I've recently followed an interesting theological discussion on the Doctrines of Grace at a blog that seems to attract a very interesting group of people (mostly women, but a few men as well). The topic of Calvinism came up in a comment thread quite by accident but then the discussion turned to a full blown debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of the theological system known as Calvinism.
Many of the participants in the debate became quite heated. Many times I have heard the claim that Calvinists are mean-spirited and present their case in an overly heated manner showing disdain for those who hold a differing view. But I have not typically found this to be the case. I found the discussion of Calvinism to be particularly revealing at this blog. Here are a few quotes:
- "If you ever succeeded in convincing me that Calvinism’s right, you would lose me forever as a Christian. My heart would permanetly die."
- "If possible, I’ve come to hate Calvinism with the passion of a thousand angels, even more than I did before today. I can’t tell you how much I hate it and how much pain it gives me; I hate it almost more than Satan, because it came from a person."
- "That’s a loving God? Either He loves all, or He doesn’t. If he does not, than He is a foul liar and His book is more corrupt than Satan’s tongue."
- "Let me blaspheme the lying and selective god, [snip - to remove identifying name]. If I’m to burn for it, then I’m to burn and it’s what He wants anyway."
As vitriolic as all this was, I didn't see any responses from those who hold to the doctrines of grace that held anywhere near this degree of vituperation. And I think the heart of the reason for the strong statements is seen in the following quote. This is something I have suspected from the anti-Calvinist crowd for some time, but this was the first time I've seen it stated. I will provide italics on the phrase I'm referring to.
- "Maybe this is blasphemy, I don’t know, but when I see amazing people or those who live in unbearable sorrow and pain, I don’t think they deserve hell; I think they deserve a chance to know God, at least. Please don’t try to argue this point with me by Scripture; I’ve seen the argument and I don’t care, whis [sic] is just how I feel."
Please don't try to argue this point with me by Scripture; I've seen the argument and I don't care. Wow! What an admission. What a frightening and dangerous position to hold. I hope that if I ever take such a stance on any issue against the Word of God that it will be brought to my attention quickly.
You may read the complete discussion here.
Ya know, its been hard to know where to go with this. The person you are writing about has made some very horrible statements about the God of the Bible. Sometimes I just want to let her have it. In fact, I'm holding myself back right now. She's never going to believe it and that's fine. I could probably let it go if she wasn't just so downright hateful.
ReplyDelete-Cally
Excellent post Richard.
ReplyDeleteIt really is chilling.
...who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "why did you make me like this," will it? (apparently it will) Or does the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us...(Romans 9:20-24
Wow! Even us...Praise the Lord!
I think it is important to just believe folks when they speak and say that they would never worship a God like that, well...maybe they do not worship the God of the Bible. Maybe they worship a God of their own creation.
Just a sobering thought.
Cally - you have shown tremendous restraint throughout the process of these now multiple threads. I've wanted to clap after reading quite a few of your posts.
ReplyDeleteYou gave me a bit of a scare when I saw your name on the comment. Thanks for signing it with "Cally."
Hutch - Your quote is so very applicable to the situation. I wanted to say something similar to what you've mentioned about worshiping a God of our own creation but, like Cally, have really tried to show restraint during this whole thing. I've succeeded at that to greater or lesser degrees. I have not done as well as Cally has.
Your comment, Hutch, was the only one out of 97 or so comments in that thread that actally addressed the post.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteHaving lived on both sides of this doctrinal fence, I can honestly say that I'm not a bit surprised that the discussion became so heated. My mother thinks I've been possessed because I remotely entertain anything other than Word of Faith teachings. In a discussion of suffering as related to God's sovereignty, my own mother (while I was about 30 years old) towered over me with so much anger on the subject that she seemed like the abominable snowman. With great restraint from her obvious non-verbal expressions of anger, she declared Calvin an heretic and anyone who believed anything he said to be an heretic. But God forbid that anyone draw Charles Finney into question...
It is not as simple as saying that they are worshipping a God of their own creation. I once heard someone like RC Sproul say that we are arminian when we get saved, become semi-pelagian and then if we are Christian long enough and examine the truth, we become Calvinists. Some people just do not follow hard after the Lord to realize just how sovereign he is (or at least how I view Him). I was taught by good, Bible believing, sola scriptura people that salvation was a partial choice. That is their best understanding, but I don't think that makes them not Christian. It is a matter of how they earnestly interpret the Word. I had to be pretty burned out and plain burned by the teachings before I would believe otherwise because this is all I knew. And I lost very much over this.
