Spiritual and Sexual Abuse in the Church: I Can See Clearly Now
In preparation for the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism and The Reformation Myth, I am reading a hefty amount of material written by Socrates and Plato. Though Socrates was obviously a very annoying person, reading his writings is a real eye-opener in regard to how the first philosophical academy of the western world shapes our present-day thinking from some twenty-five hundred years ago. His very same bases of thought, attitude, and communication techniques that can be seen today are eerily exact—not just similar—exact.
Volume one of TTANC focused on the roots and doctrine of the present-day New Calvinist movement. In preparation for volume two, I dined with church historian John Immel who pointed me to the fact that New Calvinists hold to true Reformation doctrine. Immel then suggested that I research the connections between the Reformers and Augustine, and then Augustine’s connections to Plato. He also provided some clues as to what he believes the connections are. Immel is not one who desires to put ideas in people’s minds; he is more or less a modern-day herald of the need for people to think for themselves.
Mark that. It’s an element that contributes greatly to spiritual and sexual abuse in the church. People – thinking for themselves = abuse. That’s the first part of the equation, we will add to it later. Lest you think that I am alone in seeing hefty significance and a direct relationship between the Soc./Plato Academy and modern-day behavior, consider what others say. In Harper Magazine’s endorsement of “The Wisdom And Ideas Of Plato” by Eugene Freeman and David Appel, they stated the following: “Now anybody can understand and appreciate the basic thoughts that support our modern life.” Though true, not everybody “appreciate[s]” them. Renowned philosopher Karl Popper blamed 20th century totalitarianism on Plato specifically:
Karl Popper blamed Plato for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century, seeing Plato’s philosopher kings, with their dreams of ‘social engineering’ and ‘idealism’, as leading directly to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (via Georg Wilhelm, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx). In addition, Ayatollah Khomeini is said to have been inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king while in Qum in the 1920s when he became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato’s Republic. As such, it has been speculated that he was inspired by Plato’s philosopher king, and subsequently based elements of his Islamic Republic on it (Wikipedia: online source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king).
Volume 2 of TTANC will trace New Calvinism from its contemporary birth (the Australian Forum:1970), and back to its Reformed roots. It will also lightly survey the Reformation’s philosophical underpinnings that came from the Soc./Plato Academy. However, The Reformation Myth will address these same things in much deeper detail. Both books will address this from three perspectives: history; doctrine; and character.
Immel’s primary concern is spiritual tyranny, but an understanding of church history is critical to understanding what makes spiritual tyranny tick. In my research for TRM, the subject of abuse has become so entangled in the results that I have decided abuse will dominate the “Character” section of the book. The fact that Plato’s philosopher king concept dominates today’s church is inescapable—with the same results following that have always marked this philosophy’s existence throughout history.
Socrates believed that true knowledge could not be obtained through observation of the material. He also believed that truth was eternal, and immutable, and a higher good than the gods. One could only access truth through the mind, or ideas; ie, the nonmaterial. The mind was the conduit to the realm of truth which in essence was god, and like the real God, cannot be fully known. To Socrates, the first step to wisdom was realizing that definitive truth cannot be known, but yet, man had a duty to orchestrate life by the best truth that could be ascertained from the mind. In other words, truth was already in each person, and true education was a rediscovering of information already known. It is unclear to me at this point whether Socrates believed that truth indwells us all in the fullness of the truth cosmos, or indwells each of us to varying degrees.
The method for discovering the truth that is in us, according to Socratism, is to ask ourselves questions. When Socrates taught, the teaching began with a question concerning life, and through a lengthy dialogue of questions and answers, the best solution was drawn from the mind’s connection to pure truth. This entailed three things: hard, certified work; the recognition that we cannot know anything definitively; the belief that truth cannot be known through observation of solid matter; and the belief that the only measure of moralism was in regard to what best served the masses verses the few. His understudy, Plato, later identified these characteristics as belonging to philosopher kings, and believed such should rule over the masses for the betterment of society’s whole. In regard to the moral fitness (which cannot be definitively ascertained anyway) of the philosopher king, it was irrelevant because his knowledge was essential to the society as a whole and his personal life only affected him—not society. Hence, in societies that function by philosopher kings (knowingly [rare] unwittingly, or by default [most often]), the written law is not much more than a strong suggestion in most cases.
