Perhaps Reformed theology needs to be Reformed 
There’s the key difference between a father who is willing to lose hopelessly… and one who is willing to lose by faith:
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. [Hebrews 11]
How strong was Abraham’s faith where he was willing to do anything and yet he was holding God to his promise, because that is what faith is. So what is Piper doing?
Calvinism is indeed very selfish. Christianity is as corrupt as it gets more and more exclusive, and so more and more selfish. From the obscure visible-invisible churches of the traditionalists, we go to “believers only”, and then we just go straight to “these specific believers only”. It only gets worse from there. Exclusivism is evil and is a sure sign of a false religion that is utterly disconnected from reality.
Under Universalism, procreation is a duty. Under Arminianism, it’s a huge risk. Under Calvinism, it’s a crime.
I was never a Calvinist, but even as an Arminian I’d refuse to have kids. Even 1% risk of any of my children ending up in Hell is… not… worth… it… at all… and whenever I struggled with theology I would curse God for being born, for creating us at all.
That really should be a red flag for anyone who tries to justify ETC. One should never ever fear bringing in new life or hating creation, that is the opposition of what God is, who is the ultimate creator, and creates for good. But, you see, logic is not allowed there. Only the literal reading of a Bible. KJV, preferably. 
When I had my atheist phase (due to ETC, no less), I read on this website who brought up this same analogy. But he said: “The difference between parents and God is that God is apparently driving the truck”.
What gets me the most is that this blasphemy is allowed to exist. Even people who think it’s wrong don’t have a problem with it. But Universalism? “HERESY HERESY HERESY”. Well, guess what. I guess I’ll call myself a heretic then. I’d be in good company right there with Origen and other heretics. And atheists. You can be with your pious war generals, murderers, inquisitors, judges, egoists. At least they don’t preach apokastasis. That’s all that matters, right?
Are those old Reformed Journals online?
johnnyparker wrote:
BirdOfTheEgg wrote:
With the above quotes and more, you two are hitting the nail right on the head. You don’t realize this now but you are giving me more fuel (as if I needed it) for what will probably be my last ‘pastoral’ talk with my pastor later this week. I share your anger johnnyparker. People are either being unimaginably terrorized or turning into zombies as they try to fit ECT into their brains and live normal lives.
In earlier talks, my pastor rather non-chalantly speaks the same as Piper about his young incredibly cute children who currently express hope in Christ. To his credit he admits their faith may not be real since “they’re just kids.” {His words} He realizes they may turn out to be reprobate. “Who knows?” {His words} Yet he is OK with that. To (very accurately) paraphrase with exact words in italics:
I responded:
In his scheme the sensitivities of heaven allow us to hate unbelievers and rejoice in their agony but the more palatable sensitivities of today do not amount to much. We may hurt for a little but we can quickly slough it off.
He replied:
WHY? I do not see this. If my son were being punished, whether he deserved it or, my pain would be the same. I may not try to stop the punishment if it was deserved, but I would still feel just as much pain.
Ultimately a Calvinist must envision a God who was content to create people knowing full well He had no plans to save them. A God who uses our God-given desire to procreate and love our children in order to pull off his plan of populating hell (as well as heaven, but hell is under discussion here.) What kind of God is this? He sounds so sadistic.
But my Calvinist pastor handles this easily:
This sounds very spiritual. But one wonders what he would tell his children if they ever asked “Daddy will you always love me? No matter what?”
I know how I would respond to my son (not that he ever needed to ask because he was always told): “Yes. Yes!!! There is nothing you could ever do to lose my love. Even when I have to punish you it is because I LOVE YOU.”
