The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stop press: Mark Driscoll denounces predestination

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

And in other news today, a herd of American Guinea Hogs has been spotted looping the loop over Manhattan; a large, pregnant female yeti has been captured alive in the Himalayas; and Lance Armstrong has confessed to ingesting more drugs during the three weeks of his last Tour De France win than did Keith Richards, Hunter S Thompson and Whitney Houston, period. Oh, and Elvis Presley has been spotted working in a fish and chip shop in Boise, Idaho.

Well it’s been a little while since we’ve shone the spotlight of reason into the stygian logic-free catacomb that is Calvinism – in particular the Calvinist doctrine of predestination as espoused by “’Pastor’” Mark Driscoll. But when I stumbled, as you do, across this little gem on “’the Pastor’s’” website recently, it got me thinking.

Cue sound of large knives being sharpened.

As usual, “’the Pastor’” is off to a bad start. Because the healing at the pool in Bethesda in John 5 is a rubbish, an entirely inappropriate analogy for the foul – what Dr Thomas Talbott has called the diabolical – doctrine of predestination.

For a start, the main point of this story is clearly to do with Jesus giving the Pharisees one in the eye by healing on the Sabbath. Secondly, we are not told that Jesus didn’t heal anybody else at the pool that day. Nor are we told that he didn’t come by some other time and heal some, maybe even all, the other sick people present that day. (After all, Calvinists maintain that while you are ‘elect’ from before the dawn of time, you don’t get regenerated and converted until God sees fit to effect that change at a certain point in your earthly life. Hopefully, like Augustine, it won’t be until you’ve had a chance to bed all the good-looking women or men in your purview. :wink: )

But let’s be generous and assume that Jesus never did heal anybody else who was present that day. What possible relevance has this to the eternal fate of unbelievers? Healing a sick person of a temporary illness on earth is in no way analogous to saving that person from eternal conscious torment in hell. I don’t know about you, but I’d cheerfully endure being paralysed during my earthly life if it meant that I would get to spend all eternity in the blissful presence of God after I kicked the bucket. (Well, maybe not that cheerfully, but you get my drift.)

This piece of duplicitous hermeneutical skulduggery has echoes of the Calvinist claptrap about God’s ‘common grace’ and his ‘love’ for reprobate sinners. You know how it goes. God sends the sun and the rain down on sinners, just the same as he does on saints, thereby lavishing undeserved blessings on them in their earthly lives. Well, leaving aside for a moment the obvious objection that plenty of ‘sinners’ get to live lives of largely unmitigated pain, suffering and misery, the fact that God pulls the rug out from under them the moment they snuff it renders those few short years of ‘blessing’ utterly redundant. Hey folks, God loves you so much that he’ll give you a sniff – in effect, a bare nanosecond’s, a picosecond’s, a yoctosecond’s (no, I’d never heard of it either) worth – of some of the good things in life, if you’re lucky, only to whip them away again when you die. Forever.

Thanks God, you’re all heart. :frowning:

Any road up. “The truth,” says Mark (and you know the truth, don’t you Mark?) “is that God could save everyone just as he could have healed everyone. Yet, because God is obligated to no one, the fact that he heals or saves anyone is a gracious gift.”

Sorry mate, I’m not buying that. Won’t wash Wilfred. “God is obligated to no one,” you say? Really? God has zero obligations, nothing that he ought to do, nothing that he is bound or constrained to do – given his essential attributes of love, justice, holiness, omniscience etc?

Let’s try that out, shall we? Given his omniscience, can God believe something that isn’t true, or not know something that it is possible for him to know? Surely not. Surely that is a logical impossibility, for if either or those things were true, God wouldn’t be omniscient. Hence he wouldn’t, by any normal definition, be God.

In the same way, given that God – so Christians believe – is the very source of morality itself, the ultimate standard from which we derive all our notions of good and bad, right and wrong, is he free to act contrary to his own intrinsic moral ‘standards’? In other words, can he do something which, by his own standards, is ‘immoral’? I am not a logician, but to me it would be logically contradictory to say that he can.

