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.
Getting pretty heated in here. 
I can see it from both sides.
We need to be willing to have mature and open, and loving, discussion with those we disagree with (we should, like Jesus said, love our enemies, bless those who persecute us, do good to those who harm us… and that’s not easy for any of us I admit that I’ve made offhand remarks too 
)
But at the same time we need to vent and let off steam about these things that make us so angry, because they have wounded or been a great burden to us, and/or others, and these are wounds that need healing, or burdens that need to be lifted, and sometimes being honest about how we feel can be helpful and freeing (though forgiveness and grace is even more so).
Also, there are people here who feel very passionate about this very deep and very important issue, and want to fight against something that they believe is a great hindrance to the spread of God’s gospel of grace, not to mention a great insult to God’s character.
But then again, we should always keep in mind that if we believe that God shows no partiality, and truly loves all people, then it should be a challenge to us and a call for us to do the same, and though love in its expression may include correction and even rebuke, it should never include hate, at least not in the sense that we condemn a person’s very existence, and do not wish them well in the end, or are unwilling to pray for them or extend grace to them…
Easier said then done of course, which is why we all need to pray for wisdom and that we may grow in love for God, for one another, and for all people, including even those who could be counted as opponents or enemies.
So there’s my two cents 
Not sure how the admins and mods will work all of this out, but I pray good will come from this.
May Jesus be our peace, the One who breaks down the walls of hostility.
Blessings to you all
Matt
Great post, Matt. Wisdom from youth. I’m grateful to you for your calm.
I read all of this and didn’t even consider how a person of calv leanings might feel about it so for that, I’m abashed, too. I might even have posted back if I’d been more acquainted with the situation. It made me feel so angry toward the people who could say such things about their own children. To be fair to them, they probably had in mind the thing that Jesus said, that if anyone loves their family members more than they love Him, they’re not worthy of Him. But of course, Jesus wasn’t saying anyone should literally hate their family. (No, really – He actually wasn’t!) 
I feel sure that none of the people who’ve said these things really believe that their children are reprobate. We as humans pretty much always assume “it” (whatever it is) will not happen to us or ours.
It’s hard for me to imagine what might be going through the mind and heart of a person who has truly thought this idea through, and still adheres to it. I don’t mean to insult their intellects at all, but is it possible that any of them HAVE really thought it through? It’s difficult for me to believe that they have, but surely intelligent people . . . yet, the sort of person who takes things so very literally and stacks precept on precept and line on line in this way must be by nature very logical and left-brained.
I’m not in that category. According to all the on-line tests I’ve taken (hey, they’re fun if nothing else ), I’m in the middle, slightly to the right. I was disappointed, btw. I wanted it to be way right since I try to be an artist. 
Anyway, my point – yes, I’m getting to it – is that it takes a certain amount of a certain kind of imagination to see and feel and sense what it might REALLY be like to see one’s child (however deserving) suffering in never-ending agony in the unrelenting fires of hell. I’m thinking there’s no way these guys are anything like as “flaky” and artistic/imaginative as I am. For me, even the thought of a complete stranger who had done terrible things being tortured in this way forever and ever ever makes me feel pale with dismay.
I hate violence, but I’m not a pacifist. I think the Republicans are too liberal. I even have a carry permit in my purse. But even I think burning someone forever and ever is going too far. I’ve always thought so, and tried to make excuses for God, soften it, say He couldn’t stop it because of our dratted free will and so on. But the idea that He’d do it on purpose? Yeah, I don’t think their imagination is as plaguey as mine. Can’t be.
God is good, and as we’re made in His image, I think we (even atheists, even those of warlike religions), deep down know what is good unless we’ve been so badly twisted and injured by life that we’ve forgotten. The normal, marginally healthy person knows good from bad. They at least know how THEY want to be treated, and that’s a fair if not perfect indicator. The preachers referenced above profess to love their children and I’m sure they do. They trust that (since they believe what they believe) that in the future, if necessary, God will remove that love, since they, like the rest of us, no doubt couldn’t bear to imagine facing such a horror with love intact. IMO, they’re twisting logic to trick themselves into thinking they believe something they can’t possibly deal with any other way. (Was that convoluted enough?)
