Please get back to the original topic. Personal comments will be removed.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Thanks for stepping in. It has been the contention of Lydia and Gary and Ed that not only are “all Cretans liars,” but that all Calvinists are evil, brainless, mean-spirited debutantes. And that our God is nothing but a hateful monster, and that the godly Puritans were sick, twisted sadists.
They have been down this road before, they say, so they know of what they speak. Even though I was thoroughly respectful to them, they still came at me tooth and nail. According to them, no Calvinist could possibly be hospitable or kind. Well, Julie, I’m a human being, and a sick, tired, and stressed one at that. Just how long am I supposed to hold out in the face of such treatment?
By the way, the linked article is well written though I think it more than a little pretentious to call one’s own interpretation “biblicist.” Everyone thinks their position biblical, elsewise they wouldn’t hold to it. His position, the Amyraldian or Dispensational position, can indeed be logically situated between Arminianism and Calvinism. I’m not sure that there is any advantage to being any particular color on the spectrum. Truth does not necessarily lie at the extremes or deadset in the middle.
LikeLike
Hans – I’ve seen the stuff going back and forth on both sides. When it gets to this level, it’s just not cool..
I strongly dislike labels and I think it causes more divisions and hurt feelings than good. Labeling someone as a Calvinist and deciding you know what they believe based on that label will get people in trouble. The only way you are going to know someone’s doctrinal belief is if they tell you point by point. One person’s claim of Calvinism might look completely different to another’s version. I am sad that there is so much unnecessary debating going on because of doctrine.
If I were to base things on labels, I would have lost my friend, Michelle, long ago. I’m glad we took the time to really get to know one another and to respect our differences. We have the kind of relationship that will last for ever and I treasure that.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I take it that you are not fond of conflict. You’re like my wife in that way. (It’s our seven-year wedding anniversary today. What a blessing she has been in my life!)
Conflict doesn’t bother me all that much. I was the “mediator” in my family growing up. I almost enjoy getting into the middle of a scrap, figuring out what started it, figuring out how to end it. You said that “when it gets to this level, it’s just not cool.” I can only assume you meant when it gets to this level of COMBAT, things have gone too far. Fair enough. But this began early on. It got to this level of ILL FEELING early on. You just didn’t notice it.
In order to avoid a charge of narcissism by focusing on my own suffering, I’ll document my point by describing what happened to Kevin earlier on in this thread. Very nice fellow. Well mannered and gentle. Alas and Alack, he was a Calvinist. Poor guy didn’t know what he was getting himself into.
In you all’s dialogue with him, the Calvinist God was called a puppet master, a reprobate monster, and a megalomaniacal murdering psychopath. Calvinists were described as cold, hard, money-grubbing, loveless, unwise, and abusive theocrats who mindlessly parrot the party line with predictable proof texts. Calvinism was characterized as aggressive, frightening, cult-like, and “of the devil,” necessarily producing cognitive dissonance in the addled brains of its adherents. Kevin himself was likened to rank-and-file WWII Germans taken in by the masterful propaganda of Herr Goebbels. He was blind, unthinking, blasphemous, disingenuous, adept at taking things “out of context,” and constantly employed “intellectual sleight of hand.” He had been “indoctrinated,” had no original thoughts, deflected criticism rather than facing it, and had never learned proper logic.
Now, I must admit, he got kind of feisty himself, at least twice or even three times calling his interlocutors “wrong.” And once going so far as to ask if he were in Twilight Zone because no one seemed to understand what he was saying. Oh, my!
This whole thread has been caustic…and caustic basically on one side and one side alone. And you, Julie Anne, as moderator, are to blame. You may not care to hear that. But it is true, nonetheless.
So don’t throw out any of this “both sides” stuff. It’s simply not the case.
(In terms of “labels,” it’s wrong to pigeonhole and stereotype people; that’s for sure. But, more generally, labels are not the culprit. They merely describe divisions which are already there. Often, it does a world of good to declare one’s allegiances because it can clear away a lot of confusion and let dialogue partners know where you stand. If you mistrust the opposition to such an extent that you cannot be aboveboard with the details of your particular belief system, then you’re not yet ready for ecumenical endeavors. Just like jargon in any technical field acts as a shortcut to get into the meat of issue, doctrinal terminology is indispensable to any kind of deep theological discussion. Labels help one go farther faster with much more clarity.)
