Joshua Harris leaves Christianity?

[moonflower]

On 7/29/2019 at 6:58 PM, MercyA said:

Huh. I guess I'm a legalist, then. 😉

I've personally always thought of legalists as those who add to Scripture, requiring things it does not--as Jesus said, "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." So, for example, a Baptist preacher who refuses to set foot in a movie theater or play cards and requires the same of his congregation--I would call him a legalist, because the Scripture does not speak to those things. Not engaging in traditional dating would fall under the same category to me. 

Also, legalists may be people who are so concerned with strict commandment keeping that they neglect things that are even more important. I think it's so interesting what Jesus says about that here:  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." 

My two cents. 🙂 

 

(underlining mine)

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, moonflower said:

(underlining mine)

Exactly. 👍🏼

[Bluegoat]

17 hours ago, Quill said:

Well, I guess that is true. I don’t view spirtuality about the community first. I view spirituality as about the person: what that person does with his or her one little life, how that person shows love to his fellow creatures, how one conducts oneself. I think the community is important in terms of, say, doing good in the world. In practical terms, many people working towards the same goal accomplishes far more than what anyone could do alone. But I guess I don’t put much emphasis on community in terms of wanting to be with people who just believe the same things I believe. I mean, sure; I want that some. It is the nature of being social creatures. But I haven’t found that amongst a certain faith tradition. 

 

I don't think that is a perspective the people who compiled the Bible would have recognised.  It's a worldview that presumes a kind of interconnectivity, not just people who happen to believe the same thing, but which in many ways includes everyone, as well as nature.  A spiritual ecology.  No action or knowledge or experience or perspective is really independent, all exist only in terms of relationship, including the relation of people to God, or people living now to people living in the past.  From that point of view, any way of knowing God will be communal, and will exist over time.

[Skippy]

This article explores an angle that I have not seen in any of the other articles I have read on this subject.

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=30549

This explores the role that Calvinism may have played in his fall. I have seen this as an issue in several other organizations tied to many homeschoolers. In some circles, such as Vision Forum, it seemed like Calvin was the foundation of their organization, and he was revered and elevated above Christ. A foundation built on anyone other than Christ and His doctrine will crumble.

"So then you... are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone." Ephesians 2:19-20

The foolish man built his house on a foundation other than the pure, simple gospel of Christ. "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." Matthew 7:24-27

[Bluegoat]

Quote

Hmm..I guess I never thought of the Bible as the literal, exact word of God,

 

It's maybe worth pointing out that believing the Bible to be the word of God, and believing it to be "literal", don't have to go together, and that's really a recent way of thinking.  There is a tendency for people on the one hand to think that if you believe in the inerrant word of God" it has to be literalism.  Or on the other hand, if they realise that Christians historically have't been literalists, to think it means they didn't think the Scriptures were the inerrant word of God or could be treated in a loosey goosey kind of way.  

[Heathermomster]

I’m a Christian, and I don’t understand why other believers are so quick to take my assurance away from me.  Because I deal with so many members of works based denominations through homeschooling, I mentally break the matter down to the Apostle’s Creed.  If we can agree to the Apostle’s Creed, I’m not going to deliberately argue over matters such a sprinkling over dunking, infant baptism, LORD’s Supper, dancing, age of Earth, and/or drinking alcohol.  I do find the outreach practices of certain churches highly offensive.

So someone asked whether believers recognize their legalism...Yes and no.  My pastor is teaching through Colossians right now.  It’s the responsibility of every believer to mind their hearts because legalism is a very easy sin to fall into. Jerry Bridges wrote a book titled Respectable Sins that is worth a read.  I think any Christian that is serious about outreach should be examining legalism and be sensitive to people who have been injured by the church.  A mature pastor should be able to field any difficult question.

As to Harris, I hate that some people will think that a majority of Christians share his views.  DH and I absolutely don’t.  He didn’t attend seminary until 4ish years ago following the sex scandal at his church.  I’m also bothered that one more prominent Christian homeschool advocate has been added to the sex scandal pile for his role in his church’s sex abuse cover-up.  Like how many more yahoos can the Christian homeschool movement muster?  

I’m sorry that so many people have been injured by the church.  I was injured too and walked away completely for about 16 years.  Once DS was born, DH and I started asking hard questions and seeking.  We were led to our church 16 years ago.  I would love to say that my church is perfect and problem free; however, that would be a lie.  DH and I have both served on committees and dealt with a lot of people.  On occasion I’ve had to seriously step back and examine my motives and heart.  Learning  to deal with different people has been difficult and rewarding, and I’m a work in progress.  I’ve been very upset with elders and struggled through a couple of pastors.  The best resource that I have found for dealing with conflict is the book The Peacemaker by Ken Sande.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Heathermomster

[PeachyDoodle]

45 minutes ago, Skippy said:

This article explores an angle that I have not seen in any of the other articles I have read on this subject.