We all have this tendency to be so devoted to our ideologies that we feel that even to entertain the notion we could be wrong is tantamount to denying God. In a sense, I guess it is. It would be denying the God we think we know. It is very difficult to let go, especially if we’ve held a belief for a long time and invested large portions of our soul into it. Yet the way of the cross is to die. I wasn’t willing to do that, so God (in effect) put me to death – took me to the brink of atheism – so that He could raise me up, so to speak, in a truer relationship to Him. My understanding of Him was so confused, I guess He just had to figure out a way to start from scratch.
So anyway, what I’m trying to say is that it’s probably a good idea to assume these men mean well, however horrifying we may find the picture of God that the theology paints in our imaginations. God knows, and He can push the reset button on them, too, if He thinks it good to do so.
Blessings and love to you all,
Cindy
First of all I want to say that I understand this is not my website and therefore I will heed and respect the discretion of the moderators. However I must admit that my idea of healthy constructive dialogue or debate would allow for anything I have read on this thread. Keep in mind that I was quick to defend the tone and language of both Martin Zender ( See Aaron's Challenges .) [NOTE: I hold to this even after finding this latter person’s comments where he “regards universalists (and a particular universalist specifically) as telling lies against God on par with Satan”. Maybe I am too accepting of his attempt to clarify his comments. At least he tried. Nevertheless I respect the moderators’ decision concerning him.]
This comment from Sonia makes sense:
Now I do understand that we should not make personal attacks or use intentionally inflammatory or sarcastic language, but this line from the rules seems impossible to follow:
I get the “avoid disrespectful” part but to me the very defense of EU is in and of itself a negative statement about “Arminians, Calvinists, Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims and the schools of Arminianism, Calvinism, Catholicism, Unitarianism, Judaism, and Islam”. I think I would be hard pressed to find more than a few threads here that do not in some way attack the tenets of one of the above schools of thought. If they didn’t, what’s the purpose of this website?
Would Calvinists feel comfortable on this thread? Of course not. Who would feel comfortable when negative statements are made about your theology? But is that a bad thing? To me it’s healthy and productive if done in a respectful way. Would they feel respected as a human being? I think so. I wish there was a convinced Reformed person here to chime in. I would welcome any negative statements he would have to make about EU. I would think he would welcome it too about his faith. As long as we critiqued each others beliefs in a respectful way I think it could be very healthy and should be no cause for anyone to leave.
Perhaps we should turn this question around: “Would a convinced Reformed person feel comfortable on this thread if people did NOT feel free to make negative statements about the Reformed school of thought?” I would think this would make him even more uncomfortable and lead him to ask himself: “What’s the point in being here?”
BTW my big point in my first post here is not that Calvinists are any less loving or more hypocritical than Universalists, but that Calvinism logically should lead one towards being less loving and more hypocritical (as I defined hypocrisy in my first post.) Most people in Reformed churches that I know, especially in my current church, are probably more loving and less hypocritical than I am. But I believe this is not because of their faith, but in spite of it.
This causes me to wonder as Cindy Skillman does in this quote:
I think we as fallen human beings must overcome alot in our sinful nature in order to be loving towards our family, church and unbelieving neighbors. The last thing we need is a theology that logically short circuits such love.
Yes. I understand that the staff will need time to deal with this.
All I am asking is that Jason accepts his comment that we must not make negative comments about any school of thought is seen to be what it is -an end to all debate on important theological issues.
Forgive me the right to reply to Bob.
Hi Bob
First of all, as you wish to add flames to this fire AFTER Sonia’s post requesting time, then you might have the decency to be a man and say plainly then what your stance is on the interpretation/clarification/new rule/whatever that we must not make negative comment on any school of thought such as Calvinism.
Secondly, if you read my reply, you will be aware that I was addressing presicely this comment and made the point that negative views are continually being expressed without any Admin claiming infringement of rules.
