Remember Lot's Wife

Dan Wallace has done a post at his new blog that’s getting a lot of buzz:

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/18/the-problem-with-protestant-ecclesiology/

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome.

I’m not clear on why he says Protestants made the split necessary. The usual argument is that Rome made the split necessary. Rome forced the issue by her impenitant moral and theological corruption.

Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity.

Why is that tragic? Christ founded a church, not a denomination. The Protestant Reformers simply broke with a preexisting denomination. The Roman church is merely a Western European denomination. A local church that gained undue influence through power politics, which became (and remains) morally and theologically corrupt.

Why is splitting from Rome any more tragic than splitting from the PC-USA, EPUSA, ELCA, &c.?

The church is a divine institution, but denominations are man-made. That doesn’t mean denominations are inherently evil. Just that denominations are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. They exist to serve a function. Sometimes they outlive their usefulness. Sometimes they become counterproductive.

Consider Stephen’s contrast between the temple and the tabernacle (Acts 7). The temple was fixed in time and place. Centralized. Fairly permanent.

The tabernacle was portable. Decentralized. Stephen commends a tabernacle piety over a temple piety. Travel light and keep your bags packed. Be ready to break camp and move on. Heb 11 has a similar mindset. Don’t get tied down. This is a journey, not a destination.

Spiritually speaking, should Christians live in tents or houses? Should we live like Abraham or Solomon? NT piety is nomadic. Like Jews who eat the Passover in haste, with cloak tucked into their belt, feet shod, and staff in hand, Christians should never settle down, but stay on the move.

Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity…

That’s a false dichotomy. Shared truth is a source of unity. A bond between like-minded believers. Insofar as there is only one truth, truth and unity go together. You are one with another by believing the same truths. By living by the same truths.  

You can split over perceived truth. You can disagree over what is true.

…but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

That’s deeply misleading:

i) To begin with, contemporary Catholicism is a big tent. There’s what the Roman church believes on paper. Then there’s its very lax standards of church membership. In practice, Modern Catholicism is like an Arab Bazaar. 

ii) Historically, both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been highly polarizing forces, by persecuting heretics. They’ve caused divisions within Christendom. They have actively spawned schismatics. They have maintained internal unity by excommunicating dissidents.

I’m not commenting on whether this is good or bad. I’m just pointing out that this type of unity can only exist by first fomenting disunity, then distancing itself from the other.

If you draw a line in the sand, there will be unity on your side of the line. But you achieve that unity by exclusion rather than inclusion. When you draw a line in the sand, that’s automatically and intentionally divisive. You instantly create insiders and outsiders. Your unity can only exist in contrast to the outsiders. Wherever you draw the line, you will have groups on either side of the line.

This can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how and where the lines are drawn. But the resultant unity is a partial unity, within a larger disunity.

“But unity in falsehood is no unity at all,” some will protest. To a degree that is true. If the unity of the church meant that we would all deny the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person, then that would be unity against an essential of the Christian faith. But there is no thinking Christian who agrees lock, stock, and barrel with what his pastor teaches. Yet, he is a part of that church. In this respect, he has prized unity over truth. We all have to do this. If we didn’t, each Christian would be his or her own church. The fellowship would be awfully predictable and quite boring!

But that’s true for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. For instance, many Catholics and Orthodox are members in good standing, even though they are nominal members. They don’t agree with everything their denomination represents.

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.

There are several obvious problems with a hierarchical accountability system:

Identifying Christians Before The Reformation: A Response To C. Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton recently wrote a post about whether Roman Catholics are saved. The subject can be approached from many angles, and I'm not going to address it in much depth in this post. What I want to do is link to other posts I've written on some of the relevant issues.

I disagree with some of what Patton wrote, and there are a lot of problems with the comments that follow his post. On the other hand, Patton makes some good points along the way. And he doesn't address some of the relevant issues, so I don't know where he stands on everything involved. This post is intended to address a broader range of topics than the ones raised by Patton, but his thread offers a recent illustration of what I'm responding to.

