I think you may have hit on part of the problem here. In fact, NOBODY gets to debate with this guy because he has the platform. He’s the star. His name is on the marquee (I’ll betcha’), and no one gets to talk but Mark. Try standing up to answer a rhetorical question or two, or to ask a question or interject a point, and see how far that gets you. Out the back door, if you don’t amuse Mark, is my bet, with a cease and desist order if you keep trying to come back.
THAT is how this heresy got let into the church at large to begin with. Guys up front with all the power; guys (and gals) in the audience sitting on their hands. They get to support it all with their tithe (mandated once upon a time). Nobody gets to say, “Hey, but you just said . . . and now you’re saying . . . what’s that?” In fact, back in the good ol’ days, doing that sort of thing could get you burned at the stake or otherwise tortured to death. IMO, it’s a problem of power. Call no man father, for you have one Father. The only vote anyone else (besides Mark and his elders) has is to vote with their feet.
A lot of us have done that . . . now our voice is as important as everyone else’s voice and nobody gets the floor all to himself. And if you come in spouting some kind of heretical doctrine, Joe or Tracy or Shane will say, “Um . . . you have scripture for that, right?” And then you’ve got to show, to everyone’s satisfaction, that you have a leg to stand on.
And Justin, you make a serious point, actually. I believe I’ve already made a bit of a connection with Matt the person, Matt, the man with my sense of humour, Matt the good Christian guy. (Hope you don’t mind me talking about you while you’re asleep, Matt; it’s 09:45 here in England )
Which makes me believe that Matt doesn’t, deep deep down in his heart, *really **truly *believe that God actually *hates *some of his beloved children and deliberately wills to damn them to eternal conscious torment forever. Of course this sounds incredibly presumptuous, and I’m sure you’ll have something to say in reply, Matt. But I just cannot accept that God, who must, by definition, be infinitely *more *loving than you or me or any other human being, could possibly be like that.
Now I know some Calvinists say that that is an ‘emotional’ viewpoint. And of course it is. But God *made *our emotions. He gave us that capacity to love and feel empathy towards our brothers and sisters, because He himself *is *love.
Johnny, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT believe that the LORD hates any of His children. You COULD NOT be more correct in that assertion. It’s those who are not His children…You see, this is one of the, if not primary, differences between the Doctrines of Grace i.e. Covenant Theology, Reformed Theology, Calvinism etc. The non-elect, reprobate, non-believers, whatever you wanna call them, are not regenerate, born again, washed in the blood, born from above etc. They are by nature children of wrath and enemies of the LORD. They do the will of their father, who was and is a liar and murderer from the beginning. They are not ADOPTED into the family, hence, the do not cry out “Abba, Father”.
There’s absolutely NO difference between the non-believer and the believer by way of nature. There is nothing noble, splendid, desirable, wise, foreseen faith etc. that would obligate or cause the LORD to choose / elect one over the other. Therefore, there is no room to boast. One term that unfortunately is not used so often is “elect sinner”, rather it is usually just shortened to the “elect”.
Another thing that I believe should be rephrased is “eternal conscious torment” or ECT. What about asking the question in terms of, “You surely don’t believe that those who have willfully violated the Law of their holy creator from their birth to their death deserve to be punished for their sins, as a righteous and holy judge sees fit to do, do you?”
No, I don’t think it should be phrased that way! Because we do believe people should be punished for their sins as a righteous and holy judge sees fit to do.
In a very general sense, yes, humanity can be called “children of God” inasmuch that He has created all things and by His power they are upheld, carried, sustained. Even the wicked recieve blessings in what the Reformed perspective calls “common grace”. But in terms of “children” with paternal love, inheritance, and chastisement (as many as I love, I chastise), then no, not “all” are children. I believe that the Scriptures are clear on this.
Thanks for your post. I’m off out for dinner shortly, so I’ll have to make this initial reply short. We can get into it properly tomorrow.
You may believe the Scriptures are clear on this. I can assure you they are not. I can - and will, should you somehow have overlooked them - show you literally dozens of Bible verses which affirm the universal love of God for all people, all his creatures - and yes, all his children. Which means every single last man and woman jack and jill of us, jack.
What do you mean by “in a very general sense, yes, humanity can be called ‘children of God’”? Are we all His children or aren’t we? Did God create us or not? If He did, He is our Father, and He has the same freely embraced parental obligations of love and care towards us all as we do to our own children. Jesus didn’t go around preaching “love and forgiveness only for the elect”. He went around preaching “love and forgiveness for everyone”.
The Reformed notion of ‘common grace’ is a chimera, a total and utter fiction invented in a vain attempt to weasel out of the plain truth of Scripture that God’s grace and love are freely extended to all people.
Good thread Johnny. You make some great points about the inconsistency of a loving God who planned the reprobation of many, predestination and “possibility”, “nature” and “choice”, and an apostle (Paul) who seems to care more for souls than his God.