You have misrepresented what I said. I did not equate the two beliefs. They are very, very different.
If you are saying that the belief and promotion of double-predestination Calvinism has done less damage in the world than those who promote pederasty as a wholesome thing then I would suggest firstly that the issue is very much open to debate and secondly that I am inclined to see the former as having done much more damage. If you acknowledge this possibility then it is impossible to construe my reference as inflamatory.
This is not to say that the latter is not a great evil.
I am outraged by both views. And that is the point. The concept of god being a capricious and sadistic torturer is outrageous.
You talk about inflamatory language, but I put to you that there are few views more inflamatory than d.p. Calvinism.
So do you wish to ban any recitation of the Calvinist perspective on this forum in case people are inflamed?
I am baffled that you cannot recognise the importance of passionate, stringent debate of IDEAS in any healthy relationship.
I am baffled that you cannot see the problem with the statement ‘we are not allowed to make negative comments about schools of thought’ and what such a rule will do to relationships.
I am baffled with someone who ignores the cause of the problem but rather attacks another soul’s attempt to deal with that cause.
I am baffled that we take Christ as our example on everything except how we should approach those who have a vile religiosity. Presumably you are baffled that Christ did not ‘recognise the importance of such distinctions’ either when dealing with the pharisees who, by most reasonable scholars, did not distort God’s message half as much as d.p. Calvinists (IMO)
Perhaps Christ should have considered what his inflamatory words would do to His relationship with them? Perhaps He should have realised that they would have felt ‘less comfortable’ around Him in the future.
Good day.
David,
Yes, actually, I do think this is a constructive approach. “Fruit” is the proof of what the tree is – does it produce Godly fruit or worldly fruit? This is what we are told to pay attention to.
From Galatians 5, the deeds of the flesh look like this:
sexual immorality
impurity
lustful pleasures
idolatry
sorcery
hostility
quarreling
jealousy
outbursts of anger
selfish ambition
dissension
division
envy
drunkenness
wild parties
and other sins like these
On the other hand, when a person is walking in the Spirit, their lives are characterised by:
love
joy
peace
patience
kindness
goodness
faithfulness
gentleness
self-control
Since you brought up MacArthur, I’ll say I’ve actually heard him define “fruit” as “having the right doctrinal system.” I think Paul (the apostle) would disagree with him on that.
A theological system cannot by itself produce the children of God. I have seen people from many different theological systems show the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. The system a person professes to believe does not always manifest in their actions, and it is our actions which show what spirit we have in us – what we really believe. Jesus teaches that our deeds show who our Father is – is it the Father of Jesus or are we children of the devil?
What kind of fruit should UR produce? Logically speaking, if we believe that all people are children of God, loved and cherished by Him, ultimately to be reconciled to Him and raised to the fullness of God’s desire for them, we ought to treat each one in keeping with that – “For now we recognise no man according to the flesh…” (2 Cor 5)
All this doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for rebuke and correction. Conflict will inevitably arise. Where to draw the line? When does “rebuke” become “dissension, quarreling, strife, division”? I don’t know. I think that takes a lot of honest prayer and seeking for wisdom. I do think Driscoll was way off base telling people that God hates them … I agree that’s a time to stand up and say something. What I take issue with in Johnny’s OP is the dripping sarcasm and the generally derisive attitude – at least that’s how I perceived it. But I thought he made some really good points – it was just done in a manner that doesn’t fit with this forum’s agenda.
In general, I’m inclined to lean towards grace. We are all a work in progress. I have believed things about God that I now believe to be false, and I tried hard to convince people of things which I now believe to have been wrong. This means I told people lies about God, and not only that, I also scorned them in my heart because they would not accept what I said. I am now thoroughly sorry that I did this, sorry that I was so proud in my supposed knowledge, ashamed to have represented God as I did, humbled at the extent of my error, and cautious in the understanding that God’s ways are beyond me and I can only understand what He chooses to reveal to me.