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=30549

This explores the role that Calvinism may have played in his fall. I have seen this as an issue in several other organizations tied to many homeschoolers. In some circles, such as Vision Forum, it seemed like Calvin was the foundation of their organization, and he was revered and elevated above Christ. A foundation built on anyone other than Christ and His doctrine will crumble.

"So then you... are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone." Ephesians 2:19-20

The foolish man built his house on a foundation other than the pure, simple gospel of Christ. "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." Matthew 7:24-27

I don't disagree, but I do think it's important to make a distinction between classic Reformed theology (which finds much of its roots in Calvin) and the so-called "New Calvinists," who take certain Calvinist doctrines to new extremes. Not every Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. falls into the latter category, although some might identify as Calvinists.

[Lady Florida.]

14 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Completely incorrect.  I know personally legalists who think you aren't a Christian if you vote for X.  

Yep. I lost a friend (and ds lost the kids as friends) over the 2004 election. That was the first I heard that to be a Christian you must vote a certain way. It was news to me. Shortly after that incident I was fortunate enough to find the inclusive homeschool group that we ended up staying with for the rest our homeschool years (ds was homeschooled all the way through). 

8 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Thanks for sharing!

I didn't lose my faith because of mean, legalistic Christians.  I only have good memories of growing up Catholic, and I never really experienced my church as oppressive in any way. I've never had a single bad experience with a priest or a nun or a Catholic congregation. 

 

Same here. I have only good memories of growing up Catholic. I only started questioning as an adult when I started going to bible study and actually reading the bible. I did spend some time identifying myself with that catch-all phrase "spiritual but not religious" then eventually realized even spiritual didn't really define me. I agree with @Quill about viewing nature as a connection to all living things, but I don't need to worship or feel a spiritual connection to think and feel that way. 

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It's maybe worth pointing out that believing the Bible to be the word of God, and believing it to be "literal", don't have to go together, and that's really a recent way of thinking.  There is a tendency for people on the one hand to think that if you believe in the inerrant word of God" it has to be literalism.  Or on the other hand, if they realise that Christians historically have't been literalists, to think it means they didn't think the Scriptures were the inerrant word of God or could be treated in a loosey goosey kind of way.  

Yes, it's fairly recent and really started taking hold in the 18th century (though some will say it began with the Reformation). IME both literalists and non-literalists manage to pick and choose the parts they want to emphasize. 

[EmseB]

Can anyone explain who the literalists are? Like are they predominantly in a certain denomination? I travel in pretty conservative circles and have met no one ever that reads the entire Bible literally, nor anyone who thinks inerrancy = literalism of the entire thing. There are poems, songs, allegories, parables, etc., and even the most fundamentalist people I know acknowledge those things.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Can anyone explain who the literalists are? Like are they predominantly in a certain denomination? I travel in pretty conservative circles and have met no one ever that reads the entire Bible literally, nor anyone who thinks inerrancy = literalism of the entire thing. There are poems, songs, allegories, parables, etc., and even the most fundamentalist people I know acknowledge those things.

IME, people who believe it is literal are not so dense as to think there is no poetry, metaphor, etc. In the Bible. I mean, they don’t think Jesus transformed Peter into a literal rock and built a church literally on Peter. What “literal” has meant to the people I know is, for example, a literal flood with water literally drowned everybody and everything on the entire earth except for Noah and his family, literally sailing around in a ship. A literal snake spoke to Eve, the literal first woman. A literal giant fish swallowed Jonah, who literally hung out in his belly for three days before being literally up-chucked alive. Needless to say, it also means all doctrine about Jesus was literally as described. 

 

[katilac]

18 hours ago, TechWife said:

Additionally, I've long thought one of the problems in  modern evangelicalism is that we have "Christian celebrities."  

What do you consider modern? Because Christian celebrities have been a thing for a long, long time. Even if you hold to a fairly modern definition of what celebrity means, Billy Sunday and Aimee McPherson were crazy famous and idolized in the 1920s. If you define celebrity as someone who gets a great deal of attention and has people that follow his word more because of that instead of considered belief, I would argue that Christian celebrity goes back a lot farther than that. Probably to about five minutes after Christianity began. 

[Guest]

PS, I don’t know about denomination, but Baptist seems a likely. 

[MercyA]

37 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Can anyone explain who the literalists are? Like are they predominantly in a certain denomination? I travel in pretty conservative circles and have met no one ever that reads the entire Bible literally, nor anyone who thinks inerrancy = literalism of the entire thing. There are poems, songs, allegories, parables, etc., and even the most fundamentalist people I know acknowledge those things.

I have usually seen it used in reference to young-earth creationists. For example, my co-op's Statement of Faith reads, "We believe God created the world and everything in it in six literal days." 