Somehow I thought that this is the type of God I have. That this is the example God set for me. And that He called me and enabled me to express this kind of love. The kind of love that when I see my son hurt, I hurt more, even if it is deserved punishment. I had this crazy notion that fighting to possess this kind of love, a love that never fails, actually glorified God. **That loving others this way was not competing with my love for God … but actually was an expression of the love God put in my heart for Him. **
Not so for the Calvinist. According to my “inconsistent Calvinistic” pastor, Gods DOES love everyone now, but for most that will CHANGE to hatred once they die. But that’s no better than a consistent Calvinist who, according to Jonathan Edwards, will discover that for most, and perhaps their own children, “God never loved them, but that he hates them, and will be forever hated of God.” {Jonathan Edwards’ words. See apuritansmind.com/puritan-fa … righteous/}
What motivation do we find in this to love others who are in unbelief? For that matter, what motivation do we find to love anybody since we never really know if someone truly believes? Calvinism doesn’t just give us fear in procreation, but fear in loving anyone.
“Oh well” for the Calvinist, “its-all-good as long as it leads to His glory and my joy”. Apparently being this unfeelingly self-centered glorifies God.
Walk into a Piper-esque or Driscoll-esqe church and you will undoubtedly be greeted by scores of very friendly welcoming people eager to tell you about, and even show you, the ‘love of God’. They will give you a nice tour and show you the cute fluffy classrooms where your children will learn how much Jesus loves them … staffed with sweet Sunday School teachers who “really care”. Someone may invite you for over for dinner and fellowship. They might even help you with some extra cash if you are out of work.
But can this apparent love be real? Y’know, the type of love that actually hurts when another hurts? Or is it just an enticement to buy into the program? How could it be real when they (a) might be loving someone God does not love or (b) might be setting themselves up for their own agony upon agony if you were to persist or die in unbelief. If there is an issue of hypocrisy in Reformed churches it’s not that people fail to act in a loving manner towards their neighbor, its that they DO, and thus conceal the shallow nature of their love and the “dark underbelly” of their faith.
(Wow. Did I write all that? I guess I got a little carried away.)
It’s all good man, it’s all good. Not many places we can speak and vent.
Excellent points have been brought up in this thread about inconsistencies of Calvinist theology. HOWEVER, I’d like to point out the portion of our rules which states:
Let us give others grace, in spite of our disagreements, just as we wish them to give grace to us!
Thank you,
Sonia
Hi Sonia
Firstly let me say thank you for that reminder and for all the hard work you do.
Just for clarification, I take it that the rules are emphasising that personal (ad-hominem) attacks are to be avoided (ie ‘attacks on the man’) and attacks on any particular institution (such as a certain theological college or whatever)?
Can I take it that it MAY be proper (if done in the Spirit of Christ) to attack what we regard as evil/dangerous ideas/theologies and that may be done with the passion of Christ himself?
I for one really appreciate the input of the posters on this thread but am thankful for your reminder to stay the right side of the line.
God bless.
Hi everybody
Can I second Pilgrim’s thanks to Sonia both for her dedication to this wonderful forum and her thoughtful reminder of how we – I – ought to be using it.
Firstly, I apologise if I have offended anybody in this or any other thread, either with my sledgehammer attempts at wit or my expressed opinions. *Of course *we should never descend to ad hominem attacks. And reading back over my posts I feel bound to confess that I have probably overstepped that mark in relation to my comments on Mark Driscoll.
The fact that Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be provocative, even offensive is, as Jason has pointed out, no excuse for retaliating in kind. And while I for one find his theology deeply suspect (and deeply unBiblical), he is my brother in Christ, and I know I must try to love him. Which, as some of you have doubtless noticed, I am struggling to do.
But while I know this is going to sound ultra-defensive of me, I would just like to point out that I’m just one bloke expressing his personal opinion to a – relatively – select group of fantastically intelligent, thoughtful, loving and forgiving (not to mention amazingly good-looking, beards or no beards 
) people. And Mark Driscoll is a mega-church pastor with thousands of people – Christians, new Christians, would-be Christians – under his direct pastoral care. And many thousands, perhaps millions even, more people under his influence through the media – websites, books, interviews etc. When he shoots his mouth off (there I go again, sorry!), I mean when he preaches or teaches or annunciates, lots and lots of people listen. And lots of those people are very angry about what he’s saying. Just Google his name and find out what’s being said about him in the LGBT community, for example, or the secular media, or just by ordinary Christian and non-Christian folk.
