This is fine, so long as “time to time” means every day or two. 
Cheers.
Dear Johnny,
Quoting your first post below on this topic, you will notice I have chosen to highlight a couple of pieces in black which between one Brit and another would seem rather over the top; and not very helpful for potential converts from Calvinism or even convinced Calvinists coming on to the Forum . As a Brit I cannot help supporting an under-dog even if he were to be a Calvinist against such an onslaught, and I guess that’s more or less why Jason, quite rightly in my view, has taken the time and care, very thoughtfully and calmly, to steady the boat, and why Cindy has told us that lovely story, as brave and effective way as any in explaining our belief vs ECT.
Read your and their posts again brother and stay with us!
Love to all
Grandpa Michael in Barcelona!
The trouble is, of course, that an atheist or agnostic reading this - or more likely encountering this sort of thinking in a Calvinist friend or colleague - isn’t necessarily going to know that this sort of vicious cruelty is not only unbiblical, but is in fact the polar opposite of the true gospel message. And hence, unless exposed to a balancing Universalist or Arminian view of scripture and God, they are highly likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject the gospel altogether.
Which is why t**his sort of ‘religious’ Calvinist pornography needs to be rooted out and flushed swiftly down the toilet where it belongs. **I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Calvinism is a far greater evil, and far more damaging to the spread of the Kingdom, than even the most militant forms of atheism. Indeed, if Calvinism were the only religious show in town, the only right and moral thing to do would be to become an atheist.
Cheers
Johnny
I praise God to see peace between brothers! Thank you both for your humility and for taking the time to reconcile - I think it is a good witness.
[tag]johnnyparker[/tag] it would be a shame to see you leave, and if you’re able to stay that would be great. However, if you do feel it’s time to move on, know that you’re always welcome to come back.
Thank you for explaining your views on LGBT people, as it’s really helpful to someone like me who’s on the fence - I’d honestly like to just agree with you, but I’m still uncertain how to deal with some of the NT passages on the matter, particularly given I grew up in a conservative church. Hopefully one day I’ll have time to look into it more deeply, ideally finding a book on it by someone I trust (e.g. Parry, Talbott, Dickson, etc.). I have friends who are LGBT & I’m not phased by them at all, I tend not to even think about them as LGBT, just as people
Johnny
I’ve been taking a break from posting on this forum but I cannot allow this to pass.
Jesus said “The truth shall set you free”. When we stop proclaiming the truth, then we are failing Christ himself and all other people, both believers and non-believers.
I have absolutely no doubt that Calvinism is an evil doctrine and we have a bounden duty to state as much as plainly as we can. I thank you for honouring God in this way at no little cost to yourself. Personally I am convinced that it is a doctrine of demons and if I fail to say this, then I am not showing true Love to those who are ensnared in such a wicked and harmful belief system.
Why anyone should want to make comparisons with how we handle the essence of personhood (including sexual orientation) and a chosen belief system such as the one popularised by the murderer Calvin is totally beyond my comprehension.
As it happens,my views on homosexuality are very close to your own but that is irrelevant to the OP and your desire to shine the light and Love of Christ onto those who perpetuate a sinister discriminatory theology. Such a theology is driving countless thousands of skeptical, but more morally righteous people, away from any possibility of being able to follow Christ. I find the sycophantic approach of some, who claim to believe that God loves all and yet would pussy-foot around those who promote a demon of a god to be, at the very least nauseating and more probably hypocritical. Is it really a cultural thing to regard such an approach as dishonest? And is it really a cultural thing to regard straight talking as actually more Loving and kind to those with whom we disagree? I cannot answer those questions but I DO believe that if people like you play less of a role on this forum, then the fog will descend somewhat on the Good News that Christ died for ALL people of ALL beliefs and orientations.
May God continue to bless your ministry at home and abroad. I feel privileged to have encountered your passion to help those who are downtrodden by religious bigotry.