And to be fair, I was never treated as cruelly has I have been in Reformed churches. That should not be universal or a sweeping statement, but the cruelty that I was dealt in two churches was brutal by comparison to the worst cases of excommunication in the Dispensational church. That's not to say that this is true of all Calvinists, but there are a growing number of Calvinists who use the Theology as a cruel measuring rod and a cause for miserable discipline. There are those to whom the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" sound like incantations of evil. There is a cruel flavor to Calvinism that I do not taste in Dispensationalism. I don't know if it is just a communication issue or if it boils down to a problem with the belief that man is basically good. Many Christians believe that, and I know many Calvinists that are quick to write off and condemn good Samaritans for being Samaritans, ignorantly denying their goodness (and God's use of them for goodness despite their rejection of Him).
So I can see why people would react in this way, and it's been my experience that such discussions are generally very rough.
Now I am not in any way advocating some of the statements made by some of the people who commented on the thread, but I can understand that someone could have made at least some of these criticisms as I've seen them before.
Hi, Richard, Hi, Hutch, Hi Cally, Hi, Cindy,
ReplyDeleteMy only beef with Calvinists is that they call everybody else Arminian when they are not. That's about it.
And it's no big deal to me.
Hutch, I've heard of some of the arrogance in Reformed circles that you mention.
Humility is a wonderful thing, and I need more of it, too.
Who knows why the commenters are acting the way "they" are? It sounds as though there is some hurt there that runs pretty deep.
Let's not forget to pray.
Cindy - I have had the exact same experience. The interesting thing is that I was raised in a Dispensational Calvinist church - interesting combination, eh?
ReplyDeleteI think the preoccupation with church discipline among the Reformed/Calvinist crowd has contributed greatly to the abuse of power and the downright meanness seen in those circles.
Still - that is the theology I believe to be most biblical, so I attend those churches rather than the local Calvary Chapel, even though the people at the Calvary Chapel are nicer, have way better musicicans, and dress better (or at least more comfortably).
Hi Lynn!! - It's old home week here. Thanks to everyone for dropping by.
Lynn - the accusation of "Arminian" when it's not really true I think is an overstatement of the facts based on frustration that someone who clearly sees Total Inability, Unconditional Election, and Effectual Grace cannot grasp the concept of Particular Redemption. It becomes even more frustrating when, like me, you see it clearly taught in scripture and not just a logical next step.
Middle of the night blog posts! My cat has been up howling at the full moon for two days, and I fell asleep at 8pm because I was tired because he was so busy all the night before. He woke me up by nipping my nose. My poor husband just got up and went into work. (Nothing worse than getting awake about 2hours early!)
ReplyDeleteLynn,
I agree with you. We are to serve God wholeheartedly and be ready to give an account, serving God (in devotion to the Word, ever conforming to it while we are transformed by it). Are the scribe and the other man who tell Jesus that they will follow Him anywhere He goes but wanted to go home to bury his father and the other to tell his family what he was doing and where he'd be not going to heaven? Maybe they were arminian? I always took it that when the Lord calls you, you go, even if the timing is off and it doesn't make sense. (This is how I first started to realize that I was in a spiritually abusive church because I took those verses to heart.) And we also forget that Jesus, unlike us, could see their hearts. Does that mean that we call them names? Jesus just left them (and they Him) and went His way. There is no sermon or parable preached to declare that they were sub-Christian.
I know good Christians that have lived most of their lives and never heard anything about TULIP and don't know anything about Calvin. These are the most loving, godly women who know the Bible inside out, large sections by heart, probably better than half the pastors in the US. They raised their kids and live very holy, devoted lives. When these groups go labelling and name calling as some do and blasting those who hold to another view, they are blasting these women, too, while women like her do a much better job across the board, IMO, of loving and caring for both the brethren and ministering for the lost. I've found that to do the ministry that I think really exemplifies love and "in the trenches" ministry, I have to go outside the Reformed churches that I attend to find it. I really find, overall, that there is a disconnect. This is not true of all people in every church I've been involved with, but it is definitely not a fig newton of my imagination!