Plato divided the ideal society into three parts: philosopher king, soldier, and producer. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this all ends up; the soldiers serve the king, and the producers do not understand the basic fundamentals of truth. All–knowing kings + soldiers = you had better know your place + keep your ideas to yourself because you don’t know that you don’t know.
Now enter St. Augustine. Patron saint of the Catholic Church, father of Reformation philosophy/doctrine, and a follower of Plato. Luther was a member of the Augustinian Order, and Calvin quoted him on every (on average) 2.5 pages of his institutes. Augustine was a dyed in the wool Catholic till the end, and revered as its “Doctor of Grace.” No less credit was given to him among the Reformers. Basic Platonist philosophy drawn from Augustine is really what made the Catholic Church and the Reformation tick, with the same results following. The Reformation was really a spat between Rome and the Reformers about who was going to control the ideas.
For all practical purposes, they were two different camps of philosopher kings at war for control of the producers. The primary crux of the argument, if any, was the idea that the Reformers were moral despot philosopher kings verses the decadence of the popish sort. At any rate, this side of the Reformation, the indifferent attitude towards justice, mercy, and freedom of thought is abundantly evident. By and large in today’s church, we don’t have pastors, we have philosopher kings. They are supposedly so paramount to the wellbeing of the church city-state, that concerns over their outrageous behavior should be overlooked for the Platonist good of the whole. Besides, morals, according to Socrates, are not definitive anyway.
Excellent studies that expound on how Augustine integrated Platonism into theology are not difficult to obtain. To cite just a few examples, Socrates’ “truth” became “gospel “; Plato’s two worlds became Spirit and flesh; and much later, Historicism, which was a product of Platonism, became the hermeneutic for interpretation. But in regard to human carnage, Popper’s complaint has become the same in the church. Whether a philosophy is dressed up in Bible verses or not, the results are the same.
In my mind, nothing else can explain the indifference among church leaders regarding the spiritual and sexual abuse now rampant in the church. And what better example than the ABWE/ Donn Ketchum scandal. The ABWE/GARB brain trust first covered for Ketchum for some twenty years and were part of a massive cover-up. Now the same men who perpetrated the cover-up and were directly responsible for putting additional children in harm’s way are honored continuously in GARB circles. One is being honored via a multi-million dollar athletic center that is being named after him. The infamous Jack Hyles was honored with a Bible college that bears his name. Even the formally laudable John MacArthur Jr. is covering for serial sheep abuser CJ Mahaney.
Why? Because they are the philosopher kings. Their higher knowledge leads us through the maze of what’s best for the church as a whole. After all, thousands of souls would be lost without them; so, best that the sexually abused go away quietly for the sake of the bigger picture. And besides, we are all “sinners saved by grace” anyway. In the Platonist vernacular: we are all those who “neither know nor think that [we] know” (Socrates: The Apology).
I’m convinced that the key to getting rid of sexual/spiritual abuse in the church is to totally rethink the organized church that is the breeding ground for the church’s philosopher kings. What is left that is good about the organized church will not stand up against the philosopher kings posing as pastors; so, who needs them?
And let me remind you of who really makes the organized church possible: the producers. I am confident that eventually the producers are going to figure out that they are paying the salaries of those who expect us to offer up our children to the sexual cravings of the philosopher kings.
I have to believe that the whole, “Who are you to judge? Put your money in the plate, buy our books, and keep your mouth shut” routine cannot go on for much longer.
paul
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
Reading this reminded me of all the young Calvinist pastors I have run into on blogs and out in the world who really believe the Enlightenment was evil. They are teaching people that the Enlightenment elevated man over God.
What a ridiculous and myopic view of history. As with every movement there is good and bad. As if the “divine” kings were better? Ruling Popes were better? Illiteracy was better? State church was better?
I am astonished at how unthinking the Calvinist movement really is. We really need to take a much closer look at what the seminaries are teaching. It is drivel
Thank you for this. I just came across your blog and read this, and I feel like you have just confirmed something I have suspected for a long time — the God of Calvinism is the God of Platonism. But I’ve never got around to studying Plato, so I couldn’t take my speculations very far.
I will be very eager to buy some copies of your book when it comes out — I know a couple of other people who will find this very interesting
Lydia,
There needs to be an exodus out of the formal church. MacArthur et al need to go get real jobs.