Alex,
I have an Uncle who is old (82), a SeventhDay Adventist Minister for 60 years and the last 15 years of his ministry, he was in charge of 1,200 ministers, meaning they answered to him. Now, IF you know anything about SDA’s, they ARE extremely conservative. I sent him the book I’m about to tell you about and even in his own conservatism, he thought it so profound that he bought a copy for each and everyone of his ministers. I don’t know IF the writers are people you respect like Talbot, however, it is edited by Walter Wink who is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. The book is actually written by several authors and was edited by Dr. Wink. The name of the book is “Homosexuality and Christian Faith”… Questions of Conscience for the Churches. I only brought my Uncle into the conversation because he IS so conservative, however, he did want ALL of his ministers to have a copy so they would have an educated idea of how to treat the LGBT community. Don’t know IF this is what you are wanting or even needing, but here it is. 
Blessings,
Bret
Thanks Bret! Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches sounds very helpful so I’ve bought the kindle version to read 
You are welcome Alex, I pray you find it not only of interest but helpful in your seeking of truth, meaning, and love.
Many blessings,
Bret
P.S. We ARE just people… 
FWIW, I sometimes agree with the majority on issues here, but often enough hold a minority view. My basic bias is that denigrating the character of those who hold a view that we personally find hideous (even if such attack is deserved) does not facilitate useful discussion that is likely to lead to reconsideration by those who we find to be deeply in error. I think I understand the passions for justice and truth that lead to such an approach, and I apologize for times when I have let the repugnance of another’s view lead me to attack their character. But my experience is that I am more apt to re-evaluate my views when someone of a differing view leaves the focus on the reasons why they think my view is incorrect.
I think we may be missing something here. The desire to see ones enemies in hell is a simple human one, similar to the urge to break all the other commandments. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is difficult when looking at a young, healthy member of the opposite sex, “Thou shalt not covet” gets tricky when you see someone else with a Range Rover. That’s just being human.
The problem is that it’s all too easy to graft some ideas onto one’s beliefs and think they are approved by God when they aren’t.
I’m a semi-professional writer, that means writing is a hobby that makes me a little money, not enough to live on. This is a quote from a thriller that I wrote, but never published. Our hero is tackling a terrorist who is holding a push button wired up to an old soviet nuclear warhead:
*I couldn’t see any way out. If we tackled Ahmed together or singly he’d kill us with the automatic and the bomb would go off. If we did nothing it’d go off anyway. Whatever happened London was going to die in five hours time
I’d never believed in any sort of religion. I’d not been able to go along with the sort of God who’d condemn someone to an eternity in hell, whatever they’d done. Only now I wasn’t so sure.
I’d just seen the point of hell. If, as the last few seconds ticked away, when it was all too late, Ahmed suddenly knew that he was on the edge of the pit, that he’d burn in agony for ever, it’d still be less than he deserved.
I only hoped God would let me drop in from time to time and stoke the furnace.
*
That’s written from an unbeliever’s point of view, but it illustrates my point that the idea of eternal punishment is something that easily gets tacked on to any belief system. It’s something that we bring to scripture, not something we learn from it.
True, if it was something specially learned from the scriptures, it wouldn’t be so prevalent a belief all over the world.
Which is not to say that prevalent worldwide beliefs are necessarily wrong, to be fair; just that if they’re right they can’t count as special revelation of the sort typically appealed to. General revelation perhaps.
But I expect it’s part of our biological instincts–which have been corrupted. When the most evil people imaginable would seem to have no problem, as the most evil people imaginable, inflicting a condition on someone else, we’re probably not looking at the proper application of it at least, in attributing the same behavior to God.
The greatest evildoer would never, in being the greatest doer of evil, preach that all rebels will eventually be led back to loyalty to his opponent, much less that this would happen due primarily to the self-sacrifice of his opponent. That would have to include himself, and would undercut his whole rationale (for want of a better word) in rebelling. He would be better off, insofar as he thought he could gain power thereby, to convince people that having rebelled against authority there is no hope for them so they might as well remain evil doers.
The greatest doer of evil would, on the other hand, have no conceivable problem I can see in condemning all enemies of his, except those who swore loyalty to him, to hopelessly continuing punishment (until or unless he got bored and annihilated them). I don’t see that he would have any conceivable problem deciding that he would never even try to bring some of them over to loyalty to himself.