I, too, am tired of getting wrongly labelled arminian. What is funny to me is that if one is devoted to serving God as completely sovereign, why is it that so many of these folks make it a point to do so much labelling? If they believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths the Lord Jesus, why is there not more of a spirit of trust in God and rejoicing for those who do not profess to be Reformed? God says that he will bring us all into the unity of the faith and will guide us into all truth. If that's the case, why all the need for calling people open theists and arminian when they are not? To "help" the Holy Spirit along in His work in the hearts of these believers?
There are many sharp edges to Covenant Theology which is likely why I never signed up but followed a New Covenant approach and attended a New Covenant seminary. They were so concerned about the "sharp edges" that they refused to teach systematic theology and focused on exegesis/language/history instead.
I don't have any answers (save to pray for healing and unity on all sides for all who believe in Jesus) and I am saddened by this.
I guess that's my other beef, too. When I've seen earnest people ask a hard-line Calvinist about these things, there is much anger. I don't understand that. There is a lot of judgemental "How dare you reject God or deny the Word's truth in this. Here's the proof and there is no other way to see it." There is a lot of personal investment and personal offense. There is this anger about the mere idea that someone could believe in Jesus yet not share the conceptual framework of the Doctrines of Grace (a perspective and perception).
ReplyDeleteNow if the hard-line Calvinist is committed to God's sovereignty, why should the get SO personally and emotionally engaged in a discussion with someone on these things? But that I what I've seen. In the fray, the person who holds a contrary view gets alienated pretty quickly, especially if they've been hurt and are earnestly trying to understand. If they are the least bit insecure or self-conscious, they will shut down and throw up a wall to keep from ever getting taken to the woodshed by any Calvinist ever again. And I honestly can't blame them.
I think this is what was seen with that person on the other thread. She wasn't really talking about Calvinism but likely a particular Calvinist in her life that likely insisted on winning the argument at a great expense. And I've seen this in such debates, too. Not that this is what happened on that thread as I did not follow it that closely. But instead of offering the Word as Living Water to one dying of thirst, more "Calvinism" is thrust down their throats. I have not seen it offered in a spirit of nurture or ministry but rather in a spirit of "I'm right and you need to realize it and I'll choke you with these Scriptures."
While debating alone with a Jehovah's Witness woman when I was 15 years old, she became so frustrated with my tenacity that she reached over, put her hands on each of my shoulders and shook me. She said "Why don't you listen?" I always think of that scene when I see this thing happen. I was A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL, alone with an adult. And she became a bully. If she was convinced of the truth, why was that not good enough for her? Why was it so emotionally engaging? That's not apologetics, it's thuggery.
And I'm not saying that I' haven't resorted to thuggery or become emotionally engaged through some of this stuff. But I see pastors and teachers and highly revered people that practice thuggery like this all the time. And I don't call myself a pastor, either.
Why does it become more a battle of "I demand to be right" with a Calvinist rather than a declaring of the truth to let the Holy Spirit do His work? I've done much growing and healing personally over the past year through all of this type of online discussion. It's been a real fire of transformation and a great learning experience. But there are also those who never soften and learn, too. And people like some of these "dissidents" I'll call them get further alienated rather than provoked to jealously to be like the Reformed.
I'm deeply convicted and constantly learning and working to be the best ambassador for Christ that I can be, so I am definitely preaching to myself here, but I rarely if ever saw anything like this kind of deep personal, emotional engagement in these types of discussions with this spirit which can often be pretty haughty in debate. Why do I have to say "Here I stand, God help me" to conclude a discussion when I'm being browbeaten? I've got to resort to what Luther believed could likely be his dying words to get the Reformed to disengage? This is often the case. I'm tougher than many and can take it, but many hurt and wounded and weak people sulk off into the darkness as a result and never go that way again. We're all going to have to answer for that.
Perhaps we need to learn to step back somehow and pray for them rather than drive it all home in logic. Logic does not always win the day.
Just no easy answers. Iron sharpening iron with lots of sparks?
ReplyDeleteAnother ever important consideration not mentioned here: Age.
ReplyDeleteLook at this new comment on TW that I found
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/thread-1-patriocentrictity-joy/#comment-14092
Cindy - I have seen just the opposite of what you and Lynn have described. The bitterness, anger, and vitriol have come mainly from the anti-Calvinist camp. Think of the proposed and then cancelled public debate between Ergun and Emir Caner vs. James White and Tom whathisface (the head of Founders Ministry). The Calvnist side was quite self-controlled, but presented scripture to show why they held to their beliefs. The anti-Calvinist side was amazingly vitriolic and presented emotion and name-calling (against their opponents and rhetorically against God, just like the girl in the thread we've been discussing).