Greek Verbal Aspect Theory and Pastors

Be sure to also read Mr. Booth's helpful comment:

https://andrewrozalowsky.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/keeping-up-to-date-with-greek-verbal-aspect/

"Unexpected Joy"

According to Planned Parenthood:

Women have abortions because they care about themselves and their families or their future families. The most common reasons a woman decides to have an abortion are

• She is not ready to become a parent.
  
• She cannot afford a baby.
  
• She feels that having a baby now would make it too difficult to work, go to school, or care for her children....
  
• She or the fetus has a health problem.

By contrast:

HT: Tim Challies.

Life is a Vapor

The above photo is what was left after a guy ran a red light and took the life of David Mann, a fellow street evangelist and Facebook friend that was 26 years young.  Now, both David and the driver that ran the red light are in eternity.  That is how fast we can go from this life to the next, yet most of us live as if we will never die.  This is why Biblical evangelists do what they do.  Call us wide-eyed fanatics, misguided zealots, or specially gifted, but before you do, please consider the above picture.  Hell is real and Biblical evangelists are those who are convinced from the bottom of their hearts that the most loving thing they could do is to warn you of it and preach the gospel so that you may be saved from God's impending wrath.  We do so even if it gets a little loud, a little inconvenient, and even if it makes you (and us) pretty uncomfortable.  All we are trying to do is live out a God-entranced worldview in light of our specific gifting.  Because we love you enough to tell you the truth, we may seem a little weird to you.  However, I'd rather be interpreted as a loon by you than be ashamed to use my evangelistic gifts to glorify Jesus.   Please contemplate the following verses.  In light of David's death, I sure have:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” ¹⁴ Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. ¹⁵ Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” ¹⁶ But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. ¹⁷ Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.  James 4:13-17

It’s Tough to Perform Brilliantly When You Have a Bad Argument

I recently ran across two statements by different writers on different topics which nevertheless dovetail:

While we still don’t know the outcome of the Obamacare case, that hasn’t stopped some on the left from piling on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for allegedly “choking” during oral arguments. While I haven’t argued in front of the Supreme Court, I’ve had more than my share of state and federal appellate arguments, and these armchair quarterbacks are overlooking a few factors.

Second — and more importantly — it’s tough for anyone to perform brilliantly when your argument is weak on the merits. Listening to NPR these last couple days, I was amused as various commentators suggested General Verrilli should have tried various alternative arguments — arguments that were not only unsupported by precedent but would have collapsed under the slightest level of scrutiny from Justice Kennedy or Justice Scalia. It turns out that the argument for Obamacare rests on a functionally unlimited view of federal power — that the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and New Deal precedent have essentially combined to create a form of de facto police power for the federal government. But if you instead place federal power within the context of enumerated powers, then Verrilli’s argument becomes exponentially more difficult.

Solicitor General Verrilli struggled not because he “choked” — he did reasonably well for the case he had — but because several members of the Court asked him to justify the individual mandate from within the framework of enumerated powers. As with any case, so much depends on framing. And the more this case was framed as it should be — as a battle over the text and meaning of the Constitution itself — the greater the solicitor general’s challenge. 

We’ll know within a few months if this framing holds and we do in fact maintain a federal government of enumerated powers. In the meantime, the Left shouldn’t be permitted to misdirect from the fundamental weakness of its argument by throwing its advocate under the bus.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/294811

It is not by accident that the first time my own Arminian ideas were questioned came at the hands of an atheist. (Yes, I was at one point in time an Arminian.) You see, atheists, for all their incorrect assumptions about God, are not stupid people. They can see a fatal flaw in Christianity if ever there was one.

Well, there isn’t one. But I found that as an Arminian, I could not adequately defend Christianity. For the Calvinist, there is little surprise as to why I could not—I couldn’t defend Christianity when I was an Arminian because Arminianism is self-contradictory. Of course, I do not expect Arminians to agree with this. Yet my own experience convinces me that it is impossible to defend Arminianism under the close scrutiny of a logic-oriented atheist.

