Driscoll claims he’s spent fifteen years in intensive study of the scriptures to arrive at his ridiculous ‘limited unlimited atonement’ predestination to ECT theology!
it took me 30ish years to find UR! so give him some time 
Ha ha! 
Hi Fiery
I think you’re right about this, as far as Driscoll is concerned. His affirmation that God hates some people is really just the natural ‘fruit’ of his Calvinism, and many other Calvinist preachers - Tim Keller, for example - either deny this or avoid the subject completely. What bugs me about Driscoll, though, is the way he actually seems to take pleasure in ramming that ‘fact’ home. And actually, even Driscoll is inconsistent in his presentation of Calvinism theology, as I hope to demonstrate in my post, which I hope to finish composing tonight.
And anyway, as I’m sure you’ll agree, Calvinism *cannot *be followed consistently anyway - because it is intrinsically inconsistent!
Hope things went well today.
Shalom
Johnny
Johnny,
I appreciate your comment.
I did meet with my pastor on Tuesday afternoon. In many ways it went well. We were very cordial and respectful but did not hold back in our honest assessments. We covered alot of ground and wrapped up some loose ends in our understandings of both positions.
In the end he admits that Calvinism necessitates inconsistencies and he quite boldly and calmly accepts this. I cannot. I honestly believe such inconsistencies are dangerous. But sometime we do not see how dangerous something is until it hits close enough to home.
I want to, and plan to, share more but I am not feeling well physically today. So for now I need to get some rest. Take care.
It’s interesting you should bring this up, Sonia. Just today, our very non-UR pastor was talking about how C.S. Lewis pointed out that the sins of the flesh are bad, but nowhere near as bad as the sins of the spirit; and that “legalism” (I’m paraphrasing the actual quote here) puts one “nearer to hell” (as Lewis put it) than a prostitute. I think this was much of the reason that Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees.
In following up here on my talk with my pastor there is much I could say at great length. However I feel there are a few points that are germane to this thread. I think the following is indicative of the response you will get from Reformed believers when challenged about their theology; they will try to play both sides of the fence to avoid some of the dark implications:
First I established the following:
“Calvinism teaches that we have a God who before the dawn of time was so concerned about displaying His wrath that He was willing to create people knowing they would sin and deserve such wrath and knowing He had no intention to save them so that He could pour out his wrath and justice upon them as a display to all the angels and the redeemed. And God is satisfied with just such a world, harboring billions who are cursing Him and shrieking in horror, spinning off into eternity as this will bring Him the most glory and joy … as well as the most joy to the angels and redeemed. And to pull this off He decided to use people. And how did He get people to go along with His scheme? He invested us with maternal and paternal instincts, and a love for infants and children. And He made infants so marvelously precious that few can resist falling in love with them and protecting them. And prior to this He provided us with a desire for affection & intimacy, and sexual drives, and moonlit nights, and the thrill of holding hands on the beach. All these beautiful things, that we would deem beautiful in both Christian and non-Christian alike, were put into us and our world in order to get us to populate a realm so dark it would make Auschwitz look like summer camp.
This is what Calvinism teaches.”
He nodded in agreement and acknowledged that this was pretty accurate, although he didn’t like some of my word choices and felt it was exaggerating a little. (I’m not sure what I exaggerated.)
“I’m sorry but this ‘God’ just seems so sadistic.”
He responded with statements such as:
“If God wants everyone to be saved doesn’t that mean He will be frustrated in heaven, since He has to keep pouring out wrath on people He loves?”
“So he’ll be satisfied?”
“But doesn’t that mean He will be happy about punishing them? After all he created people knowing this would happen.”
“Christianity celebrates the idea that we should love our children unconditionally … and that such love is vital. But can a Calvinist really do this? Can a Calvinist say that he loves his children unconditionally?”