Paul,
This is right on. And I can second the notion that Calvinists speak of the Enlightenment as being “against God”, just in the few conversations I have had with old SGM friends. (They are utterly devoted, Paul…a mass exodus will be slower than it needs to be, by the way.) But all you really need to do is study the doctrine to understand that Calvinists would quite naturally be opposed to Enlightenment ideas; and predisposed to gnosticism. This is where the argument ALWAYS boils down: do the pastors (philosopher kings) really need to stand in the stead or do they not? If you are a Calvinist, you must say yes. If you disagree, then you cannot be a Calvinist…at most, you accept perhaps some of their ideas. The idea of Total Depravity is the lynchpin issue. If one truly believes in the concept of TD as the Calvinists preach it, then one must accept that a pastor must stand in the stead to be his/her rational mind FOR him/her. If you cannot believe freely that God is good and that you can act (of your own volition) to accept his free gift of grace, then you cannot recognize ANY good, on your own, either before or after salvation. The Holy Spirit must act for you (thus, really, the Holy Spirit is merely acting through you, on His own behalf, which is ludicrous and contradictory…but, by doctrinal definition, Calvinists have zero problem with the sum of their doctrine being nothing but a pile of big fat contradictions), and in the areas where a human “leader” is called for in scripture, as the Calvinists interpret it, a “divinely enlightened” pastor (philosopher king) is appointed tell you what to think and do.
So, the pastors are the philosopher kings. I wonder when we will see the manifestation of the “soldiers” in the true sense of the words. [shudder] I guess when they start collecting wood for the bonfires, or when they begin to paint a giant scarlet A (for Arminian) on the windows of those who oppose their doctrine. The poster Randy accused me of being an Arminian I think in his second or third response to me on the Calvinism Part I thread. Which is funny, because I’ve actually NEVER read any Arminian literature. All of the conclusions I’ve come up with and subsequently written about in my posts I came up with on my own, after studying ONLY Calvinist “sound” doctrine. So, if determining that Calvinism really doesn’t work, and I can back that up with hundreds of years of European Christian mysticism and bloodshed, as well as countless stories on half a dozen web sites devoted to the revealing and healing the grotesque abuses of SGM Calvinist pastors standing in the stead makes me an Arminian…well then, bring on the scarlet paint and the brushes.
I’m finishing up Edwards’ “Freedom of the Will”. A diatribe of folded-over, steam pressed, hyper-literal conclusions devoid of any real discussion of the two very things that make desire ultimately free: circumstance and reason (and I would add regret,too). I’m getting the impression that the goal of Edwards wasn’t to prove his Calvinist presupposition of “inability”, but to make the issue so utterly confusing that detractors either passively aggressively admit that indeed they aren’t rational enough to understand nonsense, or to drop the issue altogether…or both.
Next, I’m moving on to selected conversations of St. Augustine.
Argy,
Getting close to setting aside time to read stuff people have sent me, and your file is on the stack–I am really sorry it is taking so long. And….the “soldiers” for now, are bogus church discipline, character assassination, and law suits.
….but they are working on the ‘soldiers” part. At next year’s conference, we hope to have a few folks that are experts on the covert organizations that Piper et al are members of that are trying to get in bed with the government. Leadership Forum is getting cozy with the who’s who of politics that can get them an audience with the big boys. I have been receiving emails on this stuff forever, but need to stay focused on the themes of TTANC and TRM. However, both books will mention the issue. Obviously, Auggie and Johnny both were very sold on church and state being the same thing. So, most definitely, “monkey see–monkey do” will follow.
I have to say Paul- Amen!! to this post. Every Christian needs to get back to thinking these things through instead of taking the word of the pastor today. As sad as that sounds that we CANNOT trust a pastor today we MUST always look to the TRUTH and that is Gods Word (sorry to the Pastor who does preach His Word do not be offended, but there are more that don’t then do). He promises us that we can know His truth; He promises us that we do have a Counselor who will guide us in ALL truth. I can rest on that. You do not know how freeing it is to know I have responsibility- not for my salvation, because I know He is the One who saved me from death and I am eternally secure in Him; but the responsibility that I have as a believer to walk in Him. When one is given responsibility, one takes OWNERSHIP. It is the same as with the welfare system today- When one takes from the government, one will then give up responsibility and that is where the government then has power to take ownership away. In turn the welfare recipient stops caring about himself and family and depends on the government for everything. You will never find a (long term) welfare recipient happy, productive, or content in their circumstances. You will usually find despair, depression, irresponsibility, and crime in those who continually rely on the government. The same in the church, when the pastor takes responsibility away in the church and preaches that EVERYTHING is dependent on Gods Sovereignty; there is no response or action on your part, you take away OWNERSHIP. And as in the welfare case, you will have sin run rampant in the church, because too much power is given to the “Popes” and responsibility is taken away from the congregants.