Thankfully, we don't have to ascribe to the Statement of Faith to be part of the co-op, just to be in leadership. And happily I whole-heartedly agree with the rest of the Statement of Faith. 🙂  

ETA: Yes, I agree with Quill--Baptist churches are the first that come to my mind.

Edited July 31, 2019 by MercyA

[TechWife]

10 minutes ago, katilac said:

What do you consider modern? Because Christian celebrities have been a thing for a long, long time. Even if you hold to a fairly modern definition of what celebrity means, Billy Sunday and Aimee McPherson were crazy famous and idolized in the 1920s. If you define celebrity as someone who gets a great deal of attention and has people that follow his word more because of that instead of considered belief, I would argue that Christian celebrity goes back a lot farther than that. Probably to about five minutes after Christianity began. 

 

“Current” would have been a better word choice on my part. 

I do think there was an increased ability for preachers to gain notoriety with the advent of radio, then television, and then the internet, with each new medium providing exponentially larger audiences. I have no formal research to back that up, it’s just my impression. The research may or may not exist. 

[EmseB]

Well, I guess I'll out myself as literalist (mostly) according to that definition. I'm Presbyterian.

(Wanting to make a joke about luckily not being *so* dense, but hopeful it sounds lighthearted and not defensive 😉 )

Edited July 31, 2019 by EmseB

[PrincessMommy]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Can anyone explain who the literalists are? Like are they predominantly in a certain denomination? I travel in pretty conservative circles and have met no one ever that reads the entire Bible literally, nor anyone who thinks inerrancy = literalism of the entire thing. There are poems, songs, allegories, parables, etc., and even the most fundamentalist people I know acknowledge those things.

In my experience literalists tended to be more fundamentalist (Baptists, AOG, Pentacostals) than from sacramental traditions (such as Catholics, Episcopalians).  Perhaps back in the day (like 80yrs ago) Methodists were - but I think they have moved away from that in the last 40 or so years.   Are there literalist within the Jewish traditions???  I don't know.

My understanding is that literalists would differentiate between Psalms (poems and allegory) and historical events such as Flood and Adam and Eve.  They believe there were 7 - 24hr days of creation and the believe that Jonah and the Whale and the Flood accounts are historical events.    But that is a very superficial understanding. I have no idea how they would interpret the Book of Leviticus exactly, nor how they interpret things that aren't specified in the Bible (like what a Christian church service looks like, wedding rings, or pews).

Edited to add:  There are plenty of people who believe that Noah and Jonah were historical people who would not be considered literalists. (ie, they may be Old Earth Creationists or believe in Evolution) .. so I don't know where the line is drawn between the two.   It's a little muddy. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by PrincessMommy

[Katy]

3 hours ago, PeachyDoodle said:

I don't disagree, but I do think it's important to make a distinction between classic Reformed theology (which finds much of its roots in Calvin) and the so-called "New Calvinists," who take certain Calvinist doctrines to new extremes. Not every Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. falls into the latter category, although some might identify as Calvinists.

 

Can you please expound on this?  My limited exposure to Calvinism has been 7-point, God creates some people solely for the purpose to damn them to hell and God causes every evil thing to happen for His own (unknown) purpose.  I've literally only seen it in spiritually abusive situations, which is the only reason I'm not starting a spin off thread.  I'd love for someone to explain it to me in a way I can understand, because I don't see the beauty in it at all.  Or how anyone can think of God as loving with those kinds of descriptors attached, which is pretty much the opposite of the God I know.  I'm open to books if the topic is too complex, but if I must read something I'd prefer something with an audiobook available, because I don't have much time for reading these days.  I can listen to Audible in the car or when taking the kids & dog for a walk.

[Skippy]

19 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I believe there is an audiobook version of James White’s “The God Who Justifies”, which is a great starting point.

Is this the same James White? I hope not -- Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.”

50 minutes ago, Katy said:

My limited exposure to Calvinism has been... God causes every evil thing to happen for His own (unknown) purpose. 

I think unfortunately this is what the above author is saying. So sad.

[Amy in NH]

On 7/29/2019 at 7:58 PM, MercyA said:

Huh. I guess I'm a legalist, then. 😉

[SNIP]

My two cents. 🙂 

 

Yes, I've always seen you as a legalist.

[MercyA]

29 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Yes, I've always seen you as a legalist.

Um...thanks? 😉 

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

Edited to add:  There are plenty of people who believe that Noah and Jonah were historical people who would not be considered literalists. (ie, they may be Old Earth Creationists or believe in Evolution) .. so I don't know where the line is drawn between the two.   It's a little muddy. 

Me! So I'll out myself as a legalist AND a mostly literalist. 😁And like a 1.5 point Calvinist. 😉 

Edited July 31, 2019 by MercyA

[EmseB]

50 minutes ago, Skippy said:

Is this the same James White? I hope not -- Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.”

I think unfortunately this is what the above author is saying. So sad.