Neither, I would contend, using the same reasoning, can God ordain a ‘standard’ of morality for us, his creatures, that is substantively different from his. He cannot ordain that it is ‘right’ or ‘good’ for us to behave in a certain way and then behave in a different – indeed diametrically opposite – way himself. Not being a logician, I can’t offer a definitive logical proof for this. But it seems, as Basil Fawlty was fond of saying, to be bleedin’ obvious. If it is possible for God to command us to do one thing and then do another thing himself; if it’s okay for God to do something that if done by a human being would be condemned as cruel, vindictive or unloving; if what we call white is, by God’s standards, actually black – well, we would be in something of a pickle, would we not?

So, in the light of all this, let us return to MD’s assertion that “God is obligated to no one”. In fact, let’s use an analogy to explore the truth, or otherwise, of that assertion – a scriptural analogy. God is our Father in heaven. That’s what the Bible tells us. That’s what Jesus told us. Over and over again this metaphor is used in scripture – that God is a loving parent. Only being God, he must by definition be more loving, more merciful, more everything than any earthly parent could ever hope to be.

So, God is the best Dad ever, the top of the pops, the ne plus ultra of parenthood. That’s a fact, that’s nailed on. That means that he couldn’t, ever, do anything any truly loving human parent wouldn’t do. Now, would a loving human parent wash their hands of their offspring? Would a loving human parent abandon their beloved John or Jane, just because they screwed up somewhere along the line? Would a loving human parent let their child die if there was anything, anything at all they could do to save them?

I hear a resounding chorus of ‘no way Jose’!

But wait. It gets worse.

Would a loving parent with, say, four kids – let’s call ‘em John, Jane, Jack and Jill – decide, before any of those four kids were born, that they were going to love Jane with all their strength, all their heart, lavish untold blessings and kindnesses on her, but effectively abandon John, Jack and Jill at birth?

There they all are, our little family, sitting down to dinner. Jane gets a slap-up five-course meal washed down with the finest lemonade money can buy. But her siblings get nothing. Nada. Let the little bastards starve. They deserve it. They’re evil. Wicked through and through. Sin and hatred and rebellion run through their veins like black blood, infecting every single square inch of their vile little bodies. Never mind that they are the product of their loving parents, inheritors of their genes. Never mind that they are made ‘in the image’ of their loving Mum and Dad. They’re filth. They are good for nothing except to be thrown onto a bonfire and burned.

Of course, the same is true of the beloved Jane. She too is a filthy sinful little beetle, a sinful little beetle who deserves nothing more than to be crushed underfoot like, well, a beetle. Only our loving parents have decided, for reasons they do not care to disclose, to treat her like a princess. They have chosen to overlook all her manifold and manifest horriblenesses and give her the red carpet treatment, five star luxury love and affection.

Is this the sort of behaviour we would expect from a truly loving mother and father? Is this behaviour we would condone in a parent? Or is it behaviour we would condemn as cruel, as wicked in the extreme? Behaviour which would make any parent who practised it a moral monster?

You don’t need to answer that, for we all – instantly, innately – know what the answer is.

But my friends, that is precisely the way the God Mark Driscoll believes in behaves. That is the “great, loving, compassionate, merciful God” God of Calvinism. And so, with Thomas Talbott and John Stuart Mill, I stand up and affirm with all the heart and soul the true God gave me that “I will not worship such a God, and if such a God can send me to hell for not so worshiping him, then to hell I will go”. Indeed, if such a God extended to me Mark Driscoll’s “gracious gift” of salvation I would hand it straight back and take my place with the reprobates. At least then I wouldn’t have to listen to any more of the Pastor’s sermons! :laughing:

Here endeth the rant. For now.