So, yes, I agree – the fruit is the thing to look for. The complicating factor is that in practice doctrinal systems seem to produce mixed bags of fruit. I know some very gracious and loving people who profess doctrines I now consider atrocious. The only way I can explain this is to think that some people just follow the Spirit, and their theologies don’t go much more than skin deep. But you’d think UR would tend to produce more gracious people.
Sorry, this post is more rambling than pointed … I appreciate your post, David, and think it’s on the right track.
Sonia
Hi Jason and Sonia
I know you’re only trying to do your mod job properly, to help keep proper order on this forum. Personally I think you do a fine job of this, as far as I have seen. You bend over backwards to stick up for equality and fairness for, and courtesy and respect towards, all participants. That’s right, that’s good. That is freedom of speech. What was it Voltaire said, “ I do not believe in what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it”?
I also happen to have a great deal of respect for you both personally. Jason’s erudite, brilliantly researched posts have been a great help and instruction to me in the months since I’ve discovered this forum. But – you could see that but coming a mile off, couldn’t you? – I think you’re coming down unnecessarily hard here. Isn’t it a bit soon to be threatening to get your red card out, to start talking of bans and things? Jason talks about having banned Aaron Curry, whose entire contribution to this forum seems to me to have consisted of deliberate and persistent bating of us URs for months, and seems to imply that some of us just might go the same way on the basis of a couple of posts in this single thread.
I suspect the problem, as firedup2000 points out so eloquently in his post, doesn’t lie with the way you are doing your best to apply the forum rules fairly, but with the rules themselves. I agree 100% with firedup that it is simply not possible to have a debate of any kind without saying *something *negative. That’s what argument is, isn’t it? If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position, as Monty Python pointed out in their famous, and fabulous, argument sketch.
Now, when the debate – the argument, the negativity – concerns something about which people feel as passionately as they do about a doctrine – double predestination – which defines god as a merciless and capricious torturer of his children, for eternity, I cannot see how the language of the debate can fail to veer towards the inflammatory or disrespectful on occasion. Not in an ad hominem way. Not as a personal insult to any forum member. But towards the doctrine itself.
Now I hope I haven’t shown any personal disrespect towards anybody on this forum. I’ve let Mark Driscoll have it between the eyes, true, but if he shows up in person on this forum and we get into it, that’ll be a horse of a different colour.
Sonia, you take issue with my sarcastic approach. All I can say is, guilty as charged. You want to see me when I’m really *trying *to be sarcastic. 
And 'generally derisive attitude" is a bit harsh, don’t you think? But never mind, I dished it out, so I take the rebuke on my beardless chin.
But I do humbly submit that sarcasm, satire, irony – mockery or ridicule even, at the appropriate juncture – are legitimate arrows in the debater’s quiver. And I trust you will agree that there is a fine, honourable and long-established tradition of their use in many different arenas, including political, ethical and ‘religious’ debate. And of course, as some of my fellow Brits here have pointed out, we do see things a bit differently, humour-wise, on our side of the pond. (Although America loves Monty Python too, I hear!)
How long, I wonder would Jonathan Swift have lasted on this forum – suggesting, as he did, in his *Modest Proposal *that poor Irish people should sell their children to the rich as food?
Or CS Lewis, who mocked the devil and his minions so relentlessly in his Screwtape Letters? (I guess we’re pretty much agreed we can all have a go at Mephistopheles without fear of censure. But what about Aleister Crowley, were he still alive …?)
Or George MacDonald – my beloved George MacDonald, my hero and master, and the inspiration for so many of us here? In railing against what he perceived as an unjust and erroneous doctrine – in this case penal substitutionary atonement – he said this:
“To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice.”
You could easily read that as MacDonald comparing those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement with the worshippers of Moloch, who we all know definitely wasn’t the kind of deity you wanted your parents to be offering sacrifices to …
Were these guys being sarcastic? Negative? Disrespectful? Inflammatory? You decide. But if they were, it’s because the things they were attacking made them very angry.
And clearly, some of us here are pretty bloody angry about some of the doctrines of Calvinism. I think it’s our legitimate right to be angry, and as, Bird of the Egg suggests, to vent that anger on this forum.