When I challenged him on this “But according to your college doctoral thesis, if they fail to trust in Christ, you will be rejoicing at the sight of their punishment as it will bring glory to God. And according to the Jonathan Edwards sermon you gave me this means that God will hate them … and that he always hated them. Won’t this mean you will hate them too, for you are to have the same mind as Christ right?”
“It’s just that you will be so enamored with God’s glory that your children will no longer matter?” His eyes glazed over.
“I’m sorry but according to basic Calvinism I do not see how you can say you love your children unconditionally. There IS a condition but now you don’t want to ‘go there’.”
------------------------------------------------------
I continued:
“Here’s my issue with the church: The mission statement speaks of loving the city but our theology won’t allow it. Our theology states that God hates most of the people out there. How can we go out and love the city when we do not have the assurance God does?”
“But its not real love. It may be some type of love that arises from God’s “will of disposition”, as R.C Sproul calls it, but when all is said and done such love will not matter. Only the love that arises from God’s will of decree will mean anything and Calvinism teaches that in this sense God hates all the non-elect. And we cannot love someone God does not love. But we have no idea if God loves anyone we meet. Therefore, all we can provide is simulated love. i.e. ‘This is what love from us will look if you join the company of the redeemed.’ Therefore when we tell people we love them we are lying and this is hypocrisy.”
He didn’t have a response for this and quite calmly accepted/absorbed my charge of hypocrisy.
“This doctrine is extraordinarily practical. I am going into a career that requires that I have at least a degree of love for the people I will service. I simply will not be able to do this job as a Calvinist. I need to know that God loves the people I will serve or I will fail.”
More …
I didn’t say this to my pastor but I have expressed similar ideas at other conversations:
Let’s think about this:
“According Reformed theology, in more cases than not, a young woman from this congregation who is presently nursing their beautiful and celebrated infant will come to you in about 20 years sobbing uncontrollably because her child has rejected the faith and confirmed himself on the road to hell.”
She will ask:
“What about all the times we smothered him with kisses, told our child about Jesus and how much He loves him, brought him to Sunday School, protected him, guarded what his eyes would see and his ears would hear, invested in a Christian education, provided a safe home with safe neighbors, gave him positive experiences, provided the best medical care, and when necessary, carefully measured out discipline always with an attitude of love and a view towards redemption because we were taught this is how Jesus is? How and why did this happen?!”
You would have to respond:
And I am the one who has gone off the ‘deep end’?
More again …
In the past my pastor expressed the idea that if his children turned from Christ it would “hurt” but he would be able to “move on”, presumably with some sense of joy in the Lord, based upon the idea that the sensitivities of the next life will be different than the sensitivities of today.
So let’s get this straight. This means he would say:
Forgive me but it sounds like the presumed sensitivities of the next life are already affecting, in fact numbing, the sensitivities of today. Not only would he not care about his children then, his cold attitude towards them today indicates he really doesn’t care about them now.
Calvinists sometimes admit that their understanding of how they will feel in the next life seems insensitive. But they are quick to distance themselves from the idea that they should be insensitive now (as if they can separate it). I think the above example illustrates how difficult it is to keep our understanding of the next life from impacting our attitude in this life.
Fired,
And I am the one who has gone off the ‘deep end’?
The shallow end never was very much fun, anyway.
@ firedup
That guy read too much of the girl-in-the-oven story, didn’t he? 
I really do not want to get judgmental here but to me the whole idea of getting into Heaven and enjoying the shrieking of your child, and also having an extremely selfish view on children because YOUR (never mind their) senses will be changed… it reminds me of entering the Endless Court in this video game I play:
let’s say the Endless Court is some random organization. Joining the Endless Court means swearing your allegiance to the leader of the Endless Court. To prove that you are indeed worthy, you have to find someone you love the most, and kill them, and let their soul be used by the Endless Court. Once you do so, love will be snuffed out of you and you won’t waste your time on such useless emotions in your service to the Endless Court. The video game in question seems eager to emphasize how damaging to the person’s soul and goodness this is, because they have rejected all that was in any way good - love. That sounds dangerously close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Please note that the Endless Court is considered, in this video game, THE most evil thing in the entire world and it’s leader is effectively Satan.