However, I do not see the following ideas as inconsistent:
(i) We must choose God in order to be saved.
(ii) God chooses who will be saved.
The first part (i) sets up a requirement that must be met in order to be saved. God sees that nobody will meet this requirement. So God finds a way to cause people to meet this requirement. He then chooses to grant the power to meet the requirement of (i) to a certain set of people (i.e. the elect). God never abolishes (i) he just chooses who He will irresistibly enable to meet it. (Driscoll: “Everyone chooses Satan, sin, death, and hell. And apart from a new heart, that’s all anyone would ever choose.” & concerning the elect “He predetermined their destiny. He chose that despite their sin and folly and rebellion and hardness of heart and stubbornness, and not just undeservedness, but ill-deservedness, he predestined to love the unlovely, to love the unlovable.”) In so doing God has effectively chosen who will be saved without removing the responsibility for damnation from anyone who does go to ECT.
The reason I bring this up is that just because a Calvinist affirms the validity of (i) does not mean he is slipping Arminianism into his theology or being inconsistent. Point (i) is and always has been just as much a part of Calvinism as it is a part of Arminianism . The difference is where the power comes from to meet this requirement.
Therefore I do not view Driscoll as being inconsistent or using “doublethink” when he states the following:
Its great to see your contribution on this thread. Thanks for pointing out this vital tenant of Reformed theology:
Its stuff like this that helps all of us understand exactly what Calvinism is so that we either
(a) decide we agree with it or
(b) take aim at the right target, not a “straw man” created by our minds or by evangelical “pop” culture.
However, I do believe God has a “vested interest” in not only loving, but saving all he has created. I have addressed this elsewhere but I am anxious to see the case Johnny will make it on this thread.
I can only answer for myself but I would say “yes”. Yet I would like to add that I don’t think the traditionalist/universalist debate hinges upon this point. Its worth considering, as i think there are good arguments on each side, but it really is a separate issue.
Evangelical Universalism simply asserts that whatever punishment is justly deserved, God came up with a plan to redeem ALL from this punishment (first the elect and then the rest, with “faith in Christ” occurring in the non-elect in the next life at some point).
However, even if one does believe that never-ending punishment is not deserved for the sins of this life, this should not keep one from affirming that apart from the cross everyone would be condemned forever. Why? Because, even if a sinner could pay off the sins of this life, they would still have to pay for the sins they committed WHILE paying off the sins of this life. It would be a never ending cycle.
It is interesting to note that at least one prominent Calvinist I know believes this way. He denies that we deserve never-ending punishment for the sins of this life but affirms that the net result would still be never-ending punishment because of the vicious cycle referenced above. Therefore, not even the Calvinist must affirm, as a matter of logical necessity, the deservedness of ECT for the sins of this life.
To me, the key question in the traditionalist/universalist debate is not whether a sinner deserves never-ending punishment for the sins of this life, but whether God’s plan to redeem people from this punishment, and the possible punishment warranted for sins committed in the next life, pertains to all or just some (i.e.the elect).
Wow! I gotta admit, I really just skimmed through the initial post by Johnny. I’ve since gone back and reread. What vitriol!
My “quote” icon seems to be disabled for the time being, so I can’t use that function, but I’d like to thank Firedup for a sense of calmness and reason i.e. the strawman etc.
I’d like to provide an overview of covenant theology and hopefully will soon, but now I’m kinda thinking “what’s the point?” An imam would probably be a more welcoming audience. I know that passions run high, but to say that Calvinism is the greatest evil to Christianity? I said in another thread that I truly do empathize with the emotional pain/anger that the Doctrines of Grace can provoke, but perhaps its been so long for me that I’ve forgotten just what it was like.
Also, for the person who attends Driscoll’s church but denies his teaching…why do you go there then? Is there no church in your vicinity that teaches something less horrific, if not what you believe? Anyway…
I’m sure that most of y’all already know this, but for those who don’t hopefully it’ll help. Often times Calvinism is limited by its opponents to the 5 Points i.e. TULIP. People who know TULIP automatically think that that’s all Reformed theology is. The 5 Points I believe to be true, but basically just entry-level. The 5 Points were a summation of beliefs already held by the reformers, but codified at the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrance, or the disciples of Jacob Arminius. However, as I stated in a previous thread, the real sticking point against Reformed theology is the doctrine of Reprobation…that is, YHWH predestinating a people to His eternal punishment for their sins. Bluntly put, He has ordained that their express purpose is to be the objects of His wrath. And yet…He is not to be blamed for their condition, though He ordained and either directly or indirectly brought this to pass. Let that sink in…
There is no way to pussyfoot around this. It’s implications will shake a man to his core. Just read Johnny’s initial post. Reprobation will cause an involuntary, vitriolic hatred to spew forth that can not be scripted. Within modern Christendom, Islam would sooner be embraced than Calvinism. Let that sink in…
And yet, throughout the Church Age many men and women have held to the tenets of what is often times called Augustinianism / Calvinism / Reformed Theology / the Doctrines of Grace. A quick list of names includes Augustine himself (duh), Anslem, Martin Luther, John Calvin (duh), George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and currently John Piper, RC Sproul, Tim Keller, R Albert Mohler, John MacArthur (in some, not all ways) and Michael Horton. This is a very truncated list, btw. All of these men have certain traits in common. In some of their cases, they literally transformed Western Civilization. They pastor mega-churches ( not necessarliy a sign of greatness or being right, but still…), have been incarcerated and / or had to flee for their beliefs, they are known for their prodigious intellects, they preach Christ crucified, justification by faith alone, the propitiation / expiation of the atonement, the Bible alone along with inerrancy. Think of those last qualities. And although there are certain differences amongst them (for example paedo / credo baptism, eschatology) they are what we would now commonly call “Calvinists” or “Reformed” (I know that term would be anachronistic to Augustine). Let that sink in…
Name-dropping does not a sound doctrine make, nor does a majority vote, but it would be foolish to discount such a cloud.