This is no doubt the root of the anti-Calv complaints about Calvinistic ideas of God (although almost the same complaint could be lodged against any Arminianistic idea that involved God hopelessly punishing impenitent rebels–the difference being that at least he tried to bring everyone back to loyalty first). But while I sympathize with that complaint, I cannot regard it as being quite as bad as Moloch worship, because no evildoer acting as an evildoer would ever sacrifice himself to save the very enemies he sacrificed himself to. Much less would he ever sacrifice himself to his own enemies in order to save them.
Calvinism is still Christianity, and still trinitarian Christianity. It can’t be fair to forget that they are; and I don’t believe it can be metaphysically correct to regard the sacrifice of Christ to mean less than actions they propose of God which, aside from God’s superior power levels, would be easily and gladly taken by the greatest doer of evil (as the greatest doer of evil, of unrighteousness, of non-fair-togetherness) the moment he had the capability to do so.
This is why I believe we ought to concentrate primarily on what they and we agree they (and we) are getting RIGHT. And then when opportunities logically arise thereby for critiquing what we think they’re misunderstanding, we can do so from a shared ground of agreement.
That’s what we ought to even prefer that they would do for us, the other way around.
That is the path of fair-togetherness between opponents.
Just a few thoughts on the thesis about the elect rejoicing at beholding the sufferings of the damned: I think Matt/Jaxxen is completely right in what he says about this thesis as not necessarily representative of the mindset of all Calvinists, and that the thesis is actually only an M.A. submission – we don’t know that it was ever accepted; nor do I know that academic standing of the college to which the submission was made.
My main thoughts are that this is not a well researched paper and the bibliography is very weak (the writer is wet behind the ears I guess). We know that some Calvinists, and particularly Jonathan Edwards, have given a vivid and imaginative account of this scene of eschatological rejoicing; and perhaps some for the motivation behind the writing of this thesis is that Edwards enjoys a sort of canonical status among American Conservative evangelicals – especially American Calvinists – a reputation that he does not have in other parts of the Globe where he does not have the same cultural importance. But I note that the biblical foundation for what Farrar termed ‘the abominable fancy’ is thin – and this appeal to Christian tradition by the author to uphold the idea seems rather un-Calvinistic.
And I note that the defenders of this idea in Christian tradition were not all Calvinists. Tertullian who invented it was not a Calvinist – he was a strong supporter of ECT, but he also believed in freedom of the will. His meditation on the abominable fancy was not about imagining that at some future date as a member of elect he would be able to rejoice in the sufferings of the damned in seeing God’s will done. It was about imagining the Romans who persecuted the Church in North Africa with great cruelty during his lifetime, getting their comeuppance. Also Augustine, although his theological determinism much appealed to Calvin himself – was obviously not a Calvinist – and he believed that the sacrament of baptism was essential to salvation in a way that no Calvinist today believes. Likewise Augustine’s view that unbaptised babies burned in hell as well as the souls of foetuses that did not come to full term would not be popular with Calvinists today.
As for St Thomas Aquinas – some Calvinists would see him as the fount of error; so it is funny to see him cited. And Jeremy Taylor (the royalist) and Richard Baxter (the roundhead) who both gave vivid expression to the fancy were probably thinking of very different groups of people being among the scoffers and the scoffed at.
Funnily enough, St Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo? – the book that gives us a developed satisfaction/PSA theory of atonement (although it is God’s honour rather than his justice that is satisfied in Anselm’s theory) - also expressed distaste for a version of the abominable fancy in the same book. That’s worth a mention in an M.A. thesis I think.
Thoughtful post, Dick-and I hope your Lenten Season is going well.
Now that the dust has settled on this thread I’ll chip in. First, if I remember correctly, the author of the thesis comes from Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida USA. My understanding is that this is a very well respected Reformed seminary, but I’m no expert. My limited understanding is that many of the Reformed seminaries here in the states can be a little incestuous i.e. professors within these seminaries move from one to another for various reasons. Perhaps that’s true of most seminaries and / or colleges in general.