It isn’t labels you need to avoid, but disrespect. One of my very best friends is unapologetically Arminian. She is one of my closest confidants. She was in my wedding, and I was in hers. (In fact, she said that if I had been female, she would have picked me as a bridesmaid…an odd compliment, but…there it is. I sang instead.)
LikeLike
I’m not sure why your comment went to moderation, Hans, sorry!
I don’t mind the debates, I mind the personal digs. I’ve seen some of it and hoped it would resolve, but it’s continuing.
I’m only one person moderating and I’m sure I miss stuff – – and especially on this old thread which is like the song that never ends . . . . and goes on and on my friends.
Fine, blame me. I don’t care. If you come to debate, I hope you have your big boy panties on and can deal with it. As far as both sides – I’m referring to the current debate with you 4 or so.
LikeLike
Hans is anxious to avoid a charge of narcissism. While I thought I detected some narcissistic elements in an apology Hans issued earlier, I do not think I have enough expertise, or facts, to say whether Hans is or is not a narcissist. Even if I could make such an assessment it would not be productive to post it here. However, if Hans is interested in conducting a bit of self examination, this information on the Mayo Clinc website might be a good starting point:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568
LikeLike
Well, color me confused. I guess I am a bit dense but thought I had purposely stayed away from the sort of targeted personal invective Hans has consistently used on me. Yet, I am painted as in the same category. Coming from an org development background, I will say that mass rebukes do not work. The folks who are not guilty will be offended and those who are guilty won’t get it. Or, some gravitate to the “all sins are equal” defense. A horror for victims when we accept such a thing.
This is usually how this ends up because of the need for some sort of false unity and discomfort discussing doctrine and how it drives behaviors in evangelicalism.
Since spiritual abuse happens in many venues of evangelicalism, why would it be wrong to discuss what doctrines we hold to that drive such behavior? I saw horrible spiritual abuse in the seeker movement. While they hold to a form of free will they tend to view the cross as cheap grace for future sinning. They also have redefinitions of sin. And while they hid it better and do not make it a Gospel condition, they are big into hierarchy/celebrity and a sort of spiritual caste system. All those things are systematized into Calvinism so they don’t have to hide it as much. They simply call it biblical.
If we never discuss the WHY of spiritual abuse then what good does it really do victims? They can spend their lives looking for the right church or the right leaders but it all boils down to WHO is Jesus Christ and What is He all about? And you cannot go there without looking at Who He is NOT and what He is NOT about when it comes to us humans.
JA, btw–did you happen to see Braxton’s List that his uncle published? My guess is it will be censored by many now that JD Hall has been exonerated by the bloggers.
LikeLike
No, can you send me a link, pls?
LikeLike
I do not think I have ever been unkind to any poster on SBB let alone Hans.
I remain convinced that Calvinist doctrine is in error. I do not believe that God damns some human beings before they are even born. Why did he let them be born at all then? That would be cruel. And if you happen to be one of the unchosen, no amount of repentence and calling out to Jesus will save you, according to Calvin. If I thought that my future was settled before I was even born, I think I would just live my life outside of any religion; what is the point if there is nothing I can do about it? If Calvinists think that doctrine is correct that is their business but that it not how I read the Bible and thankfully, not how I see God. I am now done discussing this.
LikeLike
The first time I heard that explained to me, Marsha, I thought – – ummmm, that is NOT my Christianity. What on earth? And then this particular person showed me verses to back it up and it got me thinking – – – really? But it doesn’t make sense. No, I cannot and will not ever believe that line of thinking because to me, it negates so much of what I learned in scripture about God loving the world – – that whoever believes in Him should have everlasting life.
LikeLike
http://sbctoday.com/braxtons-list/
LikeLike
Opps, that was a reprint:
http://www.christianindex.org/9680.article
LikeLike
Marsha–
According to Calvinism, ANYONE who wishes to repent may do so. And ANYONE calling out to Jesus will be heard by our merciful Savior. You’re responding to a caricature of Calvinism, not the real thing.
LikeLike
Gary–
So, we get to play armchair psychologist?.One of my favorite games!
Unfortunately, on your turn, you scored a complete miss. I checked through every symptom, and I didn’t even come close to marching a single one. Better luck next time. Go fish!
OK, my turn: I think I’ll diagnose you with… histrionic personality disorder!
