The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The sad testimony of the daughter of a Calvinist apologist

Theology
#7

Hi Steve

I see where you’re coming from on this, but I can’t agree with you. I don’t think Rachael Slick should bear any guilt or responsibility for any choices she has made which have led to her family falling apart. That guilt and responsibility rests squarely with her father, Matt Slick, and the odious doctrine of Calvinism to which he so wholeheartedly subscribes.

I agree with you that Christ and the Bible pose many tough challenges for us, ideas that do, as you say, conflict with our moral compass. But neither Christ nor the Bible prescribe Calvinism. Calvinism is an ideology of men, and those who subscribe to it must bear the guilt of their beliefs.

All the best

Johnny

#8

That is a rather harsh comment, Steve, and a little uncharacteristic of your usual unjudgmental demeanor. I don’t think I can support your enthusiasm over this family’s pain and struggle.

I don’t know what to make of Alister’s blog “The Journey Continues”. It seeks to understand; but I think there is too much superficial pigeonholing going on. Many people on forums have a churchless faith. Forums are excellent for this purpose, as they are kind of like a net for people who have escaped from institutional churches. The “EPC” diagram, I thought, was a little misleading; as it fails to show the great exiles that take place in every church. Probably the only true church growth is within certain sects. There is something disjointed for people in their faith life and their church life; and I don’t think many ministers have the slightest idea how to understand this. The efforts of the categorizing diagrams are about as close as they can come to try and identify with these groups; which is still very abstract.

One thing churches rarely concede is that the problem lies with the church itself; not the individual. Churches have become more ritualistic and traditional (even in a EPC setting). Everything is predetermined: the songs; the sermon; the prayers; the liturgy; the amount of time for each segment; it is all a prefabricated 5 minute dinner meal which pretends to be honoring and meaningful. If you don’t catch the excitement of these boxed meals, then the problem is with the individual!? Others who are totally institutionalized see no problem with formula spirituality. They have been born and bred on it; and anything meaningful would actually make them uncomfortable. This is the modern paradox. We are told to seek God in more meaningful ways; and when we do, the church itself is the loose bolt. Rather than address the real problem, we just invent knew packaging formulas of the same problem, and we can call it “pub church”. This is just recycled nonsense that keeps a pastor on a payroll (I don’t particularly refer to Alister. I have spoken with him and he seems like a very great Christian man. I am only generalizing with that statement). I don’t think many are actually addressing the real problems. The business-model church prevents this from happening.

#9

Hi Johnny,

I agree. I didn’t mean to imply that “guilt” was required. She seems to be a great girl with a lot of wisdom and life experience.

You might be right. I don’t know how a loving family can so easily fall apart over a different perspective. It actually scared me! I would hate to be in the same position.

Again, I agree. This is tough, though, for people who have been brought up to know the bible through this one unique lens. Matt Slick is very anti-catholic. He has put himself into the firing line by being so aggressive and hostile to other views, and it is ironic that the big lesson had to come through his daughter. I hope there is a family healing for them; and perhaps a re-analysis of the doctrines that he holds to so fundamentally. Time will tell.

Steve

#10

Hi Stef,

I really do feel for her family’s pain, I honestly do —especially as Rachael doesn’t seem to be having any contact with them. But the whole situation was very ‘cult-like’ and I truly did feel relief for this poor girl.

I haven’t had any personal experience with ‘Pub churches’ so I can’t really comment on whether this is true or not. Might be interesting to start a thread discussing pub churches and what role they play, how they might differ from traditional churches, etc. :smiley:

#11

Hi Steve and Steve

I think we’re all broadly in agreement here: we should feel compassion for both Rachael and her father, because they are both victims of a perverse theology. I know that you, Steve (Stef) are a man of great compassion for the oppressed and the downtrodden. And bravo for that. But I don’t think Steve (alec) meant anything by his previous comments other than real compassion for both daughter and father. Goodness, he was far less judgemental towards Matt Slick than I have been. Calvinism is a red rag to the bull in me.