Now those who do believe in free will and a responsibility on the part of the Christian, we know that this walk has nothing to do with our salvation, but everything to do with our right relationship with Jesus Christ. We will be rewarded because of this right relationship with Christ here and in eternity. The Bible is clear about that. This not only excites me, but shows me that having that responsibility gives me access to the Savior at all times. He desires for us to have that communication and walk with Him. In Scripture, the Bible is also clear that we are CO-LABORERS with Christ. We are to work WITH Him and FOR Him. This is not a “Christ is outside of us” picture. We are encouraged and told to come to the High Priest at all times in our time of need. The more we tap into the Word and study it the more our walk with Christ will be strengthened. The more we are walking out on faith to do His Will we are maturing. This is responsibility and an active participatory process. The Bible is full of heros of the faith ACTING out their faith- we must take the responsibility to do the same.
And that starts by not being dumb sheep and thinking things through.
Gang,
As you study this stuff–you begin to see it everywhere in the Bible. The type of king that Israel asked God for was probably of the philosopher king type that would have been par for the surrounding nations. God warned them that such a king would tyrannize/abuse them. But where you really see it big time is in the New Testament. It really opens up your mind to what the Apostles were contending against.
Paul…no, no, really, please do take your time. I’m a reader, and I want to be careful not to insert myself into your time unless it is convenient for you; and that’s your decision. You are the worker, I’m the recipient. I made the mistake one time of, I think, making some presumptions as to when someone would get back to me on something and that didn’t work out too well. So, I want to be careful here not to assume that you can, or should look at what i sent you…and if and when you do, it can certainly be at your own convenience, even if that happens to be a good deal later. NOT a problem.
See…my greatest desire changed by circumstance. I used to expect things sooner, but now I desire to expect them later, and I’m able to do that. But…according to Edwards regret or circumstance can’t change desire, all your choices depend on whatever nature you happen to be born with, so if you are once born a jerk you can’t decide you want to NOT be a jerk. Hmmm….yeah, he didn’t explain that part to well.
“Now those who do believe in free will and a responsibility on the part of the Christian, we know that this walk has nothing to do with our salvation, but everything to do with our right relationship with Jesus Christ. We will be rewarded because of this right relationship with Christ here and in eternity. The Bible is clear about that. This not only excites me, but shows me that having that responsibility gives me access to the Savior at all times. He desires for us to have that communication and walk with Him. In Scripture, the Bible is also clear that we are CO-LABORERS with Christ. We are to work WITH Him and FOR Him. This is not a “Christ is outside of us” picture. We are encouraged and told to come to the High Priest at all times in our time of need. The more we tap into the Word and study it the more our walk with Christ will be strengthened. The more we are walking out on faith to do His Will we are maturing. This is responsibility and an active participatory process. The Bible is full of heros of the faith ACTING out their faith- we must take the responsibility to do the same.”
Trust4himonly…very well said. And I agree, if you study scripture, which is ultimately where all the answers are to be found, the argument comes out very well for the Arminians, or whatever other “free will” types like me there are. One would think that if none of us were actually able to choose to do something, the Bible wouldn’t spend so much time telling us what a good idea it is to do that something.
Was reading Romans 4 today. What is clear is that faith is NOT works, so choosing Christ is not “works” salvation. And whose faith? MAN’s faith. Whose belief? MAN”s belief. And what he gets in reward? God’s imputed GRACE. GRACE is the reward of faith; and the faith is not works. It stems from our belief, which comes from our rational mind which has been designed with the inherent ability to CHOOSE good by recognizing it for what it is, through reason, so that “all men are without excuse”.
I love the book of Romans. Believe it or not, it was the first Bible study I did after I was saved. Once a week for six months sitting together with a few others and a pastor — free to ask questions! Later in my Christian life I realized that studying through Romans was like a mini study of the entire Bible. Getting a grasp on law, grace, and faith was really helpful. I was also reading John (love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) at the same time. Those are fond memories and, looking at it now, it had some balance to it. It wasn’t all about the Epistles for years on end.