Symptoms:
Constantly seeking attention
Excessively emotional, dramatic or sexually provocative to gain attention
Speaks dramatically with strong opinions, but few facts or details to back them up
Easily influenced by others
Shallow, rapidly changing emotions
Excessive concern with physical appearance
Thinks relationships with others are closer than they really are
Let me know how I did, alright?
You made my day. This is a blast! 😉
LikeLike
Marsha–
By the way,you are so right. You have been very, very kind. I have noted it at every step, and I have very much appreciated it.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I really wasn’t trying to come down on you. It is incredibly difficult to moderate a blog. Quite generally, it’s a no-win situation. And I understood clearly that you intended your opprobrium for the four of us in our recent squabble.
I just wanted to know why you decided to weigh in now. If I were running a blog, I would go out of my way to avoid even the appearance of taking sides. You did NOT respond to some heavy-hitting ridicule coming from the “Armjnian” side…and only chose to make your presence felt when someone had the gall to stand up to them.
Conflict doesn’t bother me all that much partly because often, things break out into a fight only when a wronged individual stands up for himself or herself. I’m sure things would would go more smoothly for abusive churches and the pastors who lead them if you never got involved in exposing their hurtful behaviors.
LikeLike
Please, Hans, don’t try to do some counting on when I step in to moderate. The reality is that I cannot read all the posts and I’m sure I miss some. I stepped in when I saw it happening on both sides. I don’t even care about sides when I’m moderating, I just don’t like it when it goes personal.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Fine, but that’s just silly. I got on this thread specifically because I saw Calvinists being abused with no oversight from you. Whether you believe it or not. You’re taking sides. At least that’s what your actions (or lack thereof) are saying.
You cannot hide behind this whole, “I’m just letting people vent,” when it is consistently and prevalently the anti-Calvinist side which it venting. Do you wish to be known as an anti-Calvinist site? Do you agree with Gary that you all should be out to “destroy Calvinism”?
I like you. I really like you. I like your purposes for this site. For the most part, I have no quarrel with your methodologies. Why can’t you just admit that in at least a few ways you’ve allowed the site to become uncharitable towards certain groups, without cause?
The very nature of a “survivors blog” is conducive to such happenings. People who are abused themselves have a tendency to abuse others. They also have a tendency to become hypersensitive and see abuse where none exists. Or they attribute a very real abuse to the wrong causative agent. Surely, you should be keeping tabs on such things. You strike me as someone who wants to be fair above everything else. You have integrity and genuine compassion. At least, that’s my impression.
Lydia and Gary and Ed have attributed much of the problem of church abuse to the whole mindset of Calvinism. This is just NOT true. Mark Driscoll grew up in a blue-collar home in a rough-and-tumble neighborhood. If he was not abused by his dad, he was certainly taught the value of a tough-as-nails, no-nonsense, macho attitude. I will agree with you that Mars Hill, Acts 29, and much of the whole YRR crowd are dysfunctional, but it is a dysfunctionality borne of the dysfunctional personalities of its leaders…and NOT the inherent dysfunctionality of Reformed theology.
In his book, “Churches that Abuse,” Dr. Ronald Enroth listed several characteristics in identifying abusive churches:
Control-oriented leadership (lead, follow, or get out of the way).
Spiritual elitism, perceived persecution (part of a special movement of God that Satan is trying to stop).
Manipulation of members, fostering dependency (guilt, fear, intimidation techniques).
Life-style rigidity (legalism, strict conformity to idiosyncratic standards).
Emphasis on subjective experience (rather than biblically verifiable doctrine).
Harsh discipline of members, information control (heavy shepherding, excommunication for trivial or personal reasons).
Painful exit processes (gossip, ridicule, shunning).
Dr. Enroth makes a point of saying that these things can happen in a denomination that is fully sound and balanced in its theology. IT IS NOT THEOLOGY DRIVEN!!!
Of the groups that he investigated, NONE were Reformed! (To be fair, of course, he wrote his book back in the early 1990’s before the New Calvinist resurgence.)
Look, if you want to come down on the YRR movement, as being driven by cult-of-personality and an authoritarian, misogynistic leadership style…be my guest. But why drag all of Calvinism into the argument? We don’t endorse what they are doing. We’re glad to see Driscoll getting his comeuppance, quite frankly. Why not welcome us into the fold as co-belligerents? Genuine Calvinists HATEHATEHATEHATEHATE churches and church leaders who misuse their power to oppress and manipulate their congregants. We would fight WITH you, given half a chance….