Given this, it is little wonder to me that so many Arminian Christians flee debates with atheists. Indeed, looking at the many Arminian websites around the net today, they are almost exclusively oriented toward attacking Calvinism rather than toward defending the faith against atheists. Could it be that their own thinking shows us flaws in the Arminian system of salvation and because they know these flaws are there, they do not feel comfortable talking to atheists?

Atheists are quick to jump on Arminians, and it’s easier to do so because Arminians are wrong. Since most Christians in America today are Arminians it is no wonder that atheists seem to be gaining the upper hand in much of the scholarly debate.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Atheists can defeat Arminianism. But atheists cannot defeat Calvinism. Why? I claim that it is ultimately because Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong. 

http://calvindude.com/dude/2012/03/28/the-illogical-arminian/ 

Arminian sore losers

Richard Coords said...

"Life follows doctrine."

That was Dave Hunt's response to James White, in characterizing why John Calvin murdered Servetus (plus all of the others that rarely get mentioned).

If you view a person as someone that Jesus loves and died for, then you are apt to treat such a person with respect and dignity, and all of the care that God has for them.

Conversely, if you agree with Calvinist, Jay Adams, that you shouldn't go around telling people that Jesus loves them, because you may be lying to them if they are not one of the Calvinistic Upper-Caste, then you may be apt to treat people as unloved and worthless.

It's basic psychology. A tree is known by its fruit. If you have rotten Calvinists, it's because they have a rotten Calvinism. Basic deduction.

3/29/2012 8:19 PM

 steve said...

Richard Coords said...

"Life follows doctrine."

So if Billy Birch committed a sex crime, that's because life follows doctrine?

If you agree with Arminians that God knowingly made a lower-caste of human beings he was going to damn to hell, then you may be apt to treat people as unloved and worthless.

It's basic psychology. A tree is known by its fruit. If you have rotten Arminians like Billy Birch, it's because they have a rotten Arminianism. Basic deduction.

If Arminians view Calvinists as devil-worshipers who serve a monstrous God, then they are apt to demonize and dehumanize Calvinists. It's basic psychology. Basic deduction.

If you view another human being as a fellow sinner, and say to yourself, "there but for the sovereign grace of God go I," then you are apt to treat him with mercy and compassion.

If you think there’s a good possibility that another human may be elect, then would you risk murdering one of God’s elect? When in doubt, play it safe.

3/30/2012 9:46 AM

 steve said...

Well, Richard, the Eastern Orthodox have a long history of executing heretics, yet the Eastern Orthodox subscribe to libertarian freewill and universal atonement–just like Arminians. Therefore, executing heretics must be the rotten fruit of rotten Arminian assumptions.

Same thing with Roman Catholicism, which has a long history of executing heretics. Yet the Roman Church subscribes to universal atonement. Likewise, Jesuits believe in libertarian freewill. The Roman Church also condemned the Jansenist counterpart to Calvinism. Therefore, executing heretics must be the rotten fruit of rotten Arminian assumptions.

3/30/2012 9:46 AM

 Richard Coords said...

When asking whether a harsh C-God results in harsh C’s, you need to ask yourself whether role models matter, and if they make any difference? If not, then why do we complain when pro athletes act poorly? Man tends to try to emulate those whom they adore, revere and idolize. That doesn’t mean that they always will. Christians who live by a WWJD example and role model often fail to live up to it, but that doesn’t mean that role models have zero impact, and that opens up a very fair question about whether the C-God is a good or poor role model, and what resulting impact that it has upon its adherents. So first, consider what the C-God does, whom C’s adore, revere and emulate. The C-God “passes by” people. But He does more than that. He scripts all thoughts. The C-God thought up sin and called it good. The C-God dreamt up the idea of creating angels and then unilaterally giving them the thoughts which results in them becoming demons. The C-God creates people for Hell, whomever He could otherwise script to save, but instead scripts their thoughts for evil, and the C-God gets pleasure and glorification by them going to Hell, which is what He created them for. Now if you think that this will have ZERO impact upon the lives of those who emulate, adore and revere such a C-God, then I respectfully disagree. It’s going to have an impact, and it’s going to be a bad one. As examples, there are the imfamous Westboro Calvinists. There are the Anti-Missions Calvinists. There is Vincent Cheung who comments: “One who thinks that God’s glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.” (The Problem of Evil) Even some C's have suggested that we ought to think like a C but live like an A, and some A’s have commented that some C’s are evangelists *in spite of* Calvinism, rather than *because* of Calvinism. Consider an old Particular Baptist hymn: “We are the Lord’s elected few, Let all the rest be damned; There’s room enough in Hell for you, We won’t have heaven crammed!” To what degree of blame does the C-God warrant? What role did the C-God play as a role model for these? Were these simply being inconsistent with the C-God? You tell me. Is Steve Hays the natural product of emulating the C-God as his role model? You tell me.