If any proponents of Calvinism want to come here and defend predestination and limited atonement – honestly, fairly, logically and Biblically – of course they should be welcome to do so. (What, I wonder, does it tell us about Calvinism that not many – or none, recently, at least – do?) But as firedup2000 says, I don’t think they should necessarily feel comfortable doing so.
Personally I think it’s not the best idea to start talking about pederasty, which is a *highly *emotive subject. And I can see how any mention of it in any connection, however nuanced, with Calvinism could be seen as inflammatory. But like I say, this kind of debate evokes very strong feelings. I do also think that if you look again at what Pilgrim said originally you will find he never compared Calvinism to pederasty, or Calvinists to pederasts, and he certainly never said anything at all about any individual Calvinist.
I have a lot more to say, particularly in reply to some of the other posters, but I just wanted to put in my two pence worth on this general issue of forum rules and their application, just in case you and your mod colleagues were getting into it already.
And like I said at the beginning, I think you do a brilliant job here, and the last thing I want is to upset you or fall out with you. I’d like to be able to get to know you a lot better, and hope that over time I might even be able to call you friends (presumptuous I know, especially given my complete lack of facial hair Jason ).
Shalom, as always
Johnny
Johnny,
I’m not the slightest bit upset … just sorry this is somehow being made a big deal of. We’re not interested in banning anyone over this, haven’t handed out any official warnings, weren’t giving even unofficial warnings – just saying “rein it in a little.”
When I said “generally derisive attitude” I meant the tone of this particular post in general – not your attitude. And I wasn’t certain you meant it that way, just that it comes across that way.
As I mentioned, I think we need to modify the wording of the rules – “negative” is, I think, too general, and we’ll discuss that as people have time.
I apologise for setting off this whole thing – maybe a private note would have been better. 
Sonia
have to say on some forums i visit, the mods think they’re gods, and that they can do anything they jolly well like, regardless of how unfair.
you here are willing to discuss and even apologise when things go a bit pearshaped. also, it’s clear your intentions are good. just wanted to say that i respect your ability to discuss humbly how the board is run. very cool, loads of respect.
Johnny,
If it is any reassurance, I did immediately qualify my reminder that we recently banned Aaron: he had been treading hard on ad/mod patience (and general forum patience) for a few months already, not even counting the six months or so before his first long-term ban; and I did not ban him for that or even ban him for calling AllenS a liar against God whose lies are on an exact par with Satan. I banned him for trying to pretend he hadn’t done so in a flagrantly self-contradictive fashion right before going ahead and doing so again. Had I been going to ban him merely(!) for identifying universalism and universalists with Satanic-level sinners, I would have banned him several weeks ago when he tried to claim what I taught was the spirit of antichrist rebuked and warned against by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians.
So, I banned him for reasons that haven’t been met comparatively by anyone here in this thread, including Pilgrim. Had Aaron not gone farther than that I would have only cautioned him on the same ground that I seconded Sonia’s caution here. (And, incidentally, he would probably still be around annoying the forum generally, thanks to us not smiting with the banhammer every time someone writes something inflammatory or disrespectful. )
Pilgrim,
“Disrespectful or negative comments” in a paragraph trying to clarify a rule about “disrespectful, vulgar or inflammatory comments”, refers to “disrespectful, vulgar or inflammatory comments”. “Negative” there is a shorthand for the other two adjectives “vulgar” and “inflammatory”.
However, since this has somehow been confusing for some members, who against every single possible bit of the towering mountain of evidence otherwise, are concerned that by “negative” we meant to outright contradict one of the main purposes of this forum, which is to promote Christian universalism over-against mutually exclusive schools of thought, we will no doubt end up replacing “negative” with one or both of the original adjectives “vulgar” or “inflammatory” from the phrasing of the rule, which we wrote “negative” to stand for rather than having to type both of the other words out again.