LikeLike
You’re entitled to your opinion. If I hated Calvinists, I wouldn’t have close friends who were Calvinists. I’ve reached out to Calvinists and treated them respectfully.
Abuse is in all camps. I’ve covered abuse within Calvary Chapel churches. For some reason, maybe because of my circles, I’ve seen far more abuse in Calvinist groups. You can count tally marks or accuse me of picking sides. I think you will see that my disdain is with abuse, period.
LikeLike
Hans,
My comment was to remind Julie Anne of an email I sent her.
As far as the links, you misunderstand Brenda Nickel.
Brenda Nickel clearly says in her testimony that she got caught up in the teaching of Calvinism, below are just a couple of her quotes in her testimony –
“My final years under the influence of Calvinism found me fearful, insecure, worried, sleepless, critical, self-loathing and hopeless”
“It’s been nearly five years since God rescued me from the snares of Calvinism”
In her workbook it is clear she has a good grasp of not only Calvinism but Reformed Theology as a whole.
Also in her workbook she appears to be a strong proponent of Dispensationalism.
You also seem to be mistaken when you said –
“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…”
Unless R C Sproul and James White are not modern Reformed exegetes?
From Ligonier Ministries –
“Ephesians 2:8 confirms the truth that faith is ultimately a gift of God. “The gift of God” in the original Greek appears in the neuter grammatical form, which means that it refers back to both grace and faith earlier in the verse. Grace and faith are divine gifts, and our Father does not give them to all people”
From James White statement of faith –
“God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins…”
“God’s gift of faith, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works”
By the way you also said – “can be derived instead by good and necessary inference from a conglomeration of texts”
That is a pretty good definition of Systematic Theology.
LikeLike
Hans,
In my Christians who reject Calvinism and Calvinist shouldn’t co-exist in the same church if their views become sinfully more combative.
In my personal experience I witnessed a Stealth Reformed 5 Pointer embrace works above Christ. His force fed his ideology with a heavy-handed methodology that held the church in bondage because he focused his ministry on the Law rather than Christ.
Then he reinforced his elite toxic methodology by offering no redemption of those in his view not heaven bound and quoting “even though they are doing everything right”. Another words you have to accept his Methodology and be held in bondage of the law or find another church otherwise he will openly question the salvation of non-Calvinist..
The Pharisee’s also held in bondage the Tax Collector and Sinner and even Christ, in an elite Law and Sin Centered fashion.
Some of the contributors you are discussing, have witnessed similar things I have. I have explained why I couldn’t embrace Calvinism but I’m not going to talk you out of it nor am I going to rebuke you for being a Calvinist..
On the other hand I was spiritually abused because I was a “Doctrinal Challenge” of his attempt to covertly indoctrinate a Non-Calvinist Church before I even had a clue what he was trying to do. (and before I even knew what it meant to be Neo-Reformed)
LikeLike
“LLydia and Gary and Ed have attributed much of the problem of church abuse to the whole mindset of Calvinism.”
Actually, what is thought of as spiritual abuse is inherent in Calvinism starting with Calvin’s second time around in Geneva when he consolidated his power. It is interesting to read his personal letters it gives a lot of insight into how he merged his systematic theology with the structure.
Throughout history we see variations of this with that usually dying out at some point or going a more liberal social justice route. One of my former clients is the Presbyterian seminary in my town. They were some of the most peaceful loving kind people I have ever met and a joy to do business with. However they had discarded the determinist mindset for a liberal social justice. The current Calvinist resurgence is as close to Calvin’s Calvinism as you can get in a free society. Without that resurgence none of us would even be discussing Calvinism.
LikeLike
A “painful exit process” in Calvin’s Geneva would have included either torture banishment or imprisonment. In the case of Servetus it included a burning. Since neo Calvinists cannot do those things in a free society they use shunning, harassment, Shame, guilt and even try to enforce membership covenants that people unwittingly signed early on. they are emulating their father, Calvin.
LikeLike
Q–
I do not believe I have misunderstood Ms. Nickel. Whether she understands Reformed theology in her workbook is irrelevant. She clearly indicated in her personal testimony that at no point was she anything more than a 4-point Calvinist. In other words, she was never a genuine Calvinist. If she doesn’t understand that, then she doesn’t understand Calvinism and neither do you. No big deal. Lots of people make that mistake.