What I do know for sure is that you guys are great. I love your honesty and your compassion. We may see things through a slightly different lens sometimes, but that is because we all see through a glass darkly.

Love you guys

J

#12

Sorry Steve, I didn’t mean to categorize you as uncaring. My apologies.

I had been thinking about a ‘pub church’ in the past. The idea I have in the NT is that some of the first churches were ‘pub churches’ (indirectly). I am not qualified to run a church; but I was looking into the idea of running a discussion group dealing with the ECF from a pub or similar.

You are really kool too Johnny. I think the same of Steve as well. There are some great people I have met on this forum; I am chuffed.

#13

Yes indeed! :smiley: There certainly are some wonderful people here and though we don’t agree on everything—(and that’s fine—as you know, I’m all for theological diversity) I think we all get along pretty well. I appreciate your opinions, Stef, and knowledge of the early church fathers especially. :smiley: Johnny is indeed ‘kool’ and I love his eloquence, passion and tender heart. Your writing, Johnny, is frankly brilliant. As someone who feels sometimes each word I type is like pulling a tooth, I am in awe… :blush:

I think you may be right, there, Stef. I suspect some of the early congregations must have been very similar to ‘pub churches’. I’ll go ahead and start a thread and see what people have to say about their experiences. :smiley:evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5076

#14

Link it here, Steve, if you would – to make it easier for people to find?

#15

Will do, Cindy. :smiley:
Here it is, the ‘pub churches’ thread:[“Pub Churches”)

#16

Thank you for your answers!

Apparently you are interested in the discussions I start in this way :smiley:

alecforbes: I don’t remember who said that first, but I believe that atheism can be an act of religiosity, if you think that the choice is between an evil, monstruous God and no God at all.

Jonny: I largely share your indignation, but believe that sadness towards Matt Slick might be more appropriate. And we should also try to forgive him.
For who knows, maybe he will inherit eternal life too :wink:

#17

Brilliantly expressed: Rachel, in her atheism, is closer to God than she ever was in the prison of that monstrous theology.

I once saw a debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Hitchens asked if Craig thought it would be better for him to believe in God as per the wahhabist-extremist-fundamentalist version, or no God at all. He didn’t get a very good answer. I was screaming: no God at all! It would be better to choose atheism, than an idol.

Looking at the same scriptures, and coming to such pity-less, love-less, grace-less conclusions: Yes, good hearted people do this -and they’re not all bigots or patriarchs. Rob Bell posted a really interesting comment the other day on facebook. He talked about debating with a pastor who was quite offended by his theology. Bell said that every time he (Bell) quoted a passage of scripture that spoke of God’s mercy or desire to save all people, the pastor would quote another passage that spoke of God wanting to punish, or sanction violence. (I know, I know, another thread!) Bell said that what struck him was that, for this pastor, both types of passage had an equal weighting, whereas for him, intuitively, such a thought had never entered his head. All along, he’d just been working with the faith that one tradition constituted the most fundamental and basic of revelations about God, against which all other passages had to be interpreted (note: interpreted, worked-with, not dismissed).

I suppose I’d never thought of that way before, but that’s how I just read it. Mercy and judgement, redemption and punishment are not co-equal values and categories - in scripture, or anywhere else.

One Calvinist guy said to me: “you just have the God you want”. Ha! Most of us (me most of the time) are petty, vindictive, tribal, vengeful. We can learn to work with an idol like this very easily. It demands nothing of us, but confirms us in our primary fear. It heals nothing. It will never make us more forgiving, compassionate, loving. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but its what I’ve found to be true. By their fruits…Does our faith bear fruits of fear or love? Others will tell us. Our children, certainly.