3/30/2012 10:50 AM

 steve said...

Let's apply Richard's argument to the case at hand:

i) God is a role-model

ii) God executed Herod Agrippa for blasphemy (Acts 12:21-23)

iii) Therefore, Calvin rightly emulated God by executing Servetus for blasphemy

Here's another variant of Richard's argument:

i) God is a role model

ii) God employed capital punishment as a form of church discipline (Acts 5:1-11)

iii) Therefore, Calvin rightly emulated God in matters of church discipline

Olson's false dilemma

I’ll comment on this post:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/part-5-of-response-to-the-gospel-as-center-chapter-5-sin-and-the-fall/

Also, of course, this view, that God sovereignly decreed sin and did not merely permit it cannot escape making God the author of sin and evil. God could not have “sovereignly decreed” sin without rendering it certain.

i) It’s true that by decreeing sin and evil, God made it certain. Indeed, that’s a fundamental purpose of predestination.

ii) However, it's equally true that you can make it certain by allowing it to happen. If you foresee that some event will happen unless you intervene, yet you refrain, then your permission ensures the occurrence of the event.

iii) Therefore, by Olson’s own argument, the Arminian God is the author of sin and evil

Why does Andrews not address HOW God rendered sin (i.e., the fall) certain? Virtually every Calvinist theologian I have read explains that God withdrew or withheld the grace he knew Adam and Eve would have needed not to sin. How else could God have guaranteed what he decreed would come to pass without actually forcing them to sin? And yet, non-Calvinists ask, how is that not tantamount to causing them to sin? And if sinning is what they naturally would do apart from a supernatural gift of grace, how was their nature “good?”

i) Once again, it’s true that by decreeing the fall, God ensured the fall.

ii) And, once again, it's equally true that you can make it a sure thing short of predestinating the outcome. If God foresaw the eventuation of the Fall unless he took steps to contravene that outcome, then God’s inaction guaranteed the Fall. Permission made it certain to occur.

iii) Notice that Olson defines causation in terms of ensuring the outcome. So by Olson’s own definition, God caused the fall.

Then, of course, the biggest problem with Andrews’ (and most Calvinists’ view) of God’s sovereign ordaining of sin and evil is that sin and evil are no longer really bad. Andrews quotes Bavinck that God “willed it [i.e., sin and evil] so that in it and against it He might bring to light His divine attributes.” (p. 81) Really. Please. If that’s the case, then there is no getting around it that sin and evil are good because without them God’s glory could not be fully revealed. It’s only a baby step from there to “Those suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact they are there for the greater glory of God.” But it’s not even a baby step to belief that sin and evil are really good.

That’s simpleminded. If fails to distinguish between ends and means. Something can be bad it itself, but serve a good purpose in spite of itself. Take the Assyrian deportation:

5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;

    the staff in their hands is my fury!

6 Against a godless nation I send him,

    and against the people of my wrath I command him,

to take spoil and seize plunder,

    and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

(Isa 10:5-6)

God uses Assyrian to punish Judah. The Assyrians were notoriously cruel. Many atrocities were committed in the course of the deportation. So was the Assyrian deportation good or evil?

Both, in different respects. Cruel for cruelty’s sake isn’t good. But it had a punitive function. As a means to an end.