ReplyDeleteI think that where the problem stems from is that the Arminian can have a discussion with the Calvinist. But the anti-Calvinist cannot. The anti-Calvinist wants to paint the Calvinist as a demon and is unable to because the Calvinist believes his Calvinism because of the bible. When the Calvinist presents the scriptural basis for his beliefs, the anti-Calvinist goes off the deep end.
I agree that the girl in the thread was not listening to the current debate but was thinking of someone in her past. I also got the distinct impression that she does not like men. She said that my comments infuriated her the most, but I was truly trying to be as gentle as possible with her (until the comment about rejecting Christ to prove me wrong about perseverance).
Yes, Calvinists many times hold a hard line. But the anger comes from not being able to answer the Calvinist's scriptural defense. We should not thrust our Calvinism on others, but if they want to discuss it, we should not back down because the scriptural evidence is so overwhelming that the other person feels overwhelmed.
Richard, I know that a DTS trained friend of mine, a four pointer, said that a few years back Ligonier's "Table Talk" began to bother him a lot.
ReplyDeleteHe mentioned the term "arrogance," but it wasn't over overcalling four-pointers "Arminian."
The other name, which he credited those involved with "Table Talk" for circulating, is "antinomian."
But that little epithet is more on account of differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology, not on differences between Calvinism/Arminianism.
However, I believe him when he said Ligonier was getting pretty arrogant. He tends to be very generous in his assessment of how ministries come across, and what he said was before all the internet flap about Tim Dick came up. His remarks were only based on his view that they were getting just a bit too tightly wrapped around the axle of their particular theology, to the point where everybody else's doctrine was not only wrong, but heretical.
Here's the thing to remember. Today it is becoming increasingly unpopular to be sure of anything. If someone is absolutely convinced of a truth, they are seen as arrogant.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of theology, if you hold the Word of God to be the absolute authority in all matters, and then you find something in the bible that seems so clear that it simply cannot be mistaken, it results in the use of language that is very exact and very strong. This was never a bad thing until the last couple of decades.
There is no question in my mind that certain things are taught in the bible. So I don't say, "my viewpoint is..." or "I think the bible says...." I say, "the bible says this, so this is true. That rubs many people the wrong way, but I think it is wrong to say something weakly in order to accommodate our culture. If it is truth; it is truth.
Ligonier Ministries holds to theology that they see everywhere in scripture - Old and New Testaments, gospels and epistles, historical books and the prophets. For that reason they say things in a strong manner - as in, "thus saith the Lord."
I have never heard them proclaim anyone a heretic for not holding to their theology. Now, it would be reasonable to assume that if someone disagrees with them, Ligonier would think that person is wrong. But then, if they didn't think that person was wrong, they would agree, right?
It is easy for us to say that such and such a ministry is arrogant without putting forward examples in their full context. I think we all need to make sure we give folks the benefit of the doubt until they say something like: "I don't care what the bible says, I'm not going to believe it anyway" or "we can go over all the words and all the testimonies and all the confessions and all the books of the bible all you want to, but 'actions speak louder than words' became an old-saying for a reason." When someone makes a statement like that, you can rule them a heretic immediately without going to them to ask about their reason for making the statement. But otherwise I think we need to show some grace toward our brothers and sisters in Christ and seek their full context and explanation of things they have said that make us think they are belligerent or arrogant or whatever.
Cindy, Lots to ponder. Your comment about there being a disconnect in reformed churches is what prompted me to go ahead with the post on my blog . . . I had the title (Calvinism/Reformed Theology (And What I Consider to be an Obvious Disconnect)) and some thoughts drafted last night and went ahead and finished it up today.
ReplyDeleteRichard, I was a commenter on the discussion about Calvinism you reference here in your post. I'm not a big "dissenter", but neither am I in full agreement with all the tenets of Calvinism. I've added some more thoughts on my blog, if you want to take a look.
www.joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/calvinismreformed-theology-and-what-i-think-is-an-obvious-disconnect/
By the way, Richard and Hutch, can't wait to see your Prairie Muffin outfits! =o)
"The anti-Calvinist wants to paint the Calvinist as a demon and is unable to because the Calvinist believes his Calvinism because of the bible."
ReplyDeleteWhy can't this teaching be presented without mentioning Calvin or TULIP? It can't without a long term study of the whole scope of scripture. Therefore, we shoot ourselves in the foot by presenting something from our Lord as from Calvin. He gets the credit and glory that should be our Lord's.