#18

The following video is a discussion between Matt Slick and Roman Catholic apologist, Dr. Robert Sungenis. I really like Robert Sungenis; I have two of his books. He is putting out a doco/movie in the near future which I think will be really interesting. Matt Slick doesn’t consider Roman Catholicism to be christian; he views them as apostate. Matt Slick takes an extreme view of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. I do not agree with this extreme view: I do believe Roman Catholicism to be christian… although I believe Roman Catholicism to be the starting introduction of sectarianism (and heresy) into Christendom. Sectarianism (and heresy) was predicted in scripture (Revelation chapters 2 & 3); so being part of a christian sect (and holding heretical views) does not exclude you from the faith; it is the lack of repentance which excludes you from the faith. Faith without repentance is like a body on life support or coma; technically alive - but not functioning as an alive person.

Anyway, I think that Sungenis wins the debate hands down (although I do not agree with Sungenis’ premises or Slick’s). Matt Slick is clearly out of his depth with Sungenis. Note that both parties threaten hell to the other party for not believing the other’s doctrine. This is the game of religion in full swing. Matt kicks off with the discussion on the Roman Catholic belief in *The Assumption of Mary *(4.00) - where Mary was taken (assumed) into heaven after she died. This doctrine began to be formulated in the 4th century. The *pedigree of the Roman Catholic church *is discussed (9.45), which is the succession of bishops from the apostles which gives rise to the papacy doctrine. Then there is the discussion on *Sola Scriptora *(about 14.00), which is a very interesting analysis of Corinthians 4:6 and oral traditions which are inspired. The ‘who’s on first base’ parady (“no you’re better than that…”) gave me a laugh (20.40). It is revealing that Sungenis believes that the doctrine of the trinity originated from the Roman Catholic church (21.30). The discussion, predictably, starts going around in circles; as all religious debates tend to. Matt is clearly shaken by frustration. :laughing: Part 2 is also amusing.

Steve

#19

All the more reason I am losing faith for mainstream Christianity. I know this is a very old post, but I actually stumbled across it via a google search and found it posted here. If you read Rachael’s account, it just illustrates to me the most dogmatic people in religion are nuts and far off base. In fact, the more dogmatic someone is, the less likely I am to believe or trust in what they say. I mean, how many clergy scream about hating gays, only to find out they were found soliciting young male boys for sex. Like, massive cognitive dissonance. The system is corrupt, because people are corrupt. But there is a big difference between a corrupt individual vs a corrupt individual who maintains and pretends that he is righteous and doing the work of God. The louder and more dogmatic the preacher, especially the accusatory type, the more likely they live a secret life of ‘sin’. Experience has taught me this is the truth.

It only makes sense. People that are so focused on sin are basically adopting a sin filled world view. I believe Paul said “To the pure, all things are pure” and Jesus said “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.” To be sin minded is a death. People who can only see evil, must be tainted by evil living in their hearts. Sin, to them, is bigger than God. They can’t stop condemning it. Their entire being is one projecting shame onto others for the same things they themselves do.

I think this is why Jesus said “Take the crap out of your eye first” because once you do, you won’t condemn your brother having gone through it and it will provide with you with more compassion and understanding when dealing with others’ faults.

#20

I registered witth this forum just to convey how disgusted I was when reading ‘Username’s’ post. You call the brother a “deceitful hypocrorite”, yet your quote of his shows you have zero understanding of refomed theology. “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother is still in darkness”. Now I don’t know if you hold scripture as authoritative - considering you call Matt Slick a homophobic I’m guessing you don’t. And if you hold to universalism then you really don’t. Sorry. But a man dedicates his life to bringing people to salvation and Heaven and all you can do is slander him?

“You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, …” That’s the legal agreement I signed to register here btw.

#21

That’s fine. Johnny rescinded himself from the forum sometime later over his temper issues, canceling his account – that’s why it says “username” now. The ad/mods chose to leave his posts in place because otherwise it would make a bunch of threads he had posted in confusing about who was discussing what and why.