Peace and love to all (and that includes you “”""""""""“Pastor”""""""""" Mark :smiley: )

Johnny

#2

Wow Johnny–and Amen—preach it brother. Seriously, I agree with you, but you say it best.

#3

like the Terminator, Johnny is back :laughing:
a fantastic, erudite and profound rant as always, good sir! :sunglasses:

though i admit i was a bit disappointed to find out he hadn’t renounced predestination

#4

Just woken up from my night shift sleep to your rant Johnny. Wow. Woke me up fast lol.

Driscoll always gives me this urge to stick needles in my eyes! Such a frustrating man. Obviously as a Brit, I’ve not seen the movie Hellbound. But the trailer, where you see him claiming that people who question hell doctrine are cowards, who want to make God a nice guy. Argh! Made my blood boil. What is this guy’s obsession with being a tough dude, who serves the toughest, dudiest God of em all. A mean machine, Rambo God! Methinks maybe Mr Driscoll protests too much and has secret desires to wear pink lace and dance to a little Kylie Minogue.

If you ever happen to read this Mark, it isn’t cowardice that makes a person lose their church, standing in Christendom and possibly even family, when they could instead have remained in the hip neo-reformed crowd, that’s so cool and popular these days. It isn’t cowardice that makes someone endure name calling, threats etc via email, over Internet or in person. Nor is it cowardice to study intently the scriptures and church history, instead of deciding you already ‘just know’ a book like Love Wins in heresy. Nope. The motivation is love of God, desire of truth and a longing to know this truth and be conformed to His image no matter how you’re treated or what anyone thinks.

Calvinists create a character for God that the bible itself would repudiate. You’re right Johnny. I also love how people in camps that believe God has favourites, always see themselves as a favourite. No one ever thinks they’re off to burn for eternity. Except someone like an innocent I knew who was so terrified by the ‘truths’ these people taught, he became convinced he’d committed the unforgivable sin. And was so traumatised, he hung himself.

#5

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

#6

Epic mate, utterly and fantastically epic :smiley:

I think you should send this to the old bear, give him something to chew on :wink:

That or we could stage a cage fight between you two. May the best manly man win! :laughing:

#7

You totally had me for a moment, Johnny! What a cruel trick! :laughing:

I think that many Calvinists are nominalists in that goodness is only determined by God’s (arbitrary) decree and action (I recall reading of an argument that argues this is the only viable position for Calvinists, even though it comes with innumerable problems). For if God were constrained by a universal standard, he wouldn’t be “sovereign”, or so it goes. But I think it’s better to say that God simply acts in accordance with his eternal nature (other-oriented, self-sacrificial, unlimited, unconditional and universal love as demonstrated on the cross) which is the universal standard of good (I suppose I only differ with the Calvinist, in that any act that counters that nature must be either wrongly understood by us, wrongly recorded by the biblical author or the best possible act under the circumstances). But I don’t understand how Calvinist nominalism makes sense in that, under determinism, God still ultimately decrees and wills everything, so what then is evil? (All this will be contested I know, but even compatibalism doesn’t address God’s responsibility for decreeing everything, which monergism.com freely admits). Hopefully a Calvinist here might be able to shed some more light on this.

Regarding Driscoll’s overt hyper-masculinity, I really enjoyed Greg Boyd’s retort to Driscoll’s “I cannot worship a guy [Jesus] I can beat up” with “I frankly have trouble understanding how a follower of Jesus could find himself unable to worship a guy he could “beat up” when he already crucified him.” [italics in original]. I totally love Greg Boyd.

#8

lets face it folks !, it was simply inevitable :laughing: meant to be :laughing: ''F A T E ‘’ :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

#9

And, never mind that predestination is only to election, which as we should all know by now is for a distinct purpose (The salvation of all).