Great convo guys. Paul, when I am listening to their heirarchical drivel, I always think back to the Jews begging for a king like the pagans had. God was angry they wanted such a king because He was their king.
Some things never change.
Argo, if the Calvinists can convince people that “faith” can only come from God and is a work if it comes from man, think of the implications of that. Gives me chills. Think of what that means for someone who is a spiritual abuser and convinced of their salvation. We see this all the time. They really believe it, too. Think of Calvin and how his beliefs drove his behavior and we see the result.
The goal of Calvinism is to convince men and women that they have no rational mind…no capacity to reason. If you cannot reason, you cannot really see anything for what it is, good or bad; and if you cannot see, you cannot judge, and if you cannot judge, you cannot choose, and if you cannot choose, you are as a beast in the field.
If you cannot see good or evil, then you can desire neither good or evil…see how this works? The issue isn’t whether or not you can save yourself, the issue is whether you can even desire to be saved. In Genesis, after the Fall, though, God explains that man and woman have become “like” God, knowing good and evil.
But a question for the Calvinists is how is it possible to see good and evil and not desire? If you cannot desire good, how can you really recognize good? (You can’t…is their point, which is NOT what the Bible says.) It makes no logical sense to say that one can see this or that, but they can NEVER desire it. If you cannot ever desire it, then you cannot really define it. Before you can ONLY choose evil, EVERYTHING must BECOME evil in your sight as a matter of utter depraved nature, so that it can be said that EVERYTHING you do is ultimately in service to your desire to do evil (Calvinism 101…CJ taught this ad nauseaum), even when it LOOKS like you are doing good things (so that even after salvation, say, feeding the poor or working in a prison ministry is “shot through with sin”, and not really obedience because of your regeneration; any GOOD in that act isn’t you at all, it’s God…obeying Himself, in service to Himself…uuuh, okay…and how is this not heretical?) So when the Calvinists say that men cannot desire God, they contradict the Biblical understanding of man’s mind. The argument isn’t whether or not men and women can save themselves…they can’t. The argument is really whether or not man has any capacity to reason. The Calvinists say no, because to imply otherwise means that man can see that God is good, and can desire Him…it’s not the doing that we question, its the desiring.
However, at every turn the Bible confirms man’s ability to reason, right down to the Ten Commandments (think about it; if you can’t define the good and bad that God has enlightened you to, how can you be held responsible to it?)…this is why the Enlightenment was so important. It was a comprehensive, logical defense of man’s ability to reason…to KNOW, and to draw conclusions that were objective.
This goes against everything the Calvinists want you to think; so naturally they condemn the Enlightenment as being anti-God.
There is only one reason anyone would purposefully create a theology designed to systematically dismantle man’s claim to his rational mind: power.
Calvinists love proof texting verses, out of context (by definition) and then claiming that each one is an utter affirmation of the DOCTRINE of election. That is, the definition of that verse couldn’t possibly be anything other than in absolute service to the Calvinist preconceived premise. So when they quote “only those whom the Father draws can come to me”, they can only see “election”, when in reality that may be the furthest thing from the point. When they quote Peter “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble..”, they only see inability and total depravity, and never once stop to ask themselves why Peter would exhort people to “do things” and to contribute to “making (their) election sure”, if, by definition, the doctrine of predestination/election as the Calvinists teach it makes man DOING anything both impossible and pointless.
“The Calvinists say no, because to imply otherwise means that man can see that God is good, and can desire Him…it’s not the doing that we question, its the desiring. ”
This might be a strange thing to bring up but your statement above made me think of it. I learned from a lot of study that Gen 3 is a very bad translation about Eve. The word Teshuqa was translated as “turning” UNITL a monk named Pagnini in the 1300′s changed it to desire. Think about this. Eve had a choice to turn to God or to Adam. She chose Adam and because she did,he ruled over here. This was after the fall. God did not dictate this at all. He predicted it. And what do we do? We change the interpretation and turn a sin (turning away from God to man) into a virtue.
Paul, I am convinced that there are very few institutional churches where people can really come to know Jesus intimately. In spirutal abuse exit counseling, we tell people to read the Gospels ONLY for 3 years every day. KNOW Jesus. What He did, what He said, etc, etc. Only then can they understand Paul. We tell them to pray for understanding and to remove the filters they have been taught with. And only then will they spot not only error but what is totally unChristlike behavior from the pastors and celebrities. It is amazing what reading only Christ will do to change a perspective. He was God in the Flesh!