Also, it’s not as if non-reformed folks don’t have some impressive names, but the above list is daunting.
I’ll post this now and try to return soon to clarify Covenant Theology.
Hi Matt, I’ll disagree with Firedup and say I would consider it unjust for God to punish people forever for sins committed in this lifetime. Of course I acknowledge that my understanding of justice might be faulty, but that’s currently my opinion. I do agree with the rest of what he said – that the debate does not hinge on this point and that the idea of endless punishment for endlessly continuing sin would be a way of understanding ECT which would accord with some level of justice.
I’m going to start a new topic for this, so as to not clog up this thread with too many topics.
Covenant Theology is synonymous with Calvinism is synonymous with Reformed Theology is synonymous with The Doctrines of Grace.
The starting point with Covenant Theology, appropriately enough, is that the sovereign, almighty Triune God operates within the framework of covenants, of which there are 3. Behind the scenes in eternity past, the Father was pleased to give unto His beloved Son a Kingdom, and within this kingdom there would of course be subjects. In a manner of speaking, a “forever people”. But the people would not just be subjects-they would be family. Children of the Father, younger brothers and sisters to their Lord. Parts of the covenant within the Godhead include the creation, fall and redemption of these people (more on the Fall later). The Covenant of Redemption is the term used. It is intra-trinitarian. We are given glimpses into it in Luke 22:29 and very much so in John 17, the High Priestly Prayer.
Now, onto the Covenant of Works. This first is imposed in the Garden. Though not specifically called a “covenant” in Genesis (check Hosea 6:7), it has the clear implicit, if not explicit, marks of a Suzerainty covenant. That is, a sovereign has imposed His will upon a weaker subject, a vassal king, if you will. Commands are issued as well as some autonomy i.e “You may freely eat of all the trees, except this one…” “Be fruitful and multiply ” , the naming of the animals. But a curse is promised for disobedience…“You shall surely die…” This is a common theme, blessings for obedience, cursings for disobedience. Although not clearly stated, this is regarded as a “probationary period”. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, death would not have entered the world. BUT…they were tempted and they freely, willfully chose to commit treason against the LORD!
More to follow…
The effects (affects?) of this cosmic treason CAN NOT be overstated. The wages of sin are death, both physical AND spiritual. Our original parents plunged their posterity into enmity with God. They chose to believe the lie. They took the word of satan over the word of YHWH, their creator. By a work of their own, they sought to be like God. A holy, holy, holy God must now act according to His character and punish transgression…and yet, a merciful God would provide a means of an atonement (also in keeping with His promise to give His Son a kingdom / people-remember the Covenant of Redemption?) Death from the LORD immediately followed and is shown by Adam and Eve’s pathetic attempts to cover their shame, hide from YHWH and when confronted blame everyone but themselves. Such now is the “natural” state of man. “The woman that YOU gave me…The serpent deceived me…” “Slaves to sin…by nature, children of wrath…following the prince of this world…” “But God, who is rich in mercy…”
The LORD provided a covering of skin for the couple, implying that an innocent creature had to die to cover their shame (“without the shedding of blood…”). In an act of grace, the couple were banished from the Garden and forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life, lest they be stuck in their (our) horrific condition. BTW, the Gospel is also preached! The offspring of the woman is promised to crush the head of the serpent, and yet His heel will be bruised in this process. Also, notice already the two separate seeds…the woman and the serpent?
In the protoevangelion, we are now introduced, implicitly, to the Covenant of Grace. Thats the third covenant. So now we have the Covenant of Redemption (taking place exclusively within the Trinity) the Covenant of Works applied to man, in which only perfect obedience to God’s command(s) will result in life, death in disobedience, and the Covenant of Grace. Albeit, the Covenant of Grace is not specifically mentioned yet in the Genesis narrative, but I presuppose that those reading this will already be aware of it.
More to follow…