I just don’t get where all this over-the-top spiritualized “hyper-testosteronism” is coming from with Driscoll.
Yeah, you gotta be a real man to take the real (according to Mark) gospel (which is no gospel at all). Sheesh! :unamused:

#10

Thanks for your kind words, everybody. It’s nice to hear voices of support from friends old and new - and I would be honoured to count you, Lizabeth, among my ‘new’ friends here. You’re a brave lady.

If I gave vent to the full extent of my feelings about Driscoll I’d doubtless find myself enjoying an impromptu holiday from the forum. Sadly, Matt, I don’t think he would be the slightest bit bothered were he to check out my little polemic. It’d be water off a duck’s back to him. Check out his website if you want to see how much he loves the sound of his own voice, how convinced he is of his own rightness.

I’m sorry, James and Andrew, for selling you a dummy in my thread title. The sad truth, of course, is that not only has Driscoll not repudiated the toxic doctrine of predestination – let’s call it by its real name, psychopathy – but he continues to preach it out of one side of his big macho mouth while simultaneously, brazenly and mendaciously spinning an Arminian soteriology out of the other. (One of the advantages of having such a big mouth, I suppose.)

Here it is, in black and white, Driscoll damned by his own words:

“Everyone is invited to receive the free gift of God’s saving grace in Jesus.”

That’s what the “Pastor” said when asked to give his perspective on hell on the CNN belief blog, as a reaction to the recently released movie Hellbound. Mark (pun intended) those words: Everyone is invited.

Pretty unequivocal, huh? Everyone is invited to the party. So if you have an invite, all you have to do is accept that invite, and you get to go to the party, right? Cos that’s what an invitation is, isn’t it? It’s something sent out to you, requesting a response from you. You decide whether you respond positively or negatively to that invite, right?

Wrong.

Because although everybody is invited (says Mark), only those who have been predestined can actually come to the party.

Here’s the good Pastor giving it to us out of the other side of his mouth, in a sermon he preached on predestination:

“But God, we are exceedingly glad that you’re a good Father. That before time began, you chose to love some, to save some, to pursue some. To give ill-deserving sinners not what they have chosen, but what you have chosen. And for the rest, Lord God, we know that what they receive is justice.” (My emphases.)

You see what he’s saying here. We’re all ill-deserving sinners, but God has chosen to rescue some of us from the death we deserve.

Now wrap me up in cellophane and call me a cuckoo, but I just can’t reconcile Driscoll statement 1 – that everybody is invited – with Driscoll statement 2 – that God has chosen some.

Seriously folks, what is the point of inviting a whole bunch of people to your party if you’ve already decided not to let most of them in? Schizophrenic or what?

I’ve been reading and thinking a lot about Calvinism recently. Or at least, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. And you know what guys? I’ve had it with that crap. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing so-called ‘men of God’ like Mark Driscoll selling that blasphemous snake oil. I’m fed up with reading comments from sensitive agnostics that they could never believe in a God who would be so evil as to create people with the sole end of torturing them for eternity.

I know the ethos of this forum is tolerance, even of views and people we may disagree violently with. And rightly so. But let’s be honest here guys, why should we be tolerant of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to damnation? As Melchie points out, it’s not even remotely Biblical anyway. Why do we – why does anybody? – even give this despicable, diabolical, blasphemous doctrine the time of day? It’s an outrage. It’s the biggest single obstacle to evangelism that could ever be.

Spend a couple of minutes on Google and you’ll see what the world thinks of Calvinism. Just a couple of random blog comments:

Of course, the Calvinist doesn’t care that his contemptible ‘gospel’ turns people away from God. Because he would just shrug his shoulders and say those people are reprobate. In that sense, Calvinists are bulletproof.

JS, you nailed it when you said:

That is the true fruit of the doctrine of predestination. Ruined lives.

And that makes me very, very angry.

You guys are all such nice, kind people, and I love you for that. If you can, please try and forgive this dyspeptic blast from an old cynic. But if you can’t, no problemo, you are still a better man (or woman :smiley: ) than I, Gunga Din.