As for White and Sproul, in general, they are not the best representatives of Reformed thought. Though an engaging teacher and popularizer, Sproul exhibits some of the same dogmatic naivete as his mentor, John Gerstner. Though an able debater and popularizer, White sometimes plays fast and loose with quotations and data. I don’t trust him.
Be that how it may, neither one is wrong here. Sproul reiterates exactly what I said, and White is not even doing exegesis of the verse in question. The point is, though McArthur was guilty of extremely poor exegesis, he still came up with the right answer: faith is indeed a gift. Brenda Nickel and the people she was listening to came up with an answer totally unsubstantiated in the Greek. They flubbed it big time.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Though I would not wish to generalize concerning absolutely ALL New
Calvinists, your comment is spot on with a good many I have met. They give Calvinism a bad name (as does Calvin in the particulars you noted).
See? We don’t have to be at each other’s throats!
LikeLike
Mark–
If it was not clear before, let me repeat my sincere regret that this creep put you through that. That’s not the way the church should be run by anyone!
LikeLike
Wow, it sounds like you have it all figured out, Hans. . . . . . and what if you’re wrong?
LikeLike
Lydia–
I didnt see your earlier comment. It all depends on what you mean by “liberal social justice.” Tim Keller took some heat for his book, “Generous Justice,” in which he took a fairly liberal stance when it comes to caring for the poor, the environment, racism, sexism, etc.
But any embrace of abortion rights or the indulgence of sexual sin is not particularly “progressive.” Just the opposite. And no genuinely Reformed theologian or seminary would think it was. Un-Christ-like behaviors cannot be considered socially “just.”
As for the resurgence, I became Reformed back in the early 1980’s. So, you all wouldn’t be discussing Calvinism, but I would be.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I’m always open to learn more. I’m genuinely excited to find out I have made an error in judgment (because it means I am closer to the truth). In this case, I foresee no reason to even look more closely at the details of issue. It appears pretty open and shut. I sincerely doubt you could find an academic exegete from any persuasion whatsoever who would controvert my conclusions.
But hey, if you have any further data that could shed light on this question, I’m all ears!!!
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
I don’t known what it is–something in your demeanor, I guess–but I just naturally want to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, if you say that your disdain is for abuse alone, I believe you.
🙂
LikeLike
Hans,
You seemed to be saying that most Calvinists do not believe that faith is a gift –
“But Calvinists, by and large, do not interpret that verse as saying that “faith is a gift.”
I was simply pointing out that wasn’t necessarily true.
Brenda Nickel’s does have a good grasp of Reformed Theology and their soteriology (Calvinism), she wrote a 278 page workbook on it!
And she clearly states that getting caught up in Calvinism stepped in and led her astray from the simplicity of walking with Jesus for fourteen years.
I also pointed out that she appears pro Dispensational, something you said she wasn’t.
You made quite a few mistakes in one post.
As far as her being a 4 point Calvinist she explained she could not accept Limited Atonement because the bible clearly taught Jesus died for not only believers sins but the sins of the world –
1 John 2:2
“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
Making her what some call a moderate Calvinist.
LikeLike
“Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”
LikeLike
Hans,
Thanks, just a reminder. when I discovered this thread I simply was doing some internet research on Calvinism and Spiritual Abuse.
I ran into several sites who’s contributors expressed deep concern about the impact and size of YRR movement.
I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by trying to convince those us who endure Spiritual Abuse why you embrace Reformed Theology but I think I can steer you in the right direction.
If you send a personal email to Paul Passing Thoughts and express a desire that you want to have a civilized dialogue (without getting personal) with Paul Dohse. Though your views are differ than his, I’m sure you and he will get along provided you and he avoid taking offense over your different views.
I have read review his thread and he makes some very convincing arguments.
LikeLike
“All that I have written seems like straw to me.” –Thomas Aquinas
LikeLike
What Is Territorial Marking and How to Stop It?
LikeLike
Q–
You need to read what I actually write, not what I “seem to be saying.”
The verse says that “salvation by grace through faith is a gift.” If you can make that say that faith is not a gift, more power to you.
McArthur’s mistake, on the other hand, is that he believes the verse directly describes faith as a gift. It does not.
I didn’t make any mistakes here, Q. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Calvinism with fewer that 5 points. I know some people speak that way, but it is inaccurate.
LikeLike
Mark–
Can you tell me anything at all about this Paul Dohse? I’ve never heard of him before a couple of mentions on this blog. Is he somebody you all read?