God being sovereign over everything that happens in the universe is not an uncommon view, and I don't think exclusive to Calvinists or James White. I don't mean to minimize or trivialize the problem of suffering or evil in the world, but if one believes God created all things, knows all things, is all powerful over His creation, that has to be reconciled somehow with the fact that evil is present in the world. But if God is all of those things, then what do we do with suffering? The answer probably isn't best encapsulated in one quote from a guy who has a lot to say on that subject and many others.

The kind of evil like child rape is something I think is addressed by the idea of eternal justice, among other ideas, but it is not simple or glib, and I would venture a guess it grieves James White as much as any person who has children and grandchildren that they would want to protect from such horror.

[Skippy]

16 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Be a good Berean and willing to test all closely held beliefs and preconceptions against God’s word.  

Yes, I have tested the theories of Calvin with God's word. 

Calvin's theory: Limited Atonement:

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is... not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

1 Tim 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I also believe that good and perfect things come from God and that it is not His will that we sin:

James 1:13-17 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

John Calvin was a cruel dictator who executed publicly those who opposed his religious theories. In five years, 58 people were executed under his rule. The most common infraction was the opposition to infant baptism. He had these people who opposed infant baptism or limited atonement or his authority to be drowned, beheaded, or burned slowly at the stake with green wood.

I am not a fan.

[MercyA]

Like Skippy, I am not a fan of Calvin.

That said, in my dream world, Christians could all just acknowledge that Scripture supports aspects of both Calvinism and Arminianism and not get overly fussed about it. Also, while we're at it, we could all just chill out about the age of the earth. 😉 

[Katy]

7 hours ago, Heathermomster said:

I’m a Christian, and I don’t understand why other believers are so quick to take my assurance away from me.  Because I deal with so many members of works based denominations through homeschooling, I mentally break the matter down to the Apostle’s Creed.  If we can agree to the Apostle’s Creed, I’m not going to deliberately argue over matters such a sprinkling over dunking, infant baptism, LORD’s Supper, dancing, age of Earth, and/or drinking alcohol.  I do find the outreach practices of certain churches highly offensive.

So someone asked whether believers recognize their legalism...Yes and no.  My pastor is teaching through Colossians right now.  It’s the responsibility of every believer to mind their hearts because legalism is a very easy sin to fall into. Jerry Bridges wrote a book titled Respectable Sins that is worth a read.  I think any Christian that is serious about outreach should be examining legalism and be sensitive to people who have been injured by the church.  A mature pastor should be able to field any difficult question.

As to Harris, I hate that some people will think that a majority of Christians share his views.  DH and I absolutely don’t.  He didn’t attend seminary until 4ish years ago following the sex scandal at his church.  I’m also bothered that one more prominent Christian homeschool advocate has been added to the sex scandal pile for his role in his church’s sex abuse cover-up.  Like how many more yahoos can the Christian homeschool movement muster?  

I’m sorry that so many people have been injured by the church.  I was injured too and walked away completely for about 16 years.  Once DS was born, DH and I started asking hard questions and seeking.  We were led to our church 16 years ago.  I would love to say that my church is perfect and problem free; however, that would be a lie.  DH and I have both served on committees and dealt with a lot of people.  On occasion I’ve had to seriously step back and examine my motives and heart.  Learning  to deal with different people has been difficult and rewarding, and I’m a work in progress.  I’ve been very upset with elders and struggled through a couple of pastors.  The best resource that I have found for dealing with conflict is the book The Peacemaker by Ken Sande.

 

 

You can believe in assurance without Calvinism.  I believe you made a choice of your own free will to accept the gospel. I believe God wants everyone to make that choice.  I believe you have assurance as long as you accept that gospel.  I also believe you can make a choice to reject God and walk away and He will let you.  And I believe this is supposed to be a difficult thing for all Christians to wrestle with (Phil 2:12).  I also believe God has a lot more respect for those who have the courage to wrestle with their faith and these difficult questions than for those who blindly follow out of fear.

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Like Skippy, I am not a fan of Calvin.

That said, in my dream world, Christians could all just acknowledge that Scripture supports aspects of both Calvinism and Arminianism and not get overly fussed about it. Also, while we're at it, we could all just chill out about the age of the earth. 😉 

I think the honest thing to do, as Christians, is to say that although we have our opinions, and reasons for them, at the end of the day none of us is truly able to comprehend the totality of God. We are all like the blind men with the elephant, and should be willing to admit that there is a chance we are wrong. That doesn't mean thinking we are wrong, but admitting we could be, and granting others the benefit of the doubt. (which is what I usually see here, thankfully!)

[EmseB]

The PP asked for a resource on Calvinism that addressed it outside of her own experience. It was given. Why not start a theology debate thread instead of derailing this one? Of course there are people who disagree with  Calvin in both theology and person. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ for whom that is the case.