All the best

Johnny

#11

Johnny - where can I buy a Mark Driscoll mask to frighten the ‘Trick or treat’ kids off at halloween? :laughing:

#12

I have to agree, even though this topic might be right on the edge of a TOS violation, if not over the edge…

I may end up having to moderate even my own comments later on, but for the time being; To make a point involving a line from one of my favorite comedies; “That [Calvinism] is the worst idea since Abraham Lincoln said; Oh I’m sick of kicking around the house tonight, let’s go take in a show.”

I think we may discover at some point that Calvinism was originally one of Baldrick’s “cunning plans”. :laughing:

#13

Well, I’m going to dive in here. For the past 16 years or so I have been a “reformed” Christian, believing in election. I don’t say “Calvinist”, because frankly, I haven’t studied Calvin’s writings and he taught a lot more than the basic TULIP ideas. I don’t think I’d want to live in his Geneva.

I bought into the reformed teaching because I believed that Scripture taught it, plain and simple. I also bought into the idea that I don’t get to decide who God is or what is ultimately true of the universe. As with most branches of Christianity I have encountered and/or participated in, reformed theology has serious problems. I think the disconnect finally got to me in my subconscious and I left the established church altogether. I haven’t been back since early June of this year.

I am hoping you all will show me a better way. But I hope you will treat reformed believers with the same respect you treat all other fallen human beings. We are all in the same boat together here. We have fallen minds; we are bombarded with false messages from every direction; and apparently, we don’t even have good access to reliable translations of scripture in which to search out the truth.

I came to reformed thinking reluctantly, after many angry outbursts. But Arminianism didn’t work for me either, frankly. No doctrine that includes eternal torment can possibly satisfy me. But you have to admit that Arminians also believe that most of the world’s population will burn in hell.

Reformed Christians don’t think they are more special than the next person. They don’t know why God would choose them over the next person; it has nothing to do with their own merit. The idea is that anyone who actually does believe is elect. The hope, of course, is that as many people as possible will believe. It is quite humbling to believe that there is nothing you bring to the table in salvation, that Jesus brought it all. And of course, that part is absolutely true. Jesus did it all. He draws us to himself. He restores us to relationship with the Father.

I don’t know anything about Mark Driscoll, although I have a vague memory of him maybe writing a song for my church many years ago. Is that the same Mark Driscoll? It does sound like some of the things he has said are idiotic. Sure, we should laugh at the stupid things we say. But we all say stupid things sometimes. Well, I do. It actually scares me when I think that I have led people astray out of my own erroneous thinking. There will probably be fire for that, huh?

Having said all that, I think you all are great. I love the things you are teaching me. I rest in the care you have shown me. You are the thread I am hanging from right now. I hope you will be blessed a thousand times over for all these things.

Kelli

#14

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/crybaby.gif Man! And I was soooo excited, and you are soooo . . . . so MEAN, Johnny, to build me up that way, only to let me down. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/pouting-face-smiley-emoticon.gif

#15

I didn’t get my hopes up too high. Wow, Johnny, you have a real gift for ranting! I loved every minute of it. That’s a sermon I wouldn’t mind listening to. Sign me up for the series.

KelliKae, I think you are right to point out that Calvinists feel they must accept their view because it is scripture and are just fortunate, through no merit of their own, to be one of the elect. I have to remind myself of these things so I don’t get too disturbed. It’s really very sad that they feel stuck in this.

I also equally share your frustration with some Arminian thinking. I go back and forth between which is worse, it or Calvinism. Some of my Armininian friends really seem puffed up over their excellent decision to follow Christ. It’s difficult to think how we couldn’t think more highly of ourselves, as the reason for our salvation, when others are just too evil, hardenened, to ever come to God. It’s at this point that Calvinism starts looking pretty good again. Of course, it’s only a few minutes of reflecting on it to restart the frustration with it all over again and the cycle continues.