This leaves Sonia’s caution, and my followup support of her caution, and Bob Wilson’s follow-up support (as co-creator of the site), in exactly the same place as before: we realize tempers are running hot (and we actually sympathize with why they are running hot), but we have a rule cautioning about inflammatory and disrespectful comments vs. Calvinism and Calvinists (as the most immediately pertinent example) for a reason. I have tried to remind members what that reason is, and apparently I have been too foggy and unclear nevertheless about what that reason is, but the reason isn’t so that there will be no negative comments at all made about Calvinism and Calvinists (as ought to be obvious from the existence of this forum at all).
Obviously we’re also lenient about enforcing the rule, whether the inflammatory language is coming from universalists or from non-universalists. But we can be lenient in enforcing the rule while still cautioning people about it.
Back to Johnny,
Lewis and MacDonald (who are also my own teachers–and I myself have drawn the Moloch comparison on this forum as a technical conclusion, by the way) weren’t in their books trying to run a discussion forum where Calvinists or Satan should be as protected from emotional outbursts (for purposes of fostering discussion) as Universalists or Christians should be protected from their emotional outbursts (for purposes of fostering discussion). Nor are the site creators, and the ad/mods they appointed, trying to run a discussion forum where Satan as the chief representative of rebellion against God is seriously intended to be apologized for at all by members, much less one where a Satanist as such could feel as comfortable as possible participating. But we are trying to run a forum where Calvinists will feel as comfortable as possible participating.
Similarly, we aren’t running a forum dedicated to sober discussion on the merits of pederasty pro or con. Pilgrim may think my reminding him of this is irrelevant (after he himself introduced the comparison of Calvinism to pederasty on moral par), but it is exactly the point. The site creators aren’t interested in fostering critical dialogue with pederasts on pederast schools of thought, but they are interested in fostering critical dialogue with non-universalists and non-Christians (and for that matter non-trinitarian Christians, although this is more secondary), on topics of direct relevance to universal salvation from sin or (for whatever reason) the lack thereof, in mutual respect of God. (Satan, or that ‘type’ of Satanist, would be the exception that proves the rule.)
Back to Pilgrim again,
In regard to your comparison of apologists for Calvinism, to apologists for pederasty: if you did not mean to imply that Calvinism is morally as reprehensible or worse than pederasty, and so therefore that apologists for Calvinism are behaving thereby in a manner morally equivalent to or worse than apologists for the wholesomeness of pederasty, then I am sorry for having misunderstood you.
But if you meant the former without considering the consequential inference of the latter, then you ought to understand why I inferred your intention of the latter from the former. I don’t think apologists for Calvinism, if they visited this thread and were “intelligent people who could read English correctly”, would regard their behavior in apologizing for and promoting Calvinism to be distinct from their behavior in apologizing for and promoting Calvinism; and so would consider you to be comparing their behavior in doing so with the behavior of pederasts arguing that pederasty is a wholesome activity (seeing as how Calvinist apologists, who believe in Calvinist doctrine per se, also tend by a very wide margin to be Calvinists who practice Calvinism to some significant extent.)
I’m glad to see we’re working out how to rebuke in a proper manner here.
Pilgrim,
It must have seemed like I was piling on, and I’m sorry my views on Christian dialogue were so hurtful. I’'ll try to clarify.
I loved and resonated with Johnny’s rant, and suspect that few find traditional Calvinism more horrific than I. My former classmate, John Piper’s views on this often appall me, and I think “negative” is fine in the sense of a strong critique that argues that a view is deeply wrong. I assume that “negative” is to be construed as equivalent to being “inflammatory,” and derisively “disrestpectful” concerning other people and their theology.
I’m afraid that I’m not grasping your faithful efforts at comparing and clarifying how we speak to molestors and those who embrace a system we find to be heinous (I would communicate differently with an active perpetrator of abuse than I would with someone (perhaps incoherently) who embraced a philosophic system that I thought logically affirmed perpetration of evil). Even though I personally agree with the heinous implications, I still think Calvinists would find your comparison produced more inflammatory heat than light.