[Katy]

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The PP asked for a resource on Calvinism that addressed it outside of her own experience. It was given. Why not start a theology debate thread instead of derailing this one? Of course there are people who disagree with  Calvin in both theology and person. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ for whom that is the case.

 

Because rejecting Calvinism is said to be a major factor in Joshua Harris's decision to leave Christianity.

[Lady Florida.]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

While I do think that my brain isn't wired for religiousity - literally, I think I do not have the neurological pathways which respond to 'Godness' - the inability of any Christian I've ever come across to discuss this idea of suffering in a way that didn't minimise the very real psychological pain it caused me in the attempt to reconcile a loving, mighty God, with, say, Nazis using a baby as a football, definitely played a large role in my path towards deconversion. 

<snip>

(I think Buddhism answers the question better - and so do Hinduism and Judaism  in some ways - that Buddhists could give me an answer to suffering without having to tolerate the cognitive dissonance of a loving, mighty God who nevertheless allows sadism towards babies really helped me on my path to secularism).

I looked into Buddhism during my questioning phase but like the question of evil in Christianity I couldn't get on board with the part of Buddhism about human suffering. Nature can be cruel to all animals, but there's no specific human purpose for nature's cruelty. Even the word cruelty implies a purpose that doesn't actually exist in nature, but it's a word we can use when bad things happen for seemingly no reason. Nature is nature. Surviving is hard, even for the most advanced creatures on the planet. That doesn't mean there's a reason or purpose to the difficulties. 

[Pawz4me]

40 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

(I think Buddhism answers the question better - and so do Hinduism and Judaism  in some ways - that Buddhists could give me an answer to suffering without having to tolerate the cognitive dissonance of a loving, mighty God who nevertheless allows sadism towards babies really helped me on my path to secularism).

 

35 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I never really got the arguing. It seems like arguing over men's interpretations more than anything. Like Calvin - just a guy, whose theology can't really be separated from the context of his historical reality. (If someone made me choose a denomination in a theocracy, I think I'd go back as close to the source as I could, which would mean Orthodox, and just skip all the manly interpretations in between).

 

20 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think it helped me move on to have Buddhist authors say 'Suffering simply exists. It's part of being human, and as a human, try to alleviate suffering for yourself and others' without then going on to add justifications for why a divine being allows it. The non-answer was, ironically, the best answer for me at the time. Sometimes you have to get out of your own brain, you know, and endless rumination on the sadism God allows was not healthy for me. Buddhism helped me shift from asking 'why does God allow it?' to 'what is the nature of suffering and what can I do about it ?' and for that I will be ever grateful.

 

 

Yes to all of this.

[ktgrok]

I agree that non answers are sometimes the best answers. For me, that looks different...it's just a simple, "I don't know". But I'm okay with not knowing. 

[EmseB]

52 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Because rejecting Calvinism is said to be a major factor in Joshua Harris's decision to leave Christianity.

Okay, I agree, I shouldn't have net nannied. I just don't know if debating Calvinism is relevant even if that is the case. And it seems like a good place for a spin-off if one wanted to do that as it's a fairly involved, complex subject where citing a few snippets of Bible verses would hardly do it justice. Just my .02, obviously people can have the discussions they want and I shouldn't have tried to be the thread police, my apologies for that.

[Heathermomster]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

You can believe in assurance without Calvinism.  I believe you made a choice of your own free will to accept the gospel. I believe God wants everyone to make that choice.  I believe you have assurance as long as you accept that gospel.  I also believe you can make a choice to reject God and walk away and He will let you.  And I believe this is supposed to be a difficult thing for all Christians to wrestle with (Phil 2:12).  I also believe God has a lot more respect for those who have the courage to wrestle with their faith and these difficult questions than for those who blindly follow out of fear.

Of course many denominations have followers that believe in assurance.  I made the statement because of the Christ plus works and legalism crowd that are more than happy to tell other professing believers that they are condemned to hell or bind their conscience with rules written nowhere in scripture.

We are going to have to respectfully disagree about free will.  I meant what I stated above about using the Apostles’ Creed as my baseline.  

BTW, reformed Christians study multiple theologians including Luther, Sproul, Packer, Bridges, Lewis, Carson, Augustine, Ligon, Wright, Guinness, to name a few off the top of my head.  Being reduced to studying one thinker such as Calvin feels overly simplified to me. 

Who asked about the 5 solas? Sproul explains the Dutch Controversy and the 5 solas well.  Wiki looks good too.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Heathermomster

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, EmseB said:

Can anyone explain who the literalists are? Like are they predominantly in a certain denomination? I travel in pretty conservative circles and have met no one ever that reads the entire Bible literally, nor anyone who thinks inerrancy = literalism of the entire thing. There are poems, songs, allegories, parables, etc., and even the most fundamentalist people I know acknowledge those things.