As I type this post and think about my response I’ve decided to start another thread so people won’t necessarily have to wade through everything that’s been written, as much of it didn’t strike me as profitable or edifying. Mods of course can feel free to merge the threads if y’all like.
Matt
Hi Matt -
Just wanted to put this here - because it does reflect on the high emotion that discussion of, say, Jonathan Edwards can stir up in non-Calvinists.
The British moral philosopher Mary Midgely has some good things to say about how to treat hard Calvinism in a balanced and non emotional way – while still sticking to principles and arguing against it. I refer to her reflections on the thoughts of her fellow philosopher, Jonathan Bennett, condemnation of Jonathan Edwards (see ‘The Essential Midgley pp.180-81)-
**I am afraid’, says Bennett, ‘that I shall be doing injustice to Edwards’s many virtues… for my concern is only with the worst thing about him, namely his morality which was worse than Himmler’s’ (emphasis mine). Not ‘worse in some ways’ or ‘worse in this respect’, but just ‘worse’. Himmler’s saving grace was (Bennett tells us) that, in discussing the awkward tendency of officials in extermination camps to go sick from mere disgust at their work, he excused this weakness as a natural human reaction, perhaps even necessary as they were not to become heartless ruffians. Bennett does not compare this remark with anything Edwards may have said on the same subject - namely, about human pity for humans who are in one’s power here on earth. He compares it with a remote, theoretical opinion which Edwards share with many other theologians about the speculative position of beings in a quite different situation - the blessed, that is, who have to have some way of living with the awkward fact that others are damned and beyond the power of help.
I entirely agree with Bennett in detesting the doctrine of eternal damnation, more especially if it is conceived a as punishment inflicted By God) rather than self-destruction freely incurred, nevertheless what can it mean to write off Edward’s morality on the basis of this single doctrine?..Edward seems in fact to have been not only a generally loved and blameless character, but a noted champion of the American Indians in his neighbourhood against their oppressors … if one evaluates ‘a morality’ in the ordinary sense, one must surely evaluate it as a whole’.**
I entirely approve of Midgely’s argument that Edward’s idea of the punishment of the reprobate was notional. It was just an idea and an idea that he didn’t express in his dealings with others in a way that Christians in previous centuries had done.
However, Edward’s Great Awakening sermons left many in despair and there were several suicides in the wake of his preaching. Also he was quit prepare to use his threats on children from a young age
And I note that Edwards was perhaps a bit lacking in consistency regarding the assurance of the elect. His wife did not have his robust constitution and was never sure that she was numbered with the elect (which in traditional Calvinism would be taken as a sign of her reprobation – Thomas Cartwright the Elizabethan Calvinist was quite explicit that feelings of despair were sins of actual reprobation). However, he was sure that she was one of the elect. In so doing he was not unlike the ECT believers who agonize over a dead and much loved friend or grandparent etc, only to receive a message for the lord that their loved one had undergone a deathbed conversion. (I have the story about Edward’s wife on the authority of an American friend from a bluestocking university, who wrote her Phd thesis on American Calvinism)
Edwards did indeed treat the Indians kindly. I think in this he was building on the legacy of people like the Quaker John Woolman and the Independent Roger Williams rather than that of the Calvinists John Winthrop and Cotton Mathers – and for this I applaud him.
Midgley does not broach the issue of Edwards’s support of slavery and how this was perhaps rooted in his theological beliefs about determinism rather than ECT - it’s beyond her scope. But here is a link to an article that is to my mind both judicious and respectful about this topic for those who are interested – it highlights implications of Edward’s Calvinist determinism on this issue (and made me think of Gregory of Nyssa’s writings against slavery as a point of contrast) - but in a way that points out the problems without caviling.
All the best
Dick
Dick, did you really just post a quote of a quote saying that Jonathan Edwards morality was worse than Himmler? Not just ‘worse is some ways’ or ‘worse in this respect’ but just worse. I stated above that I have started another thread to demonstrate at least my view as to how the saved may percieve the damned in the world to come. I believe I posted soberly and thoughtfully. I didn’t / don’t expect it to suddenly convince anyone of ECT, just thought I’d throw it out there.