And lots of those people will be agnostics, trying to make up their minds whether Christianity is true, whether God exists, and if He does, whether He loves them, and if He does love them, how can they get to know Him. And here’s Mark Driscoll telling them quite baldly that God doesn’t love at least some of them, in fact, He *hates *them. Just in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the infamous quote:
Mmmmm. Actually I don’t think I need to say any more on the subject of Mark Driscoll. He’s said it all himself.
But when it comes to Calvinism and Reformed theology in general, I really do find myself struggling to maintain a charitably Christian disposition. I’m afraid that as somebody who tries – and fails, more often than not – to live by the teachings of Jesus, the most loving and forgiving person who has ever walked this earth, I personally find the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to ECT deeply offensive - morally repugnant, in fact. And utterly unBiblical.
It makes me very angry indeed that people - including some good, loving, sensitive people I know or know of personally - are either being turned off Christianity altogether, being driven out of the church, or perhaps worst of all tortured emotionally through anxiety about the fate of their loved ones because of their Calvinist doctrinal beliefs. I hear ex-Calvinists speaking of “recovering from spiritual abuse”. Some of them are, perhaps, members of this forum.
I freely confess I am finding it very difficult to tread the tightrope between stating my beliefs and feelings honestly and openly – for my beliefs and feelings are deeply, passionately heartfelt – but in a way which is not perceived as disrespectful or offensive. Because the bottom line is that I have no respect for the Calvinist doctrines of predestination or limited atonement, and I find them deeply offensive. And if somebody who holds to those doctrines is offended by that, I don’t really know what to do. Here I stand, I can do no other.
Now I hope I can have love towards, and fellowship with, an honest Calvinist. But nothing will alter my implacable antipathy to what they believe. Although, having said that, if anybody can explain to me, clearly, logically, reasonably and Biblically, how the God who is love attested to in scripture and of whom Jesus Christ is the exact image can predestine millions of his beloved creatures to eternal conscious torment in hell I will reconsider.
So again, I apologise if I have offended anybody. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. And as a Universalist, I do mean *all *of us!
Shalom
Johnny
PS I will be responding later to some specific points made in other posts in this thread, but in the meantime, thank you firedup2000 and Bird in particular for your responses.
I agree with Sonia. I know people are upset, but keep in mind we just got finished banning someone who regards universalists (and a particular universalist specifically) as telling lies against God on par with Satan, by promoting Christian universalism. (This wasn’t specifically why we banned him; but he knew he was treading hard on a rule violation and had already long-tested the patience of the ad/mods, so he tried to get around what he had done in a blatantly self-contradictive and impenitent fashion.)
By “institutions” and “schools”, the rules do not mean Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY (for example–currently a strongly Calvinistic bastion), but rather schools of thought. That includes Calvinism in various varieties. It also includes John Piper personally (and Mark Driscoll for that matter).
(And I guess SBS Louisville as that kind of school/institution, too. 
)
We’re not trying to nix discussion on these topics. But creating a site that is safe for discussion (insofar as possible) includes moderating ourselves to help Calvs and Arms (and their non-Protestant counterparts) to feel safe discussing such topics here, too, along with us Kaths (and our non-Protestant counterparts).
Paul Manata and Chris Dates, for example, have been good friends for this site, and have worked with us as good and honorable opponents. Participants of this thread should ask yourselves if you think these Calvinist friends of ours would feel like they could discuss these issues here with you, or if they would think emotions here are running too hot for any serious discussion (as they would see it) to be much worth trying. Or, since John Piper has in the past debated Tom Talbott, one of our guest authors, do you think he would regard this thread (or this site on the basis of this thread) as being somewhere he could come to try to seriously discuss these issues, with Tom or with anyone else?
That’s the balance we’re trying to strike here. Please, help us with that.