 

I agree with Quill, that pretty much everyone understands that the psalms, for example, are poetry, or that Jesus wasn't actually a plant.

However, the way we read texts really changed a lot after the Enlightenment.  It's a little difficult to pin down, because its something we take so much for granted.  We have a very straightforward way of thinking about texts, that they say what they mean and it is meant to be fairly clear.

People in the ancient and medieval world didn't have quite that expectation.  One way you can see it is that even in texts that are meant to be fairly factual, certain kinds of details weren't seen as important in the way we would think, what's more important is the point.  It's a bit like some medieval art, where you see a king and he is bigger than all the other people, or a man is as big as a tower.  There is more emphasis on meaning.  The purpose of even historical writing isn't simply to record accurately or with detail what in fact happened.  The other element of that is that for the ancient and medieval person, a religious or poetic text would be read with many layers of meaning, and often the more superficial and obvious meanings were considered the least important and maybe even the least true.  

It's perhaps most obvious when you see the difference between a modern YEC commentator, who is so wedded to a plain meaning of the text despite whatever other information we have says, as opposed to patristic writers who are often quite willing to consider other meanings and the possibility it's not a historical description.  You can even see it to some extent in modern fiction and literature, it tends to have a much more direct quality about it.  

 

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

I think it helped me move on to have Buddhist authors say 'Suffering simply exists. It's part of being human, and as a human, try to alleviate suffering for yourself and others' without then going on to add justifications for why a divine being allows it. The non-answer was, ironically, the best answer for me at the time. Sometimes you have to get out of your own brain, you know, and endless rumination on the sadism God allows was not healthy for me. Buddhism helped me shift from asking 'why does God allow it?' to 'what is the nature of suffering and what can I do about it ?' and for that I will be ever grateful.

Having said that, I'm not a Buddhist; taking refuge in the dharma wasn't something for me, other than as a way station on the trip from religion to no religion. Buddhism has its own literalists, and has many of  the same problems as any other religion.

 

 

I think you and I took similar paths to non-belief (and we apparently had similar happy Catholic backgrounds). I ended up being someone who doesn't miss a spiritual community probably because most of my friends didn't come from church. It makes it easier to leave when you aren't leaving friends. I do think part of why I stopped even searching is because I realized I didn't need to replace what I was leaving behind.

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

While I do think that my brain isn't wired for religiousity - literally, I think I do not have the neurological pathways which respond to 'Godness' - the inability of any Christian I've ever come across to discuss this idea of suffering in a way that didn't minimise the very real psychological pain it caused me in the attempt to reconcile a loving, mighty God, with, say, Nazis using a baby as a football, definitely played a large role in my path towards deconversion. 

I don't know all whose which denominations believe what! But if anyone is from a denomination that believes in converting people, or shoring up their faith, because of a concern for their ever-lasting soul, they might want to find a way to answer that question when it is asked in good faith, and answer in a way that respects the seriousness of the inquiry. 

I'm not saying you, Esme, isn't taking it seriously, because I don't really know anything about any poster here's attitude towards questioners who have major concerns about the issue of suffering - more just mentioning it, off the back of you mentioning it.

(I think Buddhism answers the question better - and so do Hinduism and Judaism  in some ways - that Buddhists could give me an answer to suffering without having to tolerate the cognitive dissonance of a loving, mighty God who nevertheless allows sadism towards babies really helped me on my path to secularism).

I believe my religion does answer this.  

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I think it helped me move on to have Buddhist authors say 'Suffering simply exists. It's part of being human, and as a human, try to alleviate suffering for yourself and others' without then going on to add justifications for why a divine being allows it. The non-answer was, ironically, the best answer for me at the time. Sometimes you have to get out of your own brain, you know, and endless rumination on the sadism God allows was not healthy for me. Buddhism helped me shift from asking 'why does God allow it?' to 'what is the nature of suffering and what can I do about it ?' and for that I will be ever grateful.

Having said that, I'm not a Buddhist; taking refuge in the dharma wasn't something for me, other than as a way station on the trip from religion to no religion. Buddhism has its own literalists, and has many of  the same problems as any other religion.

 

 

 

That's interesting, because I would have said that the Christian view of suffering is in some ways also a non-answer, or a mystery, essentially it says that in some way, suffering is inherent in the nature of being and even in God.  It does also say that suffering can be positive, which in my experience is what people often struggle with.  I've not found philosophies which reject the value of suffering very amenable, though, somehow they seem to go to some very horrible places anyhow.  

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

That's interesting, because I would have said that the Christian view of suffering is in some ways also a non-answer, or a mystery, essentially it says that in some way, suffering is inherent in the nature of being and even in God.  It does also say that suffering can be positive, which in my experience is what people often struggle with.  I've not found philosophies which reject the value of suffering very amenable, though, somehow they seem to go to some very horrible places anyhow.  