Calvin was a Protestant Pope. the people of Geneva said they traded one Pope for another. Most of Reformed history has been rewritten about him. He has been morphed into a kinder gentler tyrant. But we miss something very important. If he was such a brilliant theologian, then how come he was part of a state church? Where did he find that in scripture? How come he went along with torture and hunting down of Ana baptists? Where did he find baptizing babies in scripture? Sacraments? Please do not tell me he was a product of his time. That excuse is not valid since many Ana Baptists were hiding from him in caves for the truth. No, he chose power over the full truth of scripture. Correct doctrine does not count if it does not result in right behavior.
The Reformed movement is just as guilty of following man as the seekers are. The Reformed movement is also in love with hierarchies and power. Just like Calvin.
Lin - I think you totally missed the quote that you put at the top of your comment. Calvinism is a label, not an identification with a man. I am a seven-point Calvinist, if you are familiar with John Piper's definition of "seven-point Calvinist." But I disagree strongly with many things Calvin taught.
ReplyDeleteI clearly see the truth of the theological system that has been attached to his name. Had we lived prior to Calvin, I would have been called an Augustinian. Had I lived prior to Augustine, I would have been called Pauline in my theology. This doctrinal system has always carried a label, but that label has changed every few hundred years to take on the name of the theologian that most clearly expounded it. Perhaps in a few decades it will be called RichardDism (I can dream, can't I?).
I am fully willing to drop the "Calvinism" label, but I cannot drop the theology which I find to be wholly accurate according to scripture.
JoyfullyGrowingInGrace - I have already read your post and wasn't sure that I should comment on it. I don't want to torque off all of my online friends.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if we truly love someone we want to get to know them. We want to know their character. If we truly love God, we want to know his character. The bible is very, very clear about the character of God. He is loving, he is merciful, he is sovereign. Calvinism never in any way diminishes the love of God - in fact it proclaims it in order to show God's wondrous glory. Arminianism actively diminishes the sovereignty of God because the Arminian cannot abide the thought that they did not do something better than the non-believer did in order to procure their salvation.
This is blatantly wrong according to scripture. So I would say, yes - it really does matter how we get redeemed. It may not matter in a theological way at the point of our salvation, but if we truly love God, it matters after that.
"Perhaps in a few decades it will be called RichardDism (I can dream, can't I?). "
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps most doctrines will be called 'Grudemism' by then.
By the way, did you happen to catch Piper's Scream of the Damned sermon? He is speaking of Jesus Christ on the cross screaming the scream of the 'damned'.
Is it me or is the Reformed world going nuts?
"Arminianism actively diminishes the sovereignty of God because the Arminian cannot abide the thought that they did not do something better than the non-believer did in order to procure their salvation. "
ReplyDeleteThis is just not true. I am assuming you are calling all non-Calvinists, Arminians. Which they aren't.
I think sometimes we are too proud that we know all the right terminology and even the right doctrine but if a brand new believer ran up excited and said, I found Christ!...too many reformers would immediately correct him because he did not 'say' it right or understand the 'process' correctly.
I believe in election but I know many who don't who are completely sold out to Christ and much more humble than many reformed pastors I have met or listened to.
Richard, I was thinking about doing a post on WWF about the difference between being a Calvinist and being Reformed. Do you think that might be a valuable thing for people? I've long wanted to explain why Doug Phillips, John Piper, John MacArthur and others are Calvinists who aren't Reformed... But I don't want to annoy the Calvinistic Baptists out there ;-) What do you think?
ReplyDelete-Cally
Lin - you're correct about many Calvinistic pastors and about many new believers - and about the way many people would respond to them.
ReplyDeleteWhen I refer to an Arminian, I mean a person who would claim that moniker. I think the things I said about Arminians are true about many semi-Calvnists as well. But it varies. The insistence on the totally non-biblical concept of free will is the one that makes me think that these folks are actively diminishing the sovereignty of God in order to lay some claim on their part in salvation. When something is completely extra-biblical and the person speaking has studied the issue (thereby earning the label "Arminian"), they are actively diminishing God's sovereignty by demanding something that is not scriptural.
For those who are not of a theological mindset, I would not say most of the things I say in the same way. In fact, I very seldom use the term Calvinism. When I edited an evangelism manual recently, I advised the author to dump the terms Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism in favor of monergistic and synergistic in order to avoid the baggage that comes with the prior terms.