Some things are intrinsically evil. In case of what’s intrinsically evil, the ends can never justify the means. But other things can be either good or evil depending on the circumstances.

Of course, one traditional Calvinist way of getting around that is to say that the evil of a sinful act lies in the intention with which it is done. But, within a Calvinist doctrine of meticulous providence, even the “evil” intention had to be ordained and rendered certain by God. Then it, too, is not really evil but good.

That, too, is simpleminded. The fact that Adam intends to sin because God intends Adam to sin doesn’t mean God and Adam have the same intentions. Take this illustration:

ruse — In military deception, a trick of war designed to deceive the adversary, usually involving the deliberate exposure of false information to the adversary’s intelligence collection system.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

The fact that it was our intention to deceive the enemy doesn’t mean it was the enemy’s intention to be deceived.

Let’s take some Biblical examples:

5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;

    the staff in their hands is my fury!

6 Against a godless nation I send him,

    and against the people of my wrath I command him,

to take spoil and seize plunder,

    and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

7 But he does not so intend,

    and his heart does not so think;

but it is in his heart to destroy,

    and to cut off nations not a few;

(Isa 10:5-7)

The Assyrians unconsciously do God’s bidding. They carry out his intentions–even though they don’t intend to do so.

Likewise:

49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

(Jn 11:49-51)

Caiaphas did not intend to bear witness to Jesus. He did so in spite of his malicious intentions to the contrary.

I truly do not see how Calvinists like Andrews can cope with this conundrum. If this is true, then why not celebrate sin and evil and hell? They are God’s will and bring him glory.

i) Because sin and evil aren’t good in and of themselves. They don’t automatically glorify God. Rather, redemption glorifies God. Judgment glorifies God.

We celebrate the results. And we praise the wisdom of God’s methods.

ii) Conversely, if the Arminian God permitted sin, evil, and hell, then he willingly permitted sin, evil, and hell. So he willed the permissive results.

How does Olson cope with the Arminian conundrum? 

Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 4

http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/thinking-about-suffering-and-death-part-4/

Did Jesus Exist?

http://www.newsandpews.com/2012/03/an-excerpt-from-did-jesus-existby-bart-d-ehrman/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Archaeological Evidence For Jesus

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-a-evans/archaeological-evidence-for-jesus_b_1370995.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Yesterday’s Doctor Visit

It was a pretty good report.

“You’re really looking stellar”, Dr Rossetti said to her. And she was very happy to be feeling as well as she was feeling. Her blood numbers were all normal, and have been for a while. (I’ve reproduced some numbers from her blood chart at my blog). Notable was the Hemoglobin level of 13.7, and the fact that her protein levels are back to normal. That made her happy.

The biopsies taken from last week’s procedure “looked good, with no significant evidence” of anything serious. She’s still got “a touch of chronic GHVD” (graft vs host disease). The Budesonide she’s taking “topically” deals with the symptoms she’s experiencing in her GI tract.

It’s probably the best possible worlds that she’s got these mild GVHD symptoms, which are well controlled. What she’s got now is probably what she’s going to get at this stage. (GVHD is pretty much brought on by DNA/HLA mis-match with the donor. So the extra lengths they went to, in selecting a donor, are helping tremendously right now). At this point the possibility that she will get further symptoms is about 30% (not 50%, which is typical in the case of having unrelated donors).

She’s still susceptible to infections, although she’s gotten the primary infections that they look for. None of them were serious, but she had “a moderate amount of everything”, and that indeed was life-threatening. But she continues to take an anti-viral infection drug, and her chances of bacterial infection are “way down”.

Thank you again for your prayers. 

Crypto-Calvinist espionage

To: field operatives

From: spymaster

Re: status report

I’m pleased to report that the crypto-Calvinist sleeper-agents we placed at Concordia Seminary to gradually infiltrate the LCMS are having the desired effect as they percolate down to the rank-and-file. As Paul McCain, echoing Mary Magdalene, recently told campus police: “They have taken away the True Body, and I know not where they have laid him.”

http://cyberbrethren.com/2012/03/29/crypto-calvinism-and-lutheranism-beware-the-danger-of-historical-revisionism-cling-to-the-formula-of-concord/

It was our subtle stratagem all along to subvert the pure doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, thereby causing the faithful to surrender the Lutheran Confessions. We now need to expand our sleeper-cell presence in WELS, to complete the Calvinist takeover. 

harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?