Yup, that's the non answer I was referring to. I mean, simplistically I also believe that a lot of it has to do with free will...stopping the bad man from mugging someone takes away his free will. But mostly, I don't know really, but I don't also have an expectation that I should know, if that makes sense. to me it is just a fact that God is unknowable in many ways, and this is one of them. I also believe God grieves with us, when we grieve. But beyond that, i don't have answers. 

[EmseB]

I think in any discussion about the problem of suffering there is an academic/philosophical discussion that can sound callous or dismissive about personal feelings. I don't know how to avoid that. But I never assume that a person discussing things in those terms hasn't had their own fair share of personal tragedy or suffering. I don't know if that's helpful, but I think there is an abstract academic problem with suffering and an emotional (obviously) component that almost has to be separated out to think about it and come to any conclusions? reconciliation?

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think that's true Esme.  It's a bit like having a patient with some terrible disease lying there, while a team of doctors enthusiastically discusses the chemical or surgical complications and innovations that will come out of their case.  

[Junie]

5 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

While I do think that my brain isn't wired for religiousity - literally, I think I do not have the neurological pathways which respond to 'Godness' - the inability of any Christian I've ever come across to discuss this idea of suffering in a way that didn't minimise the very real psychological pain it caused me in the attempt to reconcile a loving, mighty God, with, say, Nazis using a baby as a football, definitely played a large role in my path towards deconversion. 

I don't know all whose which denominations believe what! But if anyone is from a denomination that believes in converting people, or shoring up their faith, because of a concern for their ever-lasting soul, they might want to find a way to answer that question when it is asked in good faith, and answer in a way that respects the seriousness of the inquiry. 

I'm not saying you, Esme, isn't taking it seriously, because I don't really know anything about any poster here's attitude towards questioners who have major concerns about the issue of suffering - more just mentioning it, off the back of you mentioning it.

(I think Buddhism answers the question better - and so do Hinduism and Judaism  in some ways - that Buddhists could give me an answer to suffering without having to tolerate the cognitive dissonance of a loving, mighty God who nevertheless allows sadism towards babies really helped me on my path to secularism).

(((StellaM)))

I don't know that my answers would be any different than the ones that you've already heard, but feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss this.  (And I'm sure there are others on this thread who would also be willing to talk with you in PM.)

I am sorry for what you have suffered.

[maize]

My personal spiritual/religious view of suffering is that life is hard and includes a lot of pain because it is supposed to be hard. The hardness and pain are part of a growing process, and this mortal experience we are going through is one each of us chose.

In my church's theology it is accepted that all humans existed as spirit children of God before we came to earth, and that those of us who enter into mortality do so because we chose to--it was a path towards understanding and growth for us. 

We knew it would be hard. We knew there would be pain and sickness and war and rape and all kinds of evil to experience along with the good and we chose to walk this path. It isn't the same exact path for any of us--the particular trials we face are different, the length of our life is different, our options for coping are different. And obviously the choices we make are different. 

I personally find comfort in the belief that hard is the way things are meant to be, and joy in opportunities to help relieve the hardship of others--to carry one another's burdens.

Edited August 1, 2019 by maize

[Frances]

34 minutes ago, maize said:

My personal spiritual/religious view of suffering is that life is hard and includes a lot of pain because it is supposed to be hard. The hardness and pain are part of a growing process, and this mortal experience we are going through is one each of us chose.

In my church's theology it is accepted that all humans existed as spirit children if God before we came to earth, and that those of us who enter into mortality do so because we chose to--it was a path towards understanding and growth for us. 

We knew it would be hard. We knew there would be pain and sickness and war and rape and all kinds of evil to experience along with the good and we chose to walk this path. It isn't the same exact path for any if us--the particular trials we face are different, the length of our life is different, our options for coping are different. And obviously the choices we make are different. 

I personally find comfort in the belief that hard is the way things are meant to be, and joy in opportunities to help relieve the hardship of others--to carry one another's burdens.

This is fascinating. I never knew this was part of LDS beliefs.

[Liz CA]

On 7/29/2019 at 2:41 PM, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I always wondered this too. I'd never heard of him until I started homeschooling tbh. Same for IBLP, Vision Forum, etc. etc.  Those types of books weren't ever a thing in our circles. At least that I was aware of. 

I do feel bad that he was getting bagged on by several writers today. 

 

I think his family background was helpful in getting a book published at such a young age. Here was a young guy publishing a book about a subject everyone was debating - especially in Christian circles. I, too am wondering if there was too much pressure on him. In the linked article in the OP, there is a quote by him saying something like "My identity is tied up in this. This is my life's work and now I don't believe it any longer..." (paraphrasing).  This must be a tremendous internal struggle and likely contributed to the marriage break-up. 