I’m so glad you found this forum and are finding it to be a source of encouragement. I’m not able to participate as much as I’d like, but I’m also thankful for this place. It’s so comforting to find so many like-minded people (since in the real world I’m way outnumbered!), asking similar questions and sharing a common belief in the character of God.

#16

By the way, I love a good rant, so I look forward to reading more from JohnnyParker. :wink:

Maybe these distinctions go away with UR??? Or at least mean a lot less. I am reading Raising Hell. Ferwerd points out that while the Bible says that no man comes to the Father unless Jesus draws him, Jesus also says that if He is lifted up, He will draw ALL men to himself. So, maybe everyone is elect.

I am just getting to Ferwerd’s argument that those who are saved in this life will reign with Christ in the next age (a thousand years) and will be putting everything right, i.e. leading the rest of the world toward repentance. This is a new idea for me, so I’m not sure if scripture supports it. Would love to hear thoughts on this, or maybe there is a thread somewhere about this idea.

And Cindy, these guys are awesome:
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/crybaby.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/pouting-face-smiley-emoticon.gif

Kelli

#17

Just a short note in support of my good friend Johnny’s gift for ranting; he does it so well and with such style and aplomb for starters. But he’s not attacking Mark Driscoll as a private individual - not calling Driscoll ‘Racca’. He is only attacking and talking the rise out of the public man who is looked up to as an authority and – from what I’ve learnt about him – exercises far too much authority over the lives of his ‘followers’; (for example – his seemingly positive attitude towards married sex and pleasure is actually very worrying – because he is prescribing certain practices to Christian wives (which they may not like or feel comfortable with) as their biblical duty. So on this score and for his doctrinal barbarities I reckon he’s fair game. But I know that Johnny is not tacking the private person and I know he would not rejoice at Mark Driscoll’s fall from grace or domestic unhappiness if this is revealed to the public glare.

So rant on Johnny. A gift for polemics is a two edged sword like any gift – you have to be careful to keep it for use against public viciousness and take care not to use it against a private person or as a casual tool against every person you disagree with.

But you are so good at polemics, and so witty when you get going.

Blessings

Dick

P.S. I sometimes think what it would be like to have St Paul on this site. We might have a thread asking ‘Is Circumcision a necessity for Gentile Believers’. In reply to a post from someone arguing that indeed it is a necessity Paul might post ‘I wish the knife would slip (and cut off your member)’. Then the moderator’s might have to get involved. ‘Paul this really is not on – and it’s not the first time. That joke about ‘All Cretan’s are liars’ – you’ve offended many Cretan’s on this site. Not everyone has your learning in Hellenistic literature – and not everyone here finds paradoxes remotely funny. And while were at it – the Council of Jerusalem was quite fraught – but things were resoled pretty amicably. Is it really necessary to crow about how you rebuked Simon Peter to his face there? Paul – you may be the Apostle to the Gentiles, but it is with regret that we are issuing you a two month ban. We are appointing Barnabas to be your mentor on your return.

#18

Hi everybody

Just to nail my colours to the mast, for Kelli’s benefit, I can respect, love and have fellowship with Calvinists. But I cannot respect some of the things they believe – even though, as Kelli says, I’m sure they believe them because they feel obliged to, because they think that’s what scripture teaches. But in trying to honour God and His teachings, in trying to give Him the glory, they misguidedly end up dishonouring him instead, dishonouring Him in a very destructive way. Destructive both for themselves (and there has been some very moving testimony from ex-Calvinists on this forum on the spiritual damage done to them) and to those seeking the truth about God.