I'm posting a recent exchange at Kevin DeYoung's blog:

steve hays March 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Arminian

“…it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism’s major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?”

As long as “Arminian” is citing SEA articles, and drawing connections between belief and behavior, I wonder if he applies the same psychoanalysis to the case of Billy Birch:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1361

Is it mere “coincidence” that Birch is a militant Arminian, or is there some connection between Arminian theology and his acting out? Something in the Arminian view of God that encourages his behavior?

steve hays March 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm

A. M. Mallett

“It strikes me as near-Gnostic at times and with that an air of arrogance and superiority that a lot of Christians find offensive. From my perspective, the ‘jerks’ are those who enjoy bringing such an offense or find no cause to question their own apologetic devices. We are all guilty of it at times but because Calvinism has determined itself to be viewed as the highest academic discipline within Christendom akin to ‘truth’, there should be no surprise at the reactions of those offended by what they see as arrogance and hubris.”

In contrast to humble Arminians like John Wesley, Randal Rauser, and Roger Olson, who think Calvinists unwittingly worship the devil.

steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Arminian

“…it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism’s major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?”

Reminds me of a parable I read somewhere. How did it go? Something like this:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

 

Two men went to church to pray; the one a Calvinist, and the other an Arminian. The Arminian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are–like those harsh, proud, jerky Calvinists. I am kind, loving, and humble. I give tithes of all that I possess to the Society of Evangelical Arminians.

steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm

arminianperspectives

“Great point and such a tight parallel with what Arminian was saying, since everyone knows that homosexual sin is rampant among Arminians to the point where Arminian leaders are constantly writing articles about the problem and calling on Arminians in particular to change their ways, just like we see among Calvinist leaders with regards to smugness, pride, jerkiness, etc.”

i) DeYoung didn’t say that’s “rampant” among Calvinists.

ii) Moreover, it doesn’t occur to Josh/Ben that his suggestion that pride and smugness are rampant among Calvinists is, itself, a proud, smug statement–only in this case the expression of Arminian pride.

iii) Finally, the fact that Arminian leaders don’t write articles about the danger of spiritual pride among Arminians doesn’t mean that’s not a problem among Arminians. Indeed, that very omission is symptomatic of spiritual pride that blinds itself to its own pride. A lack of self-criticism among Arminian leaders.

steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm

A. M. Mallett

“On a more serious note, your post illustrates the ‘jerk Calvinist’ complex quite well.”

And that insult illustrates the “harsh Arminian” complex quite well.

“Birch has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and is merely your unfortunate attempt to smear a theological viewpoint through association.”

You mean…like “Arminian’s” smear campaign?

Acute angry-Arminian syndrome

Arminians try to popularize defamatory urban legends about Calvinists. Kevin DeYoung recently did a post provocatively entitled: "Does Calvinism Make People Jerks?" His post elicited many comments from Arminians. I'm going to post some of their feedback. As you read through their comments, stop and ask yourself which side actually has an anger-management problem: is it the Calvinists-or the anti-Calvinists?

A. M. Mallett March 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm

It strikes me as near-Gnostic at times and with that an air of arrogance and superiority that a lot of Christians find offensive. From my perspective, the “jerks” are those who enjoy bringing such an offense or find no cause to question their own apologetic devices.

 

We are all guilty of it at times but because Calvinism has determined itself to be viewed as the highest academic discipline within Christendom akin to “truth”, there should be no surprise at the reactions of those offended by what they see as arrogance and hubris.

 

 

arminianperspectives March 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Great point and such a tight parallel with what Arminian was saying, since everyone knows that homosexual sin is rampant among Arminians to the point where Arminian leaders are constantly writing articles about the problem and calling on Arminians in particular to change their ways, just like we see among Calvinist leaders with regards to smugness, pride, jerkiness, etc.