Someone else mentioned an unhealthy dose of legalism and this may well be another reason why he feels like "breaking free." I hope what Stella said will come true, that he will find true faith and grow into a perhaps more authentic Christian.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

 

I don't know that I would have an expectation of knowing now, but I did then.  Free will arguments never made much sense to me either; it was pretty clear to me that people never operate from pure free will, and are always constrained in ways specific to their context. 

Perhaps Buddhism was more explicit about  suffering being inherent in the nature of being, and also provided practical and immediate ways to alleviate one's own suffering and that of others. 

Perhaps if I had met a Christian at that time who took my question seriously and had the theological skill to answer, I might not have needed Buddhism. 

It's not a matter, though, of claiming that Buddhism was better than Christianity, only that it more effectively reframed my question into one that caused less emotional and cognitive distress. Ultimately, I think I would always have ended up areligious, due to the aforementioned lack of response to 'Godness'.

I do sometimes think of a  universal God who is represented by a sort of mathematics, but that is just an abstraction, there is no sense of personal relationship with that God.

 

 

Stella, you are wondering (or have been wondering) about the same things most of us have. No easy or pat answers. Some suffer deeply and there may not be sufficient answers this side of heaven. I have a lot of questions for God but I am still willing to concede that He is wiser than I am and that I may not be able to fathom some of these things because I have a finite mind. As far as meeting a Christian who could have had an answer for you...not sure anyone can. And while there may not be really good, satisfying answers, this question as any others should of course be taken seriously as it often seems to be at the core of our questioning.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Oh, I know it's a common concern, nothing special about it. A million and one people asked it before me, and a million will ask it after me. 

I can't accept that there is any wisdom at all in some scenarios of suffering. My mind used to get stuck on that story of the baby who was used as a football, and there was just no way I could conceive of there being any great wisdom in allowing it to happen.  Maybe my brain is just limited in some ways, but it's the brain I've got, kwim ?

 

 

This was pretty much the linchpin issue for me as well. It had both a deeply personal catalyst and also one of the wider world, senseless suffering throuhout history, the stories of others.

In the personal dimension, it was the death of my baby girl at birth. She had been so prayed for, so prayed over. On some level, I thought God was rewarding me for my faithfulness by allowing the conception of Lydia. So for her to die in labor seemed like a cruel trick. Or else, random stuff that happens. I guess, ultimately, accepting it as random stuff that happens, having nothing to do with God, was easier than endlessly trying to reconcile why God would cause or allow such a devastating tragedy. 

But, not just my myopic situation, either. Senseless tragedy disturbs me deeply wherever it rears its ugly head. (Or, it did moreso when I still had to have a God in the picture, Someone who could have chosen differently, could have intervened, but didn’t.) When Stephen Curtis Chapman’s little girl was struck and killed by a car in their driveway (her brother driving), I obsessively grieved about the senselessness of that for a long time. She had been adopted from China! So, “rescued”, in a manner of speaking, from what might have been a terrible life, only to lose that fragile life at five years old in an awful accident. There just isn’t anything that makes that okay for me. 

Since my daughter’s death in 2003, I think I have heard every “explanation” for these things that the faith has come up with. And I do know people of faith who somehow find a way to accept their own tragedies, who can accept that “God’s ways are higher than our ways” or whatever consoles them. But it hasn’t been enough for me. 

[Rosie_0801]

8 hours ago, StellaM said:

But I still can't reconcile the love of an merciful, all powerful divine being with the suffering of innocents.

 

An atheist of my acquaintance was called "an angel sent by God" recently. If this is so, God must prioritise some details over others, just like the rest of us do.

[Liz CA]

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Oh, I know it's a common concern, nothing special about it. A million and one people asked it before me, and a million will ask it after me. 

I can't accept that there is any wisdom at all in some scenarios of suffering. My mind used to get stuck on that story of the baby who was used as a football, and there was just no way I could conceive of there being any great wisdom in allowing it to happen.  Maybe my brain is just limited in some ways, but it's the brain I've got, kwim ?

 

 

I think I know what you mean - with certain images repeating in your head. This is actually a form of secondary traumatization.  I have had similar things happening from stories my Grandmother told about WWII in Europe. It took me some time to realize what was happening and that I had to consciously stop those recurring thoughts - but none of this answers our question about suffering.

[Katy]

9 hours ago, Frances said:

This is fascinating. I never knew this was part of LDS beliefs.

 

I believe this too, but I'm just nondenominational, not LDS. 

We're technically Methodists, but the whole situation of an impending church split over homosexuality bothers both DH & I so we're in no real rush to find a new congregation after our move.

[KungFuPanda]

Lemme get this straight . . . A church tells a gay kid that he can't be alone with girls and encourages him to only make male friends.  The kid is all "I'll do ya one better and write a BOOK about how I virtuously abstained from dating females." The book makes him famous.  He's famous again today for coming out, but this is AFTER he married some girl he probably never kissed before the wedding? 

I wonder what goes through those kids' minds if that first kiss has zero chemistry.