“As the ritual approaches climax, the initiate renounces their love for the victim and finally murders the poor soul on an altar to Regulos. Only when love and hope and joy bleed out on the black stone is the Devourer convinced the initiate is fool enough to stuff the whole world down a dragon’s gaping gullet, and jump in after.” - is this not what one does when they accept this “god”? Are we not betraying, sacrificing humanity in favor of a god who is not on its side but against it? Why are we trusting this god? What are we really doing? Is there no concern, no solidarity, with humanity, as long as I am OK? Doesn’t this become some sort of “First they came for the unbelievers, but I wasn’t an unbeliever”? What, then, guarantees this god won’t throw you into the pit anyway?
Paul made a whole lecture on love in 1 Corinthians 13. 1 John 4 says God is love. Jesus says to love your enemies. You reject love, you reject God, and that includes love towards the reprobate. And I will effectively say. One who is content with the suffering of their children, due to a selfish understanding of Heaven, does not have love. And if you do not have love, you are nothing. “He who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar - how can he love that what he has not seen when he cannot love his brother whom he has seen?” Nor can you love, or praise, or truly believe in God, without love.
If ECT is true, the hyper-Calvinists of the type you described are going there first by any reasonable reading of the Bible.
NOTHING in the Bible says humans have dulled senses in “Heaven”.
Bird,
I love your “Endless Court” analogy. Its amazing how I could have been wrapped in so much selfishness for so long without realizing how abhorrent it was. I just kept repeating the mantra “Its all to the glory of God” without taking a few steps back and asking “How can God be glorified when we attribute this to Him?”
I note that even my pastor and other traditionalists, when you push their back up against the wall with the implications of their theology, fail to explain how such a God could be glorified. They are forced say “I don’t understand it but I just believe God will glorified in this (because that’s what scripture says … in the NIV)”. Shouldn’t this be a time to at least consider that maybe the NIV got something wrong?
BTW we did get into scripture passages utilizing the word “aion” and its derivatives. He maintains he has researched it and believes when considering syntax and context the common English translations are correct or at least not misleading. I asked “Where? Show me your research.” He paused and finally pointed to a multi-volume set of lexicons with a bunch of Greek mixed with English that I couldn’t hope to understand.
Of course I presented the opposing view which is extensively covered in other threads. “If there is another way to read scripture that doesn’t turn the “good news” into horrifying, crippling “bad news”, then doesn’t it make sense to understand it that way?”
Fair enough. But I’m sorry … I just don’t see that thrust in scripture anymore. Especially when you consider the dark implications of the “Endless Court”, among other things. Of course most Reformed parishioners don’t think about this and most Reformed preachers will try to distance themselves from such thinking, but to me its unavoidable. I understand that the wording I choose to describe Reformed theology and its implications is often very stark and terse, but I do not think I exaggerate anything or draw any unnecessary conclusions. People need to confront this head-on and I am there to put it in front of their face.
Concerning Calvinism, Jonathan Edwards “gets it”. Why shouldn’t everybody else?
Hey Fiery
Great recent posts from you on this thread- and by Bird too. Forgive me for saying it, but I reckon your pastor needs a holiday. Good for you, sir, for standing up to him, standing your ground and not giving in to his hypocrisy of a bad news ‘good news’ gospel.
The more I hear from and of Calvinists, the more perplexed I am by them. They *say * their big thing is ‘giving god the glory’ and yet they *dishonour *him openly with their theology. What, I ask them, is ‘glorious’ about the doctrine of reprobation? But I’m preaching to the converted here, I know.
Stay strong, friend. Have posted in reply to you on the other thread.
Shalom
Johnny