We are all different in what we desire. My own bias is that there are many sites that seem to believe that venting a sort of outraged scorn is valuable, but that there is a place for one which seeks as this one’s founders did, to temper that kind of communication. I don’t see how it is helpful. Maybe my blind spot here is indeed that I’m not British 
Hi Sonia
Really glad you’re not upset. And absolutely no need to apologise - like I said, you’re only doing your job properly, and keeping motormouths like me in line.
Have a great day.
Shalom
Johnny
Jason and Bob
Your posts still include strawmen and show a desire to discuss pederasty more than any desire to deal comprehensively with the main issue.
Please note:
Jason’s statement to the effect that we are not allowed to be negative about Calvinism was made BEFORE pederasty was mentioned.
It is clearly ludicrous and indefensible.
Jason himself has been negative about many theological ‘schools of thought’ as have we all and as we all need to be.
I take it to be a simple error which needs correcting.
Instead, I witness both Jason and Bob trying to justify and re-interpret the statement. I witness attempts to deflect from this issue by attacking on a different front and by creating strawmen.
This is all very sad. Are we not bigger than that? We all say things in haste and a simple retraction is not very costly.
Alternatively, Bob, we could do our friend a greater disservice by a feeble and doomed attempt to suggest that ‘negative’ is synonymous with ‘inflamatory’.
Bob, you apologise for making comments which were ‘so hurtful’. They were not in the least bit. Even if they were, don’t we all (as URs) believe that some hurt can be an important part of God’s reconciliation and our learning process? If you think your arguments were sound then stand by them! If not, then have the strength of character to adjust them. To you, I repeat, that your arguments would clearly deny Jesus His approach to the religious folk in His day. However, that is a side issue.
The sooner the main issue is addressed properly by you two, and less talk about pederasty, the better.
Sonia, I still believe that your input was warranted and helpful and I thank you for it.
Jason
Thanks for the clarification. I was being premature in assuming that you were being premature in talking about bans and stuff, sorry.
I know my post was emotional. Probably overly so. The trouble is, this subject – predestination to ECT – is such an emotive one.
Lewis and MacDonald are so important to me – George opened the door to UR for me, and without both of them, I seriously doubt whether I would have become, or at least remained, a Christian at all – so note to self to be more selective in rallying them to a cause without seriously judicious reflection first. (My reference to Aleister Crowley was just silly, and I apologise for that too.)
Actually, perhaps there should be a rule that any posts on emotive subjects like predestination ought to have a 24-hour time delay, a bit like they do on the radio to stop people effing and blinding, to give the author scope for sober reflection. But that wouldn’t be any fun, would it?
Shalom
Johnny
firedup 2000
I was very saddened and moved to read your story, and to hear the words of your Calvinist pastor. I would be very interested to hear how you got on with him when you last spoke, if you don’t mind sharing that with us.
I share your amazement at this statement. The very idea that God tortures anybody – let alone by arbitrary decree; let alone forever; let alone with no possibility, if they are reprobate, of them avoiding the torture no matter how good they try to be in their earthly lives – is shameful, a stain on true Christian belief. And fuel for the atheist’s fire, I might add.
Is he really? Sounds to me like he’s more concerned with his *own *salvation than the salvation of his children, or anyone else for that. I wonder, how seriously has he considered the notion that he himself might have been – might actually be (for we often deceive ourselves) reprobate.
Could he, I wonder, look at himself in the mirror and say, to paraphrase the Piper quote I used earlier:
“But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen me for his son. And, though the Bible tells me Jesus gave his life for my salvation, if I should be lost forever I should not rail against the Almighty. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of the earth has ever and always will do right.”
Does damning your Calvinist pastor (or John Piper) to eternal conscious torment in hell consisting of ‘always doing right’? I wonder.
I know Jonathan Edwards is one of the poster boys for Reformed theology, and I guess he was a very godly man trying to be true to his interpretation of scripture. But some of the stuff he came out with makes me go all Incredible Hulk!
I quote my teacher George MacDonald on Edwards’s god:
“From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s portrait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing. Not such a God is he concerning whom was the message John heard from Jesus, that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”
Amen!