(Johnny, you posted while I was composing. Thank you for trying to dial it back a bit. )
might be a bit of a geographic/cultural barrier here. we Brits (i can legally include myself in this category by birth and citizenship if not in childhood memories) really enjoy somewhat scathing sarcasm and a good rant, but it’s not really intended meanly.
not all other countries share our appreciation for this fine art, however
but i can see what the mods are trying to do, and seems fair. but at the same time, it’s hard to suffer awful insults to God’s character. and i’m afraid, given the fact that many big name mega church preachers can dish it out, if they can’t take it too, they’re in the wrong job. not saying we should retaliate in kind, but it’s a grey area, and it’s hard to say “you’re mistaken about God and misleading thousands” without saying “you’re mistaken about God and misleading thousands”
CL,
It’s one thing to say “you’re mistaken about God and misleading thousands”. It’s another thing to say such a person is doing so in a devilish or otherwise immoral way.
The second kind of thing doesn’t promote discussion on the topic with our opponents very well.
true, i am sure they’re doing their best NOT to be devilish!
but good intentions and sincerity don’t make up for the visible harm.
as for discussion, well, that’d be lovely…have to give Mr Piper props for having the courage to speak to Sir Talbott!
many would just dismiss the latter as a damned heretic and be done with it. also i must go on record to congratulate Piper on his stance against prosperity “gospel”. we may disagree on the scope of God’s love and His ability/will to save, but at least we see eye to eye on the huge problem with turning God into a vending machine.
i agree, love and grace are key here. but for myself, i had to be going this way already to see it. all the nice talking in the world wouldn’t have convinced me if i hadn’t already spotted flaws in my belief system and the subsequent solutions to those flaws in UR. also, i do feel that God led me this way.
sort of like how one can debate an atheist forever, and never make any kind of headway either way until the atheist feels the call of God.
but debating (or rather discussion) has it’s use, don’t get me wrong, and welcoming people of a variety of faith backgrounds is helpful to them AND us.
just as a disclaimer, i do feel that if God led me here, it’s so i can show His grace. personally, i’ve still alot of learning to do before i can say i’ve got that right, though 
I hope that, just as Mark has confessed that some chauvinism came through in his preaching as a result of bitterness towards his wife, that whatever personal issues are causing him to preach hate would be resolved. Because that’s just inexcusable.
Also, anyone ever noticed how closely Reformed theology comes to Gnosticism? “We are the seed of God, the elect, His children.” Implying that everyone else is some different type of being altogether.
Hm. Definitely fodder for my book (and perhaps email).
I think CL may have made a very valid point with cultural misunderstandings. As a fellow Brit I am more and more convinced that the cultural differences between Americans and Brits are vast. Who was it that said we are divided by a common language?
Jason, I asked for clarification of the rules and you say:
So the rules mean: We must avoid any negative comments about the school of thought known as Calvinism??
Is this what you REALLY mean? Because it seems to be how things are being interpreted.
By illustration, on another christian forum on one particular thread a poster posted a link to an American website that seemed to be promoting pederasty as a good thing. There is a school of thought which says pederasty is good.
Would anybody here object if I made negative comments about that ‘school’?
Do we really think that we best not because if we are nice in our talking with these pederasts that, by being nice in my talk, I may win them over?
Now I ask myself which is the greater evil and which does the greater harm? A school of thought which promotes pederasty as wholesome? Or a school of thought which promotes double predestination and advertises a capricious sadistic god?
I have to say that I have no doubt which is the greater evil and which does the greater harm. Problem is, perhaps I have now (by saying this) broken your interpretation of the rules.
Don’t get me wrong, I see the forum as yours and the rules as entirely in your hands but, like Johnny, I think I’m gonna have to lie down now because I am FURIOUS about any school of thought which defames the character of God in such a foul way.
Sugar! I’ve gone and done it again.
Sorry. Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!!
Perhaps a way of discussing the “dark underbelly” would be to talk about the fruit of Reformed theology - “you will know them by their fruit”.
I think it’s actually the fruit of Reformed theology that causes many of us, including me, much consternation. So, maybe we can link some particular tenants of Reformed theology to what is then produced.
For example I’ve asked people one on one that were members of a Reformed theology church to consider the possibility that God would in the end redeem all of mankind. This simple question produced quite a telling reaction. These dear folks would not even discuss the possibility for fear that they would eventually be led to believe something that would send them to eternal damnation. One poor lady told me she even had nightmares that my question was actually Satan trying to get her to reject God and loose her salvation.