Not everyone here is hostile to Matt Slick (I’m not, for example, and I invited him here back when I was commenting, per member request, on a piece he wrote against universal salvation. He declined.) A lot of people blame Calvinism and Calvinists for feeling emotionally scarred, and some members post here from that pain. The ad/mods have tried to balance the freedom to speak on that with encouragement to tone things down and get past the emotional pain to work with Calvinists (from whom many of us have come after all, though not myself) as brothers in Christ.

The protection of Calvinists from angry diatribes was in fact one main reason why we (the admins, mods, and site owners) instituted the rule you quoted, although we’re flexibly patient about enforcing the rules.

My apologies, too, if there was a bit of delay in your post showing up. All posts from new members automatically go to the spamcatcher net until ad/mods can check over them to make sure they aren’t selling essays or shoes or drugs or (the new hotness in recent weeks since Thanksgiving) Russian hacking tools which are guaranteed to get past any Captcha security. (Insert irony here, since those tools can’t get past this type of security. :wink: ) After a few more posts (if you care to do so) the system will trigger over to letting your posts in automatically instead. Until then you could have a day or two (or three over any weekends) of delay. I habitually check the spamnet every workday morning, but more randomly on the weekends; other ad/mods are more random about it than that (since I’m pretty steady on my checking schedule).

I would say welcome to the forum, but I know you’re upset so that doesn’t seem altogether appropriate. (So was Johnny, in a long-term way.) Many of us here do regard Calvinists as brethren in Christ, however, myself and the other ad/mods and site owners included – even when many Calvinists don’t regard us as their brethren in Christ. (But some do.)

#22

Thank you very much for the warm welcome, Jason.

Apologies for replying to your post so late. I’m not great at keeping up with forums etc.

Very gracious of you to put into effect protection plans for the much maligned Calvanists! I did laugh a little when I read that.

Shame my introductory post was so heated, but also that the intended recipient probably won’t ever read it.

Wishing you all a joyful Christmas rejoicing in Christ our saviour.

Best

Rob

#23

Praise God for the blessed assurance of our salvation through the Incarnation and the cross!

#24

Amen!

#25

According to Slick:

“Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved.”

“…universalism, in and of itself, does not automatically void salvation.”

https://carm.org/universalism-is

“May the Lord point them to Jesus so that they may repent and leave behind the dangerous doctrine of universalism that nullifies the gospel.”

https://carm.org/why-i-closed-universalism-discussion-board-carm

Is there a contradiction there?

#26

I kinda wish Slick and others would unpack what that actually means, so that those who oppose Universalism don’t shrug off the saying as trite and without foundation. I like to give folks this, based on Aquinas, and point out that it is for ALL humans, and indeed the Cosmos as well:
" " What the scriptures teach is that man failed the gardening task and ruined God’s creation, but that God graciously came, as a friend and
cooperator, to help him salvage and recreate. In choosing that way to help man with his original goal God gave man’s life a new goal - that of fellowship with God himself as friend. The journey of this life is no longer simply a journey to the fulfilment of man’s nature, for that journey has been taken up into a journey into the presence of God HImself, into the good and happy state which God himself is.
This is Thomas’s preferred way of describing the relationship between what later commentators called man’s natural and supernatural ends. He does not talk, as they do, of man first knowing God as author of nature, and then as author of supernature. Rather he consistently talks of God, known to man’s learning as the author of nature, becoming through God’s teaching the object of his happiness . The word translated ‘happiness’ has more the sense of ‘happy state’ or ‘blessed state’, meaning a state which has blessedly happened or turned out well - a state of goodhap rather than mishap. It corresponds to the Aristotelian word ‘eudaimonia’, which some modern scholars translate as ‘flourishing’. When Thomas uses happiness as a name for God himself he is thinking of God as fulfilled life; and this explains why he talks of happiness as being accompanied by delight, rather than as consisting in it.

1 Like