This, of course, is one of the (many) illogicalities at the heart of Calvinism. God doesn’t love the reprobate, so why should we? Jesus tells us to love everybody, to love our neighbour as ourselves? How can we, if our neighbour is a hell-bound reprobate? And why does Jesus tell us to love our neighbour if God doesn’t love them?
Firedup, I can see why you *are *fired up, if you’ll pardon the pun, about all this. So am I. (Not that anyone could guess from my posts, obviously )
But may I say that you are clearly a good and loving father, and whatever Calvinistic rubbish (my opinion!) your pastor comes out with, just remember that God is a good and loving father too. He’s better and more loving than any earthly father could ever be. And we can trust HIm *always *to love us and do the best for us.
Blessings
Johnny
Hi Roofus
Sorry, I don’t know if the Reformed Journal generally is available online, but the article I quoted from – the debate between Tom Talbott and John Piper on predestination – is. You can download it from Tom’s website: willamette.edu/~ttalbott/publications.html
Well worth a read, if you ask me.
Shalom
Johnny
The main issue is inflammatory comments, and always has been. You introduced your own inflammatory comment with the pederasty comparison, after Sonia and I cautioned about inflammatory comments. Having opened that line of comparison yourself, you’ll have to live with people continuing to refer to your comparison as another example of inflammatory comments running against what we meant by “negative”, or retract your comparison. (I don’t expect you will be doing the latter.)
Please note: Jason’s statement was not to the effect that we are not allowed to be negative about Calvinism in the oversimple strawman version you keep appealing to. (Speaking of strawmen…)
You are welcome to correct your error about oversimplifying the obvious context of the rule any time. We all say things in haste and a simple retraction is not very costly.
The fact that I myself have been negative about many theological schools of thought, as was indeed the purpose of the forum at all, and that the ad/mods do not routinely caution people about being simply negative regarding theological schools of thought (even when that negativity is directed against our own theological schools of thought), is all strong evidence supporting the contextual interpretation of “negative” in that clarifying paragraph of the rule to be only a shorthand for the adjectives actually used in the rule itself: “inflammatory” and “vulgar”.
If you’re going to continue ignoring the context of the statement, and consider our appeals to the context as evidence of what the statement meant (as well as our testimony about what our own intentions were when we drafted and approved that statement) to be “re-interpretations” of what we originally meant when drafting that statement (and of what we still consistently mean by it today, including in our references to it in this thread), so be it.
However, if we point out in comprehensive detail what we meant and didn’t mean by our caution about “negative” comments, including in the cited rule, and if we explain in comprehensive detail why we included that caution in the rule, and therefore what our main issue was in cautioning with reference to the rule in this thread–then clearly we “desire to deal comprehensively with the main issue”, and have in fact done so.
Johnny has correctly understood our intention to be a caution about inflammatory language (not merely about being negative against Calvinism in any possible way), and has also understood what our main issue was in cautioning about that inflammatory language (as have most of the other thread participants)–which was not to shut down any negative comments about Calvinism at all. He responded in an honorable way that we have agreed to be entirely satisfactory. And which, notably, didn’t require him to remove or even renounce anything he had said against Calvinism and Calvinists (even the inflammatory parts). All we wanted was for him (and other thread participants) to keep in mind that part of the purpose of the forum is to allow room for Calv and Arm Christians (Protestant or otherwise) to feel as safe as possible discussing these issues here, too, and that inflammatory language hinders this purpose, so try to tamp back a little please. Or as I put it to Johnny in the comment which somehow led you to try claiming we wanted to shut down all negative comments on Calvinism, “Johnny, you posted while I was composing. Thank you for trying to dial it back a bit.”
If you hadn’t tried to pretend (against all evidence, including against the obvious contextual evidence of the rule referenced by Sonia) that we were attempting to shut down any negative comments about Calvinism at all (and hadn’t added your own gasoline to the fire with the comparison to Calv apologetics to pederast apologetics), ad/mod concerns about this thread would have been quickly over already at the point where I thanked Johnny for trying to dial it back a bit.