I stated clearly that this thread, with its supposed intention to show “how our most extreme opponents think” had become something other than the OP’s intent. UR’s quickly turned on one another and one-if not more-stormed off of the site in the usual antiCalvin hate-spew. I never stoked this thread. And when I did finally post here, it was to say that I’m under the impression that RTS is a respected Reformed seminary and I will contribute to the topic in another thread so that people will not have to wade through the previous off-topic posts.
And now you state that Calvinism / Edwards stirs up emotions? Thanks for the heads up, I wasn’t aware of that. But to show your fair-mindedness you quote a 20th century philosopher who demonstrates her views in a balanced and non-emotional way by quoting another philosopher who states something right off of the bat like, “I’m afraid I might negate some of Edwards good qualities, but let me say now that Edwards’ morality is worse than one of the most notorious, synonymous-with-evil men in history”.
Later on she seems to try to backpedal against such satanic slander without outright rebuking it. Then you add an attachment regarding slavery…I read some of the attachment but not all. Maybe I missed agreat ending. What are you hoping to accomplish by posting what you have in this thread, Dick? Dick, I’ve stated before that you seem like a very tender-hearted man. Your references to Patristics in particular and Church history in general appear to be vast. But to be quite honest Dick, rather than enlightening me the affect seems to just be obfuscation. I’m not accusing you of doing this deliberately, and I don’t doubt that others on this forum are edified by much of what you write, but what you’ve done here is not even close to your best work. You’re better than this, Dick. I’m sure some will say that I’ve misread the post, and maybe I have, but reread what you’ve written from a man’s perspective who holds to the Doctrines of Grace and see if you can get where I’m coming from.
Matt
You have misread it a bit Matt – I wasn’t trying to give offence here. I was trying to work through the problem of how to speak about what I think is wrong with Calvinism in a fair way. If my intention seemed dark – it really was not.
Midgley is actually being clear that Edwards was a fine man as is the writer about his views on slavery. She doesn’t like his theology – but she is responding to an emotive response by another of seeing him as in some sense worse than Himmler – which he wasn’t he was a good man; and although I for one find it impossible to think/imagine/feel about God in the way that Edwards did – and don’t’ see warrant in scripture for this; but I do think his ideas were abstract – they fitted into his scheme of deductive theology he himself was not cruel (and he was a loving husband and father too); and I think the keynote of his theology is God’s graciousness.
I think the reason I’ve been posting is that I’ve seen some of your posts about only ECT Christianity having any proud history of persecution, martyrdom, mission etc. I do get a bit upset by these (and by Calvinists confessional history as a genre) and think you are better than this too – because that isn’t so. The history of Christianity is far more difficult than that Matt and also contains the stories of Christians who have been persecuted and martyred by Calvinists, and Christians who have taught Calvinists lessons about the fullness of the Gospel that Calvinists of God will have listened to and learnt from. Universalism does have its heroes, its martyrs and its great hearted ones too – perhaps not evangelical universalism yet (because it’s a new thing) but the broader tradition of Christian universalism of which I feel a part certainly does. So yeah – I get upset when I see your posts of challenge about our history.
And it is my opinion that a strong belief in ECT – as opposed to a notional one – does lead to people believing in a God of violence whom they feel beholden to imitate in violence. But weaker and more notional beliefs in ECT benefit do not – and even Edward’s belief sin ECT despite the imaginative intensity he invested these with are weaker than that of the Reformers.
It is also my opinion that notions of theological determinism are problematic – evidence of history strongly suggests this; and this is what the article I gave the link for argues concerning Edward’s and Whitfield’s endorsement of slavery. And I wish hard Calvinists – those that are at the higher end of the point scale - would not make this idea so central to their theology because it wasn’t as central to Calvin’s theology.
And finally it is my opinion that ideas of election and reprobation have caused real and terrible violence – and I really do think that Edwards had leant from non-Calvinists about how to treat the American Indians.
Blessings Matt – I don’t want to give offence and I think I’ve said my bit about Calvinism anyway now.