LikeLike
Gary–
Aquinas never wrote again after saying those words. Is that what you’re promising to do?
😉
LikeLike
Gary–
Thought I’d join in on the pointedly ambiguous quotation festival.
“What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.”
–G.K. Chesterton
LikeLike
Here’s Paul’s website.http://paulspassingthoughts.com/
I know Lydia has mentioned him and this might be the first time I’ve heard Mark mention him.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Yes, I know. But who in the world is he?
LikeLike
Hans,
There are a couple on this thread that know the blog Paulspassingthoughts. If you look on the right hand column of Julie Anne posting page you’ll see his blog.
I will suggest he is every bit as confident in his views as you appear to be with yours. Keep that in mind when if you choose to have dialogue. I think once you and him get use to each other the dialogue will be healthy and civilized.
At the beginning of his page is a couple of older archived postings but after you scroll down at little ways you’ll see he post something almost daily.
LikeLike
You need to read what I actually write, not what I “seem to be saying.”
Yeah , because this is so clear –
“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.”
What a mess.
LikeLike
“I didn’t make any mistakes here, Q.”
You said – “She ends up, of course, rejecting Dispensationalism, as well.”
Is that true?
LikeLike
T – Total Depravity = Inability to reason or choose
U – Unconditional Election = Faith or no Faith it’s done
L – Limited Atonement = Jesus only died for some
I – Irresistible Grace = You will be Assimilated
P – Perseverance of the Saints = Lordship Salvation if you are really elected
LikeLike
Reformed Church Membership Cliffsnotes
We Covenant with you to:
Interpret scripture as final authority
Teach you (sometimes crazy stuff)
Protect you (give unholy advice)
Discipline you (brain wash and shun if necessary)
Collect money and spend as we see fit (mostly on us)
You Covenant to:
Uphold us (no talk rule)
Pray for us
Obey us
Give us money sacrificially
Go away quietly when we can’t get much from you
If you agree to our weird doctrinal statement and to the above please sign here __________
LikeLike
Q,
Where did you find Reformed Church cliff notes?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I did not find them, I just personally shortened what they mostly say so someone can pass the test without all the jargon.
LikeLike
I’ve been moderated, it’s probably a anomaly.
LikeLike
Q, it was a WP glitch. Sorry!
LikeLike
Q,,
I may disagree with you on some other issues, but you are making some some really good points here. Of course, not every Reformed church will have taken the TULIP pentagram to the extreme you describe, far from it, but you aptly illustrate the dangerous absurdity into which theology can lead us when we take our eyes off Jesus. I contend that whenever doctrine is the focus of our passion, ss appears to be the case with Hans, Jesus is not in it, and trouble will ensue.
LikeLike
Gary–
We will have to agree to disagree, for I believe we must stand for something…or we will fall for anything. Without being anchored to doctrine and confession and creed, we become tied to a Jesus manufactured by our own subjective desires and ideals and preferences. You may well be focused on “Jesus,” just not the one who came in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose again for our justification.
LikeLike
Q–
She specifically states that she has parted ways with Middletown Bible Church on some issues, including at least one of the remaining 4 petals of TULIP, which they (more or less) accept (as Dispensationalists). So, yes, she is no longer Dispensational.
LikeLike
“We will have to agree to disagree, for I believe we must stand for something…or we will fall for anything. Without being anchored to doctrine and confession and creed, we become tied to a Jesus manufactured by our own subjective desires and ideals and preferences. You may well be focused on “Jesus,” just not the one who came in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”
“Doctrine and confession and creed” were all manufactured by mere humans to tell other mere humans what is correct. There are many of them, in fact. I have always gotten a bit amused at some Reformed pastor blogs declaring I am a New Hampshire Baptist confession, I am Westminster, I am a London Confession, etc.
However, Christianity is a “relationship” with a “living Savior”. Not an ST to follow. A relationship is much harder, in fact. We “Abide” in Christ. Not a Confession.
LikeLike
I think I was a Christian for probably 25 years before I had ever heard of any “Confession.” I think I seriously rolled my eyes and said what in the world is that? It’s not in the Bible and it just seemed so odd to me that someone would put so much emphasis in it.
If God wanted us to have a Confession, he would have put it in the Bible as such. I don’t need a man to extrapolate what he feels is important from scripture when God has given me His word and His Holy Spirit. Why do people make this so difficult?