Paul,
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would distinguish between soteriological Calvinism and all inclusive Calvinism. I think there is little question the Reformers continued to exhibit the sacral mindset that had characterized the RC “Church.” Even now, Reformed Churches continue to embrace this concept that all in a given locality are embraced in the Church, in this case, believers and their unbelieving children are considered part of the covenant Community. I would recommend to your “gang” that they read “The Reformers and Their Step Children by Leonard Verduin. This book is still available used from a number of sources. I would not recommend it to a non-serious student since it can be a bit tedious at times,
This is why New Covenant Theology is so important and has been referred to as a “Baptist Theology.” True Baptists understand the true meaning of the separation of church and state. We also understand the true nature of Church membership. For this reason we are only “Calvinists” in the soteriological sense of the word.
Argo,
One of your comments made me wonder if you think Christians are good to go independently of the Holy Spirit. It would be my view that it is only the new covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit that keeps us from being totally helpless in the matter of sanctification. Paul wrote that we don’t even know what we should pray for as we ought, BUT THE SPIRIT. . . Our job is to continually follow and depend on the Spirit as he has revealed God’s will in the NT Scriptures..
Do you people always speak in prodigious generalities? I happen to be a Calvinists in the soteriological sense of that term, yet, I believe very few of the ideas you so freely attribute to Calvinists. It would be great if we could seriously discuss some non straw-man issues.
Argo,
I am still waiting on you to give me a quote from a Calvinist who denies the sinner’s ability to reason.
It is not predestination/election that makes “DOING anything both impossible and pointless”, it is the sinner’s sinful nature and guilt before God.
Argo,
I assume that since you speak so confidently about Peter’s statements, you must be a student of the Greek language. If so, you understand that Peter used the middle voice when he spoke of making your election sure. That means he was saying “make sure for yourselves that you are called and chosen.” Since election is God’s eternal decree, we can’t make it more certain. We can make sure for ourselves that we belong to that number by obedience to God’s revealed truth.
Randy,
I don’t see how the use of grammatical voice has changes the contradiction in the least. If election is election, then by definition it doesn’t matter one way or another if someone makes their election “sure”. Thus, election as you see it makes Peter’s exhortation moot. Election is sure regardless of what man does or not, no? Isn’t that the point? Isn’t that unconditional election? Isn’t that perserverence of the saints?
Randy,
Can you tell me why anyone should care whether they are elected or not? In light of “election” what difference does it make?
I mean, really Randy, what does total depravity mean to you? That’s why I say that doing anything is pointless. Because it is! If you are totally depraved before “salvation” then you must be after. B the cross doesn’t change anyone’s status before God, they are what they have always been. If you can’t earn your salvation, then how can you earn your sanctification? What would be the point of that? There is none. Thus, doing anything is a waste. The command is a waste. Belief and faith a waste. You don’t have to SAY you don’t believe man possesses a rational mind, your very doctrine screams it from every sermon, speech, proof text, and blog post.
If you really need a direct quote, then I’ll find you one. But I submit that if you truly understood the logical extentions of your own doctrine, you’d realize how superfluous a direct quote is. If election is fact, then so is man’s inability to reason. For how can it be said that it is impossible for a rational man to know and desire GOOD? Explain that to me. If is impossible for man to acknowledge that the.
Creator is good, and thus views all good as evil, which he just THINKS is good, then how can man be anything other than a blind fool at best, or a wicked sociopath at worst?
Argo,
All things Randy will no longer be appearing on this blog. He has left several comments that will not be posted. I simply see no need for this blog to be a platform for heretics. His last post was particularity nasty and very indicative of the New Calvinist spirit of despotism. Randy is a particularly vile individual who has stalked me in the past by flooding my inbox with very volatile emails. I have saved all of them for the local police and those who may support him financially.
Thank goodness……this a person whose only desire is to push a doctrine of Calvinism over accurately studying Gods Word. The more I am around this stuff the more suffocating it gets. Where is the freedom? Where is the love of Christ? Where is the discernment?
I find it so amazing, going along with Argos posts, why should it matter to them about election? Why make it such an issue along with salvation? If they don’t know who is elected, why make such “ado” about things that are completely out of their control? Why? CONTROL
To Calvinism, as such with any despot doctrine or religion, it is a matter of control- control over people. If they were so into TULIP like they say, it would not matter what other believers say about them- God so predestined everything – right? God is Sovereign over their doctrine and the outcome of their doctrine- right? So why worry?