Matt,
To put it shortly, Dick was quoting Mary Midgley in agreement with her that the approach of her fellow philosopher, Jonathan Bennett (the person actually drawing the Himmler comparison) was wrong.
Dick wasn’t agreeing with Bennett, he was agreeing with Midgley, who was disagreeing with Bennett.
Meanwhile, for any readers who’ve gotten down this far, here’s Matt (Jaxxen)'s new thread on the original topic of this thread, “Rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT”.
Jason / Dick, I give you two the benefit of the doubt as it regards anything that may be considered inciting. My take wasn’t that Sobor was agreeing with Bennett, but rather 1) the post is off topic. It doesn’t seem to address the OP. That’s not the unpardonable sin by any means, all of of us drift off topic-I get that. But the fact of the matter remains, 2) Bennett’s quote is wicked and slanderous, while Midgley’s “rebuke”-if you can even call it that- is weak. Imagine if a fellow ECT’er, Aaron Cury for example, said that Jason Pratt’s morality is worse than that of Jeffrey Dahmer. And I come in and say, “There, there Aaron, while I agree that homosexual / pedophiliac cannibalism is indeed a foul conduct, worthy of all revulsion, should we just gloss over Jason’s positive attributes? I think it would reflect poorly on us if we do. After all, Jason is reputed to be quite tenderhearted with his bastard children.” And then to prove my point of how considerate I am, I attach a 30 page document written by True Disciple highlighting such. Blah! There was something sneaky and underhanded about the whole thing and it was obfuscation, IMO.
Matt
Matt,
The main thread topic (which had already been hijacked anyway) was about “Rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT”. It got hijacked into the topic of how to deal with Calvinists.
Sobor’s post was on both those topics, although not on the theological question of rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT per se (since you were starting that back up in another thread).
Bennett recognizes many fine ethical qualities of Edwards, but is willing to throw those under the bus due to Edwards rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT.
Midgely says Bennett is way off base to compare Edwards’ theoretical position with that actually practiced by Himmler, and says Bennett is also way off base to throw all Edwards’ fine ethical qualities (admitted by Bennett himself) under the bus due to this one doctrine.
Bennett, perhaps a bit facetiously, worried he was going to do injustice to Edwards; Midgely retorted that Bennett had in fact done grave injustice to Edwards.
At no time does either author even suggest further moral problems about Edwards; and Midgely insists that this one doctrine is ALSO not a moral problem about Edwards.
Sobor quotes all this as a self-critical example that he and the other touchier critics of Calvinism ought to follow in Calvinists’ favor. He agrees it is a notional issue, not a moral one, even though a problematic notional issue. Sobor suggests that this notional issue may have had some bearing on Edwards’ position supporting slavery, but treats even that as an accidental by-product (perhaps) of Edwards’ notional doctrine, not as a moral failing of Edwards.
The proper parallel would be if BAaron (in Bennett’s position) had said that, despite my many admittedly good qualities, my one sin of believing that God will save all sinners from sin, and thus my belief that we shall all rejoice in God’s righteousness someday, outweighs all my strong morality otherwise (even worse than Himmler for various reasons); and True Disciple had come in (in Midgely’s position) chiding BAaron, saying that my position, even though TD also detests it, is only a notional one not a moral one, and that to write off my many admittedly moral qualities (in order to compare me as worse than Himmler of all people!) is an injustice to me, with TD acknowledging my generally loved and blameless character and my willingness to give half my savings to the poor (meaning that if one evaluates my morality in the ordinary sense one must evaluate my morality as a whole); and you (in Sobor’s position) had quoted this (after being morally touchy about my position yourself) with approval of TD not BA as an example you yourself and others with moral qualms about my position ought to follow–even though you think my position has indisputably been used as justification by some people for drug use, and even though you suspect my position is connected somehow to my known stated leniency in favor of homosexual marriage (a point you find at odds with my actions and statements against promoting homosexual activity).
I’d go along with that Jason – it is what I intended, and precisely so. Thanks for clarifying it– you bring out the substance so well; I get bogged down in narrative… and sometimes ‘I get so emoshunal baby… ’
Cheers good friend
Dick 