So where does such a bizarre reaction come from? It’s the fruit of sitting week after week hearing the message that the elect will hold unquestioningly and unceasingly to a particular belief system. Therefore, to question what you are told is the elect belief system, means you are in fact destined for hell.
Here’s an example:
You Will Know Them by Their Fruit (Matthew 7) John MacArthur
The last line of John’s teaching is: “Thus we are once again called to be discerning when listening to preachers who call us to the broad way that leads to death and hell…”.
In other words, John’s teaching is the narrow way and any other teaching will lead one directly to hell. The fruit of this is a church full of people scared to death to think for themselves.
Ironic isn’t it?
Am I on track here? Would linking Reformed theology to it’s fruit as we see it be a constructive way to discuss this?
Also, if Reformed theology produces some particular fruit, what fruit then would an opposing UR view produce?
I also said, as part of that clarification,
I also wrote, right after the part you quoted,
I think I can say with some assurance that, as a contrasting example, this site wasn’t set up to help pederasts feel safe discussing pederasty here along with us.
And completing my reference to what I actually wrote (that you seem to have skipped over): do you think Paul Manata and Chris Dates, who have been good friends for this site and have worked with us as good and honorable opponents, would feel like you are putting them and their beliefs on the same level as, or actually worse than, pederasty? Or not? And if so, do you think they would still feel comfortable trying to discuss Calvinism and Universalism pro and con either way in this thread (or anywhere else on site)?
Yes, going so far as to draw an extensive comparison of Calvinism per se to pederasty, and Calvinists (such as those evenhanded and fair-minded men I mentioned) to pederasts, except even worse, does tend to break the rule of the forum about disrespectful, vulgar or inflammatory comments about any person or any institution.
One reason I am an administrator here, is because the site owners have found that I agree with them on what the purpose of this site is; and consequently I have an obligation to protect their purpose for this site. (Ditto for Sonia and Alex, and for the moderators more generally.) Comparing Calvinists to pederasts (except worse!) does not fall within the scope of James and Gene’s purpose for this site, and tends to strongly run against it. (As far as I can tell–James and Gene are welcome to correct me on that. )
The ad/mods may have to discuss a joint statement soon to try to help members understand what the founding purpose of the site is, and why certain actions run consequently against that purpose.
Until then: if you want to consider me as one of the local protectors of people you consider worse (or no better) than pederasts, go right ahead. Because I am. That’s part of my responsibility here.
These replies blow my mind! It constantly surprises me that people don’t see that the current “good news” just isn’t that good. I mean, if you take the rest of mankind right now on the planet, based on traditional conservative theology, most of those people, the vast majority, are going to spend an eternity in hell! Furthermore, when you get a convert, say, in a Muslim village, or a Buddhist village, they are most likely going to be without the greater majority of all people they have ever known, family and friend, because those people will be in hell and not heaven. So what is the good news? For every person alive today the odds are HORRIBLE for them to make it into heaven. So when I am at church and singing “my God is mighty to save, he is mighty to save!” I think about most people going to hell and ask, “how is that ‘mighty to save?’” How is that “good news”? Good news for whom? Don’t get me wrong, I do think the news IS good. I think it is much better than what my church is teaching. But its really weird that they think what they are saying is really good stuff. Maybe I’m wrong, and God will correct me if I am, but it seems to me that the current version of theology has a God who is NOT mighty to save, who is NOT all that loving, who, contrary to what scripture says, does not delight in mercy, and is angry at most of creation for eternity. That doesn’t seem biblical.
There’s no need for the rolling eyes Jason.
You have made it clear that you believe that we must avoid any negative comments about the school of thought known as Calvinism.
I note that you still do not deny this - and quite rightly because it is there in black and white.
I carefully read what you also said, but unless you are happy with contradicting yourself, it does not undo the statement you have made above and no repetition will distract the thoughtful reader from the undeniable fact that you have said we are not allowed to say anything negative about the ‘school of thought’ called Calvinism.