The concept of God deliberately choosing to bring people into existence with the sole purpose of torturing them in hell for eternity is so deeply offensive to us – so obviously cruel, unloving, evil even – that we cannot accept it ‘straight’. So if we want to attain or retain a belief in God we either reject it and become Arminians (which brings a whole host of other problems, as you say) or Universalists (which frees us up to believe in the whole truth of scripture, properly translated and interpreted), or as Calvinists we somehow have to cauterise our natural feelings of horror and ‘trick’ ourselves into believing it. Or, of course, we simply reject God altogether – and it is this destructive effect of Calvinist theology that gets me so hot under the collar. Calvinism blasphemes God’s character, terrorises believers, and turns people away from the truth they so badly need. It is a theological and logical mess which causes damaging cognitive dissonance in its adherents, and often ends up pushing them out of Christianity altogether – much like Kelli’s own experience.

And ‘Pastor’ Mark is a tub-thumper for Calvinism. Kelli, as you might have guessed, Driscoll has a degree of notoriety on this forum – mainly because of the deliberately provocative and controversial things he trumpets in his mega-church and on his website - eg that he can’t believe in a Jesus who he could beat up; that that all British Christian leaders are wimps; that men who masturbate alone are as good as gay; and that women should pleasure their husbands every which way as part of their Christian duty, like it or not. Driscoll’s attitude and behaviour are arrogant, bullying even. But far worse than that for me is his duplicity: he says he believes in predestination, and that God has chosen a people to rescue from damnation (the elect), but most of his preaching is pure Arminianism – it’s all couched in terms of invitation, of choice, of us deciding to follow Christ. Illogical nonsense.

And because he puts himself in the spotlight and preaches his version of the gospel to hundreds of thousands of believers and would-be believers, I figure he’s fair game for a bit of rational anti-Calvinist ranting! But were I ever to meet the guy in person I hope, as Dick points out, I would have the good grace to have a beer with him and discuss our differences in a friendly manner. After he’d kicked my teeth down my throat, battered me around the skull with his nunchakas, and pulled my arms out of their sockets that is :smiley: :smiley: .

The Reformed preacher Tim Keller is one of the best preachers I’ve ever heard, and his book The Reason for God one of the best pieces of apologetics I’ve ever read. But while he is clearly a good man and a good Christian, he too is utterly inconsistent in the way he ‘sells’ the gospel. Listen to Keller preach and you would come away thinking it’s all up to you whether you become a Christian or not, when in truth he believes it is entirely a work of God. Now as you say, Kelli, Arminianism has huge problems of its own, and there is something very compelling and attractive about the Calvinist notion that there is absolutely nothing we can do or need to do to save ourselves. Indeed, I agree with that. I believe that we are all saved by and through the atoning life, death and resurrection of Christ – it’s just that some of us don’t know it yet!

Anyway, love, peace and blessings to you all (including MD :smiley: )

All the best

Johnny

#19

LOL! i would LOVE to see him try to fight Jesus :laughing: :smiling_imp:
this is the same Jesus who simply walked through a crowd of people ready to stone Him…the self same one that was so tough that even a torturous death didn’t cause Him to lose restraint and call an army of angels down…not to mention the whole “chasing the evil capitalist traders out of the temple with a whip” incident!
good luck knocking HIM down, Mark :laughing:

#20

Johnny,

You make some really good points here, and Driscoll’s message sounds awful. The thing for me, though, is that it was my experience with Arminian churches that was the most abusive and legalistic and has left me with some pretty deep scars and confused theology. Both camps use manipulation and fear in their “gospel” presentations. I began my journey of faith after watching a A Thief in the Night (70’s version of Left Behind). In both interpretations, God sends almost everyone to burn in hell forever. Neither group gives a good understanding of why God would create a people whom he knew would suffer forever. (Frankly, I still haven’t seen a good explanation for why we are here at all.) However, if I had to choose between leaving my eternal fate in God’s hands and taking it into my own hands, I’d choose His every time–well, I hope I would, anyway, since obviously, plenty of people have decided to keep their fate in their own hands.

I don’t mean to be arguing for election here. I do believe that God is sovereign, though. I am really hoping that Universalism makes the whole thing moot.

Blessings,

Kelli