Well they know they have holes in their doctrine and they know people are thinking for themselves (can’t have that now can we? For we are too depraved to think
for ourselves). So then I ask what gives them the right to THINK if we are so depraved to begin with? How in the world could John Calvin be able to write 2,000 + pages knowing he was so totally depraved? What gave him such a right?
None of this makes any sense whatsoever- the more you dig the more you find foolishness. I am not an eloquent writer; actually I am more simple in my approach to life. When I read Scripture, I try to look at what is plainly said then trying to search out for something that may not even be there. This is what I feel Calvinism does- it strives too much into findng more meaning then what is plainly said. Now that does not mean I am against good theological study, but one has to be extremely careful one does not take away or add to Scripture (which we all can be guilty of).
Coming up with new theological terms really does not fulfil the Great Commission; it does not bring others to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Complicating doctrines do not help the common person like me grow in my faith with Christ or further my intimacy with the Savior either.
Jesus did not spend most of his time around those of the intellectually elite, but those who were of the lowly. His friends were fishermen, tax collectors and women (some who were ex-prostitutes). This is one reason to stay far away from a complicating “doctrine” such as Calvinism.
Oh, okay Paul. Thanks for letting me know. Can’t say I blame you. I have come to realize that the Calvinist lashing out in anger is a natural by product of their untenable position. At some point they will get backed into a logical corner that they cannot escape from, and no amount of scripture quoting will free them. I have been reading Edwards’ treatise on Free Will, and what is clear is that he was a better preacher than philosopher. What is most disturbing is that he seems to lack a basic understanding of the omnipotence of God, which is essential to the argument. For instance, he claims that the Arminian position is hypocritical because it insinuates that since God cannot help but do good, He is not praiseworthy any more than the saved person is praiseworthy for being elected to his/her reward. Now…let the ludicrousness of that statement sink in and you will see just why I question his understanding of God (God cannot earn a reward or punishment, nor can he be compelled because He IS the standard, not just the Creator of it. He is worthy of praise simply because He IS…there is no external standard that He cannot help keep…Edwards is comparing apples and oranges.) As I continue to read Edwards I am struck with just how weak the philosophical and doctrinal foundations of the TD and predestination arguments are. Thus, any Calvinst who enters the debate and stays in it will realize eventually that they built upon sand. They will either a. Accept that they are wrong. B. Claim paradox or mystery and continue in their folly. Or C. Lash out in anger. Since Calvinism can only ultimately flourish when spiritual tyranny is considered “biblical leadership and submission” they do not tend to tolerate challenge. They lash out in anger now because that is the extent of their civil power. God help us if they merge their doctrine with the power of civil government.
“I have to believe that the whole, ‘Who are you to judge? Put your money in the plate, buy our books, and keep your mouth shut’ routine cannot go on for much longer.”
Its gone on in the Catholic church forever, and it will go on in the Protish world for just as long. There will always be enough smucks buying into it to pay the bills. The fact is, it seems, people want a religion that tells them are stupid and unenlighteneded and totally depraved and sets a pastor king above them. If it weren’t the case, then this form of religion would not be the dominate one, would not have been the dominant one since time immemorial. If anything is going to happen, it may be that an anti-Pauline denomination arises that boots that sophist out of the New Testament so that righteousness and living morally can once again be engaged in without being condemned as ‘trusting in works.’ That’s what needs to be done, and maybe after all the faith-onlyist churches finally fall to the homosexual maffia (and they will) such a anti-Pauline church will arise. Until then, Christianity is screwed, as it has been at least since Augustine.
Rey Jacobs,
Hi Rey. Your comments here have some merit, but for the sake of other readers here, I am going to make some things clear:
1. Comments are not posts that either give credibility or reject credibility.
2. PPT is not afraid of ideas, but may not post certain comments because this is not a platform for error. However, there is a ministry angle here as well.
3. This author believes firmly that the Apostle Paul’s writings were inspired as he was born along by the Holy Spirit and that his statements in Scripture represent God’s positions on life and godliness.
4. The Scriptures are God’s plenary philosophical statement to man concerning life and godlessness, and stand separate and in contention against every thought/religion/philosophy that opposes or contradicts it.