LikeLike
Hans said –
“We will have to agree to disagree, for I believe we must stand for something…or we will fall for anything. Without being anchored to doctrine and confession and creed, we become tied to a Jesus manufactured by our own subjective desires and ideals and preferences. You may well be focused on “Jesus,” just not the one who came in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”
Just because a Christian does not anchor themselves to doctrines, confessions, and creeds it does not automatically follow that they focus on a Jesus of their own manufacturing. Doctrines, confessions, and creeds can just as easily have people focused on a Jesus of their own manufacturing. Look at the Pharisees. I’m sure they thought they had all the correct doctrines, confessions and creeds. Look where they ended up.
LikeLike
Hans,
I do not know if you have trouble reasoning or if you are trying to mislead.
She (Brenda Nickel) basically said that Middletown Bible Church had helped her greatly coming out of Calvinism with one caveat –
“I politely disagree with any form of unconditional election”
How you can relate that with not a proponent of Dispensationalism is beyond understanding.
Her are some of quotes from her workbook ‘Basic Reformed Theology Explained and Exposed’ –
“Dispensationalism presents a clear and organized picture of God’s dealings with man throughout history. Its plain distinctions between Law and Grace and between Israel and the Church provide framework in which Bible prophecy can be easily interpreted.”
“Most Dispensational Calvinists are four point, adopting Dispensationalism, which is the theology of the Bible.”
“Therefore Dispensationalists agree with scripture that the Law was given to Israel and not the church as the books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews teach. We are not under Law but under Grace.”
“Dispensationalism with the gospel of personal faith is Biblical.
I hope this put’s it to rest.
Just pull up the ebook, it’s free, hit control f, and type in dispensation, you will get over 160 hits. Better yet, read the book, at least you will know what Reformed Theology is.
LikeLike
Lydia/Julie Anne/Bridget–
There are a million and one different sets of Christian doctrine. And everyone but everyone has a belief system. Yours may only contain fifteen or twenty points, and mine may extend to a hundred and fifty, but they act in virtually the same way. Most seminaries, Christian colleges, ministry organizations, and schools have statements of faith that fit on one page. The Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Westminster Confession of Faith are not that terribly long, easily read at a single sitting, and don’t require a graduate degree in theology to understand. No one has “no creed but the Bible.” You have presuppositions through which you interpret passages even if you are unaware of them.
The question is not whether to have a confession. You have one. The question is which one to subscribe to. Catholics believe we should go with the church with the most adherents, the church with the longest continuous visible hierarchy (the most unified church). Protestants, in general, believe we should go with a church which most nearly conforms to the biblical/apostolic church (the purest church). Magisterial Protestants adhere to one of the classic Reformational confessions (Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg, Dordt, Augsburg, London Baptist, 39 Articles).
Those of you directly descended from the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Mennonites, Brethren, Moravians, etc.) and indirectly descended (Methodists, Dispensational Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Nazarenes, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, etc.) give far more leeway to the Holy Spirit, and thus have far shorter, far less formal confessions. But you still have them.
You all have a confession that doesn’t seem to go much farther than the following points:
1. I believe in God.
2. I believe that God is love.
3. Yay, Jesus!
4. I hate Calvin.
I assume that you guys believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection. But I wouldn’t, couldn’t swear to it. I have no idea whatsoever if you believe in the Atonement or in Justification by Faith Alone. I have no clue whether you believe in the validity of Jesus’ miracles or in our confident hope in his return. And I’m still scratching my head as to whether you hold to the ultimate authority, let alone the inerrancy, of Scripture.
Why anti-Calvinism is part of your first-order beliefs is also puzzling. Scripture for you cannot give us definitive answers to our questions on soteriology or christology or eschatology, but it can tell us that predestination is right out the window (in spite of verses that seem to say it’s there in the mix, at the very least)? That doesn’t appear to be rational, but the result of some sort of vendetta or grudge.
The inclusion of grudge thinking, along with nonconformist theology, are two signs of the potential for church abuse. I would think this group would stay far, far away from such stances.
LikeLike
Sorry Hans, I cannot agree too disagree with you any more than I could agree to disagree with a child who was insisting on playing with rattle snakes. Why do I use snakes in my illustration? Because anybody who would propose to know Jesus through “doctrine and confession and Creed,” with no reference whatever to Scripture, is playing with the primordial serpent. Or so I suggest.
LikeLike