This despite that, hardly a day has gone past as long as I have read posts on this forum, quite sensibly, that didn’t include negative comments and these without protest from Admins.
Totally irrelevent. You create a strawman.
I did not ‘skip over’ it.
No they wouldn’t because I assume that they are intelligent people who can read English correctly. My statements said nothing about behaviour (as you want to imply) but about ideologies. Beliefs. ‘Schools of thought’.
So, I did not compare them to pederasts who behave in a deplorable way. I compared their belief system to the belief system of those who try to claim that pederasty is a wholesome activity.
And YES I believe that double predestined Calvinism is WORSE than their depraved beliefs.
Well, it was not ‘if so’ as you seem determined to misquote me whilst displaying umbrage that I have ‘skipped over’ some of your post.
However, I have no idea whether they would feel ‘comfortable’ posting on this forum! (I note how much contribution they have made under your ‘make-them-feel-comfortable’ strategy, however). It seems that it is your priority to make those who would continue to promote their worship of a capricious and sadistic god ‘comfortable’ at the expense of allowing proper, reasoned, and intelligent debate about the issues and their consequences.
Which I did not do.
My comparison was with those whose belief system would justify pederasty not with those who commit pederasty.
Is it that you REALLY cannot follow English or have you deliberately misconstrued my point rather than reconsider the statement you have made?
Firstly, their is nothing ‘fair-minded’ about those who believe in double predestination. I have no knowledge of the people you refer to but I referred to double predestinary Calvs. If they are such, then, by definition, they do not believe in ‘fair-mindedness’. They do not worship a god who treats everyone equally or fairly.
You keep repeating your ‘error’
You can do exactly as you wish but don’t deceive yourself - I don’t want to consider you at all (other than a brother in Christ) but what I want is to be clear on the rules so that I can abide by them or leave. What you are suggesting is that no-one is allowed to say anything negative about a vile school of thought which is responsible for untold suffering and death across the globe (eg the Dutch reformed Afrikaans with their apartheid stemming directly from their belief of the elect class and the reprobate class).
Now, let me be clear.
You have now tried to defend, and hence have reinforced your statement that you interpret the rules of this forum as meaning that no-one is allowed to make a negative comment about the school of thought called Calvinism.
Worse still (according to your logic) would be to say anything negative about a PERSON who is Calvinist.
So, presumably, I am not allowed to say that I think Calvin was wrong in being complicit in the murder of Michael Servetus!!!
(Or does your interpretation of rules only apply to living persons!)
Amazing!
I have read the rules carefully and I do not interpret them to mean that no-one is allowed to say anything negative about (eg) Calvinism.
If, as an Admin, you are adding this to the rules, or are interpreting/clarifying the present rules to mean this, then I will have no option but to resign my membership.
I have to follow my conscience and what I believe Christ would have me do. I am sure (and I mean this) that you do the same. I will thank you and all staff for your/their services and wish you God’s blessings but I cannot remain silent about what I consider to be an evil ideology and what I regard as the spirit of anti-christ.
Less still, will I remain silent about a school of thought just because my reflections may make some adherents feel less comfortable.
Not to be allowed to speak negatively about an ideology with which we/I disagree is to show disrespect to those who hold those differing views. It is patronising not comforting.
I have always lived in the hope that those who differ with my views would honour me enough to speak negatively to me about the views with which they disagree. This is how we learn. Not by pampering to evil.
Good day.
Pilgrim, and all, I think the Admins and Moderators need to chat about this and clarify the rules a bit. 
Obviously disagreement with various schools of thought is not considered a problem on this forum, we just want to have it done in a respectful and humble way here.
We’d appreciate it if you’d all be patient with us while we clarify some things.
Thanks,
Sonia
Pilgrim,
I have written often here of how negatively I see the Calvinism that I was taught at Fuller Seminary, and I haven’t seen anyone object to my negativity. Yet you appear to see concern that inflammatory language (equating belief in Calvinism with affirmation of child molestation) would dampen dialogue with sincere Calvinists as identical to restricting ANY “negative” statement! I am baffled that you can not recognize the importance of such distinctions in relationships.