 

 

A. M. Mallett March 28, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Have you stopped to consider that a disproportionate number of Calvinists are viewed as jerks by others because they just might simply be jerks and that is a mindset fueled by their worldview of themselves and others??

 

 

James M. March 28, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Frank Turk’s initial comment accurately portrays the problem. So-called Calvinist jerks presume autocratically that they know exactly what the response of people is or will be, and they suggest it in a way that reveals their own arrogance. As if the people who come to read The Gospel Coalition are generally ignorant, and perhaps nothing more than the typical rabble rousers TeamPyro attracts.

 

While temerity is apropos for defending Truth, blindness to how you do it in the public view is not. Rare is the Calvinist jerk who will humbly accept an admonition, unless that admonition comes from a “higher caliber” Calvinist than themselves.

 

Like the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2, Calvinist jerks see error a mile away, but they don’t at all convey love for Christ’s Church – in spite of their lip service to the contrary. They are, as the image in the article portays, too often wide-eyed curmudgeons. I think Jonah was a Calvinist jerk like that.

 

 

Melody March 28, 2012 at 6:14 pm

My biggest problem with it is the way that people call themselves “Calvinist”. Did you all miss the verses where Paul talks about the people saying they follow Paul or they follow Apollos? That alone should make you want to avoid labeling yourselves that way. That is where the arrogance and pride comes in.

 

Even though there always seems to be the excuse that the truth matters more. Maybe some of them just have head knowledge like demons?

 

 

DRT March 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Good discussion

 

I don’t think arrogance per se is the problem. The problem is that Calvinism teaches that they are better than others. They are the elect. Of course they will be snobbish and arrogant.

 

..and, anyone who has studied scripture for awhile recognizes that you can justify almost any view by citing some scripture that supports that view. But we all know that there is more than that to it. But is seems, at least to me, that Calvinists seem to have this proof text version of scripture going on so they feel more justified in their beliefs. Please, I have proof texts too that contradict what you are saying. Just because you find it in there does not make you right!

 

Further, Calvinism is not even close to warm and fuzzy and that is reflected in its adherents. It is binomial, you are elect or not, then you either persevere or were not elect. It is modernism to a T. Everything cold about the scientific method has been adopted by the Calvinists without getting any of the welcoming of revision.

 

 

A.M. Mallett March 28, 2012 at 10:30 pm

How do I lhate thee? Let me count the ways.

I hate thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.

I love hate to the level of everyday’s

Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.

I hate thee freely, as men strive for Wrong;

I hate thee purely, as they turn toward Praise.

I hate thee with the passion put to use

In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.

I hate thee with a hate I seemed to acquire

With my lost vessels,—I love hate with the breath,

Smiles, tears, of all my life!—and, if God choose,

I shall but hate thee more after thine death.

 

 

Michael B. March 29, 2012 at 7:46 am

If you’re a libertarian, you believe in very limited government. There’s nothing about this that necessarily makes you a jerk. If you believe in Calvinism, you believe that you have been hand-picked by the ruler of the universe, and that everyone else is going to hell. Believing something like this pretty much guarantees you’ll be a jerk. 

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus"

Five years ago, James Cameron did a mockumentary about the alleged discovery of Jesus’ tomb (i.e. the Talpiot Tomb), only the tomb wasn’t empty after all! This contention was shot down by scholars like Richard Bauckham.

However, I’d like to make another point. The unbeliever is arguing that if we found a tomb containing the remains of Jesus, that would disprove the Resurrection of Christ, and thereby falsify the Christian faith.

In that ironic connection, atheist Jeff Lowder has argued that the corpse of Jesus would rapidly become unrecognizable, so that even if his tomb was occupied, it would be impossible to identify the remains. I myself have responded to that argument.

However, my immediate point is not to assess either one of these anti-Christian arguments, but to simply point out that they cancel each other out. And in that respect, the onus is not on Christians to refute mutually contradictory objections to the Christian faith–for the unbelievers are busy refuting each other.