I will see if I can find the John Piper sermon and listen to it. I was drawn deeply into an out of context attack recently and when I heard a contextual quote I realized that I had jumped to conclusions I should not have. I still don't know the full story in this other case, but I'm glad I read what I did because it reminded me that I need to do my own research. I will look for that sermon and let you know what I think.
Cally - I would like to hear your thoughts on that difference and I don't think it would bother the Baptists, but then I never expected the degree of emotion that came from a list of the five-points and the question: "What do you think?" So I may not be the best person to ask.
ReplyDeleteI think I am actually a Reformed Baptist, although there are no Reformed Baptist churches near me. I am a historic premillennialist and do not hold to paedobaptism or sacramental grace, but I'm not a Dispensationalist - so maybe I don't have a place in this world. What we need here is another label.
I hope you do that post. And, Cally, I have grown to love and respect the authors at WWF. Thanks.
I have to say that, from a pastoral standpoint, I really love John Piper. He may have some incorrect views on women (maybe, maybe not;-) but I really do appreciate his sermons quite a bit. He is a rational, staunch defender of the Doctrines of Grace but he seems to do so from a really pastoral perspective, speaking to the SOUL of the listener and not just the mind.
ReplyDeleteObviously, being Reformed, I don't agree with all of his theology, but I do enjoy listening to him.
Anyway, I think I will do the post. I'm not a big fan of closing comments, but I think maybe I'll just post it and keep the discussion at bay. I could spend hours upon hours explaining all this stuff, but, frankly, if you saw the state of my house right now, you'd be encouraging me otherwise.
We SO APPRECIATE your input over there, BTW. Thanks so much for encouraging us and keeping us on our toes!!
-Cally
I am a fan of John Piper's too. Some of his books have made a huge impact on my life and on my way of thinking. I have found a few things I disagree with him on, but I have been edified beyond belief by his ministry.
ReplyDeleteI also really love Voddie Baucham's sermons. I know he's related in some way (I hope, very indirectly) with the Patriarchy, but I have been very encouraged by many of his sermons as well. I have a four hour one-way commute to work and I listen to MP3 sermons during that 8-hour round trip (usually actually about 10 hours because of the DC traffic). The two preachers I listen to most are John Piper and Voddie Baucham.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to comment away on my post at JGIG . . . I don't offend easily - I worked for a major airline for 10 years - I can take it =o).
I'm really interested in how you think the 5 points of whateverism should trump the law of love. I don't mean that to sound harsh, that's not my intent. I think, from what you've written here that you missed the heart of what I was trying to communicate in my post.
The sovereignty and glory of God is demonstrated in the fact that he makes people who are spiritually dead spiritually ALIVE! Whether one holds to this theology or that theology which teaches at what instant that "regeneration" occurs or if man has free will or not has NO BEARING on what God actually DOES.
As for Arminianism, I don't consider myself one any more than I label myself with any other label other than "Christ-follower". You've read my blog, so you know how I feel about labels =o). I realize that labels are at times necessary, but do try not to paste one on me that does not apply.
What was I saying about you having a peaceful blog? =o)
Free in Christ,
Wendy
I just wanted to add that I think cases can be made for parts of both Calvinism and Arminianism from scripture. Some of the more controversial points of both have, in my opinion, tenuous basis in scripture (exegesis vs. eisogesis).
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is why those points are so controversial?
Richard, The theology in this post and subsequent comments goes right over my head, but I greatly appreciated the opportunity to become reaquainted with the word "vituperative." It is a useful word, and rolls off the tongue nicely. Blessings to you from Peggy in Fredericksburg.
ReplyDelete" have a four hour one-way commute to work and I listen to MP3 sermons during that 8-hour round trip (usually actually about 10 hours because of the DC traffic). "
ReplyDeleteOh my word! And I used to think my commutes were bad!
I agree, Peggy. It is a wonderful word. My friends in high school thought me pretentious becuase of words like that, but I have always just enjoyed wordsmithing. I'm not really that good at it, but I enjoy it nontheless.
ReplyDeleteLin - it is a terrible commute, but I do it usually just once a week. The firm I work for allows me to work from home up to four days a week. If you check out my post from July 11th, you'll get to see one of my bad commutes. It took me seven hours to get home because of a four-car accident. Don't worry, the photos are